\ 
 
 ■■^.H 
 
 .^\ 
 
 .*ie^ 
 
 * ^ 
 
 'iW 
 
 ^' .'*.. 

 
 ^ 
 
 -■&m 
 
 I 
 
 LI E) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS 
 
 ■

 
 THE 
 
 IRISH CHURCH 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE POINT OF VIEW OF ONE OF ITS LAYMEN 
 
 BY 
 
 W. BENCE JONES, M.A. Oxon. 
 
 SECOND EDITION MUCH ENLARGED 
 
 LONDON 
 THOMAS BOSWORTH, 215 EEGENT STEEET 
 
 1868
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 The First Edition of this Pamphlet tvas repeatedly referred 
 to in the Debate in the House of Lords on the Irish Churchy 
 June 1868. 
 
 A few facts and figures that were stated in the First 
 Edition^ on the best authority then attainable, have been 
 corrected from the Irish Church Commission Report and 
 other sources. The alterations in no way affect the arguments. 
 
 tONDON: PRINTED BY 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STEEET SQrABB 
 
 AXD PABLIAMENI STREET
 
 THE IRISH CHURCH 
 
 FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ONE OF ITS LAYMEN. 
 
 A GREAT MANY LAYMEN in the Irish Church, while recognising 
 that its present status cannot be maintained, are deeply dis- 
 satisfied that it should be made the subject of party strife. 
 
 They know the weak points of their Church better than those 
 to whom it is only a question of politics, because they know them 
 from personal experience ; they think it however a question need- 
 ing the most deliberate and careful judgment of the best minds, 
 not only on account of its great intrinsic difficulties, but because 
 it touches all concerned in their deepest feelings, and in the 
 best (and worst) parts of their nature, and because there is 
 great danger of real mischief being done by a mistaken course, 
 in the increase of religious strife — Ireland's greatest curse. 
 
 No question ever suffered more by the way in which it was 
 brought forward. All that was ever said against abstract resolu- 
 tions applies with twofold force to the doings of last Session. The 
 question is one about which it is very easy to form and express a 
 general opinion, as was done clearly enough by the House of Com- 
 mons more than thirty years ago, and yet, after years of struggle, 
 that opinion was again let go, because of the difficulties in the prac- 
 tical details even of the small measure then contemplated. The 
 difficulties are really in the details, and will not be fully seen 
 till the attempt to draw a Bill is made. In the meantime men 
 have been committing themselves to abstract assertions of all 
 sorts in a way quite unusual upon a question of so much impor- 
 tance. Yet there are involved in it principles of right and 
 wrong, upon which so far there has been no discussion at all — 
 questions of the right to tithes as the original ecclesiastical en- 
 dowment of Ireland ; the right to much property acquired by the 
 Church since the Keformation ; the equitable rights of the whole 
 body of the Church, as well as of individuals; rights of the laity, no 
 
 A 2
 
 less than of the clergy, that cannot be set aside on those principles 
 of honest and fair dealing that have hitherto characterised the 
 British ParUaraent. So vague has been the sketch of the plan 
 in contemplation, that it has been understood in two opposite 
 senses by those who advocate it. By some, as Mr. Coleridge, at 
 Exeter, it has been stated as a plan to leave to the Church a 
 bona fide three-fifths of its property. According to others, the 
 three-fifths is a mere illusory calculation, that will benefit indi- 
 vidual clergymen only, and strip the Church of almost every- 
 thing. 
 
 Whatever is right to be done (and T am far from saying it is 
 right much should not be done), sarely this is not a question to 
 be settled by a leap in the dark like that attempted last session. 
 It is for the good of both Eoman Catholics and Protestants, no 
 less than of the whole nation, that the momentous interests 
 concerned should be fully taken into account and settled on 
 some large view of fairness to all, instead of for the gratification 
 of religious ill-will or the party requirements of the day. The 
 opposite of wrong is by no means always right. It may be true 
 that the Established Church in Ireland is unjust, but it is easy 
 in applying a remedy to commit a still greater injustice, and 
 make the change, instead of a benefit, the source of worse 
 mischief. 
 
 There is a preliminary point on which it is necessary men's 
 minds should be made up before the main question is reached. 
 Is the question to be settled for the good of Ireland and the 
 contentment of her people, or to please English voluntaries and 
 for their contentment ? 
 
 It may seem a matter of course to say that the question is to 
 be settled for the good of Ireland and the contentment of her 
 people ; but it is not so in fact. 
 
 No doubt in theory the motive for the proposed change is to 
 concilia^:e Roman Catholics and to make them more contented. 
 But the whole manner of the change, and the frequent declara- 
 tions against any gain in a pecuniary sense to the Roman Catholic 
 Church (however otherwise desirable or reasonable) out of the 
 surplus ecclesiastical funds, vvhich it is over and over again asserted 
 are the property of the whole Irish people, is nothing less at 
 best than, whilst granting a favour, to accompany it with so 
 many insulting slaps in the face. The case of those who contend 
 that the Anglican Church should continue as it is may be bad, 
 but assuredly it is not half so bad or so absurd as the case of 
 those who in one breath contend that the ecclesiastical endow- 
 ments belong to the Irish people at large, and yet that the 
 object in favour of which the great majority would wish to apply 
 those endowments is on no account to have anv share of them.
 
 The answer of Liberals is, that Scotch Presbyterians and 
 English Dissenters will resist any benefit to the Eoman Catholic 
 Church by money. But what is this but to say that the question 
 is to be settled according to the likings of the Presbyterians and 
 Dissenters and not for the good of Ireland ? 
 
 Anybody might suppose that money was the only source of 
 strength ; that without money the Eoman Catholic Church is 
 harmless ; that its power of mischief is derived from the pos- 
 session of money, and any other way of helping it is allowable. 
 
 If the question is not to be settled in the interest of Ireland, 
 it would have been much better to let it alone. To raise it for 
 the sake of the Irish Eoman Catholics, and then settle it for 
 the satisfaction of some one else, can never end in good. For 
 tlje moment the loss to their old antagonist pleases the Eoman 
 Catholics, but it is as certain as anything can be, that if the 
 settlement is not fairly in accordance with Eoman Catholic 
 interests, in a few years the subject will be seen in its true light, 
 and will be a greater cause of discontent than it hitherto has 
 been. 
 
 In the name of common sense, is it worth while to face an 
 immense change of this sort, with all its difficulties and hard- 
 ships and evils, running counter to the feelings of the great 
 body of the members of the Anglican Church in these king- 
 doms, and for the satisfaction of some Presbyterians and 
 Dissenters and extreme Protestants to do it in such a way as 
 to fail to content the large majority of the Irish people ? 
 Whether the thing itself be right or wrong to be done may 
 of course be disputed ; but admitting for the sake of argument 
 that it is to be done, surely no man of sense and intelligence 
 of whatever opinions political or religious can doubt, that it is 
 for the good of the nation that it should be done in such a way 
 as will best promote the peace of Ireland. The abstract pre- 
 judices of extreme Protestants and of Presbyterians and Dis- 
 senters have a claim to proper weight in their proper place, 
 but ought not to be decisive of a great question of this sort, 
 involving the permanent interests of the empire. 
 
 I think it is clear that if any such mode of settling the Irish 
 Church question as was sketched last session is carried, it will 
 unavoidably end in the mere secularisation of the endowments. 
 They must be applied either to religious or secular uses. There 
 is no middle sort of use. Those benevolent or practically bene- 
 ficent uses that have been spoken of, as education, relief of the 
 poor, hospitals, &c., are either religious or secular. The re- 
 ligious uses are open to just the same difficulties as applying 
 the money to other more direct Eoman Catholic purposes. The 
 other sort of uses are just secularisation and nothing else. The
 
 favourite idea seems to be, to apply the money to educa- 
 tion, and use that now paid by Government for education 
 towards the promotion of railways, and for railway reform in 
 Ireland. But this in truth only raises the question, Which 
 thimble the pea is under? and the funds of the Irish Church 
 might just as well and more honestly be handed over to the 
 railways at once. The medical relief of the poor in Ireland is 
 admirably provided for already, including hospitals. Mere 
 relief of the poor would only relieve the land of poor rates, 
 unless given to those who do not now seek relief, which would 
 still further lessen their independence, already too small, and do 
 more harm than good. Additional free asylums for the aged 
 and infirm, which have been mentioned (I suppose it is meant for 
 persons not mere paupers), would be jobbed inevitably by every 
 one with a shadow of influence, even down to Poor Law 
 guardians, and do the same harm as unlimited Poor Law relief. 
 Public works in Ireland is only another name for private jobs, 
 and if any large sum each year had to be got rid of for such 
 purposes, it would cause an amount of jobbery such as the 
 nation has not seen before, and increased demoralisation. Lord 
 Eussell thinks the question. What is to be done with the money ? 
 can be very easily settled. As a resident, having spent thirty 
 years in improving an estate, and certainly being interested 
 keenly in every sort of improvement in the country, moral and 
 physical, I believe it is a question of overwhelming difficulty. 
 I cannot see the solution of it, and if it has to be decided now, 
 I believe it will long retard any settlement. 
 
 There is great and increasing objection in the minds of all 
 intelligent and educated men in Ireland, both Eoman Catholics 
 and Protestants, to Secularisation in any form. It is not neces- 
 sary to go into the disputed question of the origin of tithes ; but 
 thus far at least is certain, that there is neither proof nor pro- 
 bability of their having been in any sense the gift of the State. 
 All probability is in favour of the opinion that tithes were origi- 
 nally paid by private persons as a fulfilment of the duty of giving 
 of their substance to Grod's service. The measure of a tenth was 
 doubtless taken from the Mosaic law ; and the duty was strongly 
 urged by the clergy. When the practice had become common, 
 it may have been made compulsory on all by the State ; but 
 this was very different from the State itself giving the property. 
 In substance the gift was that of the private landowners, out of 
 whose lands it was paid. There must have been an earnest 
 and general feeling that the payment was one really for God's 
 sake, before the State could have made compulsory so heavy a 
 tax. It could not at first have been enforced on unwilling people. 
 There is, therefore, good ground for the feeling which weighs
 
 so much with many right-minded men of all persuasions, that 
 to secularise the tithes is nothing less than to Kob God. Grant- 
 ing even that there are good reasons for depriving the Irish 
 Church of much of its revenues, why are the conscientious 
 feelings of such men to be set at naught in the manner of doing 
 it to gratify the Voluntaries and other extreme parties ? 
 
 It is sometimes said that the 25 per cent, reduction when 
 the tithe rent charge was made payable by the landlords instead 
 of by the tenants was so much given to them, and was so a 
 precedent of secularisation. But such was not really the case. 
 When the rent charge was payable by the small and poor tenant, 
 large sums were unavoidabl}^ lost, the costs of collecting it were 
 very considerable, and difficulties and disputes of all kinds were 
 continual, in some cases even ending in outrage and murder. 
 If the rent charge had continued payable by the tenant till the 
 time of the famine, it is certain that for years the clergyman 
 would not have received anything. As it was, in hundreds of 
 cases the landowner paid the clergyman his rent charge without 
 a shilling of abatement, out of farms from which he himself re- 
 ceived nothing at all ; — over whole estates the clergyman did not 
 lose anything, whilst the payment of his rent charge absorbed 
 one-fourth, one-third, and even one-half, of the total receipts of 
 the estate for years. Now he gets his payment* from a few 
 without any expense if he is a man of the least business capacit}^, 
 and I believe the change has, on the whole, and on the average, 
 given the clergy as large a net income as they would have had 
 under the old system, and without trouble or risk. 
 
 It is not for me as an Anglican Churchman to advocate the 
 endowment of the Eoman Catholic Church. It is for Eoman 
 Catholics to act and speak for themselves. The declarations of 
 the Eoman Catholic bishops on this question not long ago, and 
 the speeches of the Eoman Catholic M.P.'s in the House of 
 Commons — thouofh there is reason to believe the M.P.'s went 
 beyond the intention of the bishops, and the bishops having, 
 from whatever motive, used the ambiguous phraseology so often 
 adopted by them, now desire to restrict their words to a nar- 
 rower meaning — w^ere their own act and deed. It is evident 
 that these declarations form a most curious contrast to the 
 eagerness with which chaplaincies to gaols, workhouses, and all 
 other public institutions are sought by the Eoman Catholic clergy 
 in Ireland, and the keenness with which the salaries of such 
 chaplaincies are canvassed and fought for. Yet these chaplains 
 are far more under the control of boards of laymen — many of 
 whom are Protestants — than Parish Priests, drawing stipends, 
 would be under the Government. Nor is this readiness to 
 accept such paid chaplaincies confined to Ireland. We had the
 
 8 
 
 spectacle last session of the very same Roman Catholic members, 
 who early in the session expressed the most virtuous objection 
 to the payment of stipends to Roman Catholic clergymen in 
 Ireland, urging that it should be made compulsory on the 
 Protestant visiting justices to pay salaries to the Roman Ca- 
 tholic chaplains of gaols in England, though it is certain gaol 
 chaplains are under a degree of active and efficient control by 
 the Visiting justices and Home Secretary much more strict than 
 that of their own Bishops, and quite beyond any control of the 
 State that would be possible if the Roman Catholic parish clergy 
 were endowed. Of course, it is easy to draw ingenious distinctions 
 between the two cases. But in truth the principle is the same 
 in both. The distinctions only turn on conditions and modes 
 in which the stipends are payable. How deep the objection 
 against stipends to the Roman Catholic clergy goes may be judged 
 of accordingly. 
 
 But that which is put forward by most Liberals as the 
 ground of attack against the Irish Church is the necessity for 
 religious equality. The question however at once arises. Equality 
 with what ? and in what respects ? 
 
 The strength of the case against the Irish Church in the 
 minds of the educated classes in England is, that the religion of 
 the majority in England is the established and endowed Church, 
 and the religion of the majority in Scotland; whilst in Ireland 
 it is the Church of the minority ; the Church of the much larger 
 majority there having no such advantages. Though the Estab- 
 lishment in Scotland has not a majority, yet the difference in 
 doctrine between it and the Free Church is so small as still to 
 leave it true that the religion of the majority is the endowed 
 religion. It is the sense of these facts, that in these days when 
 all are equal in Parliament, has produced that feeling among 
 educated men of the Church arrangements in Ireland not being 
 just, to which the present movement against the Irish Church 
 is due. 
 
 If, however, the English Church and Kirk of Scotland are to 
 remain as they are, it is giving credit to Irish Roman Catholics 
 for very small acuteness to suppose that they will not see, that 
 by the secularisation of the property of the Irish Church they 
 are not placed in the same position as the majority in England 
 and Scotland, or anything like it. It will be just the old story 
 of Roman Catholic emancipation over again. For the moment, 
 Roman Catholics will be pleased at the blow to their old rival, 
 and any amount of statements and assurances that are wished 
 for will be forthcoming; but all the time the more educated and 
 thoughtful amongst them are openly saying that they do not 
 join in these assurances. They wholly dissent from secularisa-
 
 9 
 
 tion ; and when the excitement is over they will be listened to, 
 and the mass of Koman Catholics will see that they have not 
 attained equality, that the very principle upon which the party 
 favourable to their claims based their right has not been carried 
 out. All the former discontent will again arise, with this dif- 
 ference, that the antagonism will then be between the Eoman 
 Catholics and the English Government, instead of between the 
 Roman Catholics and the Irish Church. 
 
 If any one wishes to know the feelings of educated Roman 
 Catholic laymen, let him read the pamphlets of Mr. Aubrey de 
 Yere. It is equally clear from the pamphlet of Dr. Moriarty, 
 Roman Catholic bishop of Kerry, that one of the best of the 
 Roman Catholic bishops holds the same views. 
 
 It sounds well to talk of the liberality of Roman Catholic 
 flocks, and where the parish is rich and the Roman Catholic 
 priest well paid, no doubt he wishes for no change ; but there 
 are Roman Catholic clergymen in Connaught whose incomes 
 are only £60 a year, and however it may suit the views of 
 the majority of the Roman Catholic bishops and politicians 
 to declare against the payment of stipends by the Govern- 
 ment to the Roman Catholic clergy, it is the general belief of 
 intelligent men in Ireland, in which I fully share, that the 
 majority of the Parochial clergy wish for such payment on fair 
 terms, and that the whole body of the lower orders of Roman 
 Catholics, on whom the burden of paying their clergy now 
 mainly falls, desire that payment above all things — a hundred 
 times more than the removal of any abstract grievances of 
 the Established Church. 
 
 I do not think these facts have been at all considered. Party 
 interests have alone been taken into account — what would tell 
 on the elections — not the permanent good of Ireland ; and the 
 snap reply has been eagerly put forward, that the Roman 
 Catholics do not wish for any part of the endowments, when the 
 truth is not a sixpence has been ever offered them. The question, 
 however, is one more for Roman Catholics than for Anglican 
 churchmen. There is no doubt the prevailing opinion in Eng- 
 land at this moment is adverse to Roman Catholic endowment, 
 and I have only brought the subject prominently forward be- 
 cause I do not think it right to conceal my strong conviction 
 of its immense importance. There is not the difficulty some 
 suppose in machinery for the purpose. Power to a non-political 
 Commissioner to make grants in aid of any Roman Catholic 
 parish or religious object in it, on a memorial from any bishop 
 or clergyman or twelve lay parishioners, asking for such grant 
 and to such amount as the surplus funds disposable allow,
 
 iO 
 
 would get over most objections. If no memorial was presented, 
 of course the money would have to be otherwise applied. 
 
 Whenever the point has been started, it has been not dis- 
 cussed, but just hooted down. But it is one that will force 
 itself into notice sooner or later. It is well to observe too, that 
 the mischiefs arising out of the proposed disestablishment of 
 the Irish Church, as a precedent to be used hereafter against 
 the Church in England, are caused wholly by this. If the 
 principle of equality was really acted upon in regard to the 
 Eoman Catholic Church in Ireland, and it was put on anything 
 like the same footing as the Churches of England and Scotland 
 in regard to endowment, the measure would be no precedent 
 against those Churches hereafter. 
 
 Plere I must make a digression. The existence of disaffection, 
 and especially of Fenianism, is often put forward by men of the 
 highest position as the reason for the movement against the 
 Irish Church. There is great ignorance in England of the real 
 state of things in Ireland. The whole social state in the two 
 countries is so unlike, that facts in Ireland, especially when seen 
 without the surrounding and often qualifying details, produce a 
 different impression from the true one on English minds. Notably, 
 facts relating to the worst parts of the country, and often only 
 exceptional there, are thought to apply to the whole countr}' and 
 at all times. 
 
 With some too even of the highest in England, instead of that 
 strong judgment that grasps the very substance of facts amid 
 whatever exaggeration and colouring, and intuitively seizes on 
 the whole truth, there seems to have grown up a habit of easy 
 belief in the dressed -up untruths of any schemer, if his story only 
 tells in favour of the party views of the day. Stories often 
 merely sentimental, that any one used to weighing evidence can 
 see owe their whole point to the colouring, and that rest on the 
 authority of men who every one of character in Ireland, of 
 whatever opinions, knows to be undeserving of credit, are be- 
 lieved without hesitation. Now, in no place on earth is the art 
 of dressing-up for a purpose a story founded on a modicum of 
 facts, or on no facts at all, so well understood as in Ireland. 
 That want of truth which is the great fault of the Irish cha- 
 racter, and the unscrupulousness arising therefrom, make such 
 practices easy and common to an extent that cannot be believed 
 possible in England. Sound common sense is therefore the 
 first qualification forjudging of any Irish question. 
 
 When the Fenian outrages at Manchester and Clerkenwell 
 showed that there was ill-will on the part of some classes of 
 Irishmen towards England, it seemed to take people there by 
 surprise, as if it was something unexpected and greatly to be
 
 11 
 
 feared. Those, however, who knew Ireland, were quite familiar 
 w'ith this ill-will. It is no novelty. It has been there as long 
 as any one can remember. It is just the legacy of the old 
 troubled times, of centuries of lawlessness, and of half savagery 
 half civilisation, and had its origin, as Mr. Gold win Smith 
 has so strikingly shown in his book on ' Irish History and 
 Irish Character,' from the half-conquered state of the country. 
 It has been kept alive by the differences between Celt and 
 Saxon character, between Protestant and Eoman Catholic, 
 between landlord and tenant, by the envy of the poor and 
 backward towards the rich and prosperous country. These 
 centuries of lawlessness, and the backward social state caused 
 thereby, are the key to all Irish questions. The improvement 
 has been immense, but it began so late and from so low a 
 point relatively to England, that men do not recognise how 
 great the progress has been. It is easy to ignore these things, 
 and attribute the evils to other causes, but it is this backward 
 state of society from top to bottom, where no class is much 
 better or worse than another, that is the root of the evil. When 
 all equally need improvement progress is necessarily slow. Great 
 as the change has been, long years will yet be required to reach 
 generally a higher state. 
 
 Outrages have always been of the essence of Irish disaffec- 
 tion : to succeed in causing fear is its very life. There is some- 
 thing in the character of the people that makes intimidation the 
 first thought in any dispute. If two boys fall out in the street, 
 instead of stripping off their jackets and setting to, they will 
 shout and threaten and scold at each other for half an hour, 
 the one object being to frighten the enemy. It is the same 
 with grown-up men, with politicians in Parliament as well as 
 common people. Threats without a bit of bottom in them are 
 the first and immediate resource on every occasion, and always 
 with a deliberately purposed intention. 
 
 But in reality there is no backbone in the disaffection any 
 more than in the threats. The men who take part in it, of 
 whatever class, are not those who carry weight even with their own 
 sort. They have not the character to give them influence 
 among their fellows. They are full of vanity and boasting and 
 jealousy of each other — an empty melodramatic display and 
 desire to be thought greater than their neighbours is their 
 leading characteristic. The acute intelligence of the people 
 helps to keep them powerless. Nobody goes into anything 
 of the kind without keeping one eye constantly fixed over 
 his shoulder to secure a safe retreat ; and they see through one 
 another's failings and schemings and want of truth thoroughly ; 
 the result is, that no real trust in each other is possible.
 
 12 
 
 On the other hand, they understand how to talk and act 
 sedition and half sedition to perfection ; the scheme is drawn 
 out and plans are arranged on paper as if the thing was a reality 
 instead of an imposture. In a newspaper the one looks as well 
 as the other, and the end of causing fear is attained. Nothing 
 has done more mischief than the statements that have been 
 often made in England of the danger of Fenianism and of Irish 
 disaffection as a reason in favour of measures that have been pro- 
 posed. Every such statement is a positive triumph to these men. 
 
 But this ill-will has gradually and greatly lessened as the 
 country has advanced and become more prosperous. The masses 
 of idle, half-employed people are no longer there. In large 
 cities there is still a mischievous class, and in the small towns 
 a limited number of scamps, but in very few country districts 
 does the material for au}^ dangerous movement exist. Every 
 year the class of farmers in good circumstances and with much 
 property to lose, in stock &c., is increasing, and year by year both 
 in town and country every one who gets into trouble of any sort, 
 personal or pecuniary, or caused by sedition, forthwith emigrates. 
 
 The classes actively sharing in disaffection now are quite 
 different from those who formerly took part in it. So late as 
 the days of repeal a large part of the Eoman Catholic farmers 
 and shopkeepers were in the agitation. These classes as a body 
 were opposed to Fenianism — no class was so frightened at it as 
 the farmers. The frequent remark was, 'What do they make 
 a trouble for now; we were never before so well off?' The 
 movement lay almost entirely among a low class of shop-boys 
 and idle youngsters about towns. Any chance farmer's son who 
 joined it was at once promoted to be an A. or B., or some such 
 mysterious dignity, showing how few of the sort they had. 
 Except in large towns and a few country districts, it was a 
 mere game of brag of the most contemptible kind, whose main 
 strength lay in the fears of the timid. It may be unwise to 
 despise an enemy however weak. It is more unwise to overrate 
 his strength when really contemptible. 
 
 It was no doubt right for the Grovernment to take precau- 
 tions, if only to save ignorant people from the effects of their 
 own folly, and the much talked of suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus Act was necessary on account of the Americans, but 
 really for them only. I can say, as one who went through the 
 whole of it, with everything to lose and no possible protection, 
 that in my judgment there never ought to have been any serious 
 alarm in the minds of sensible men. Why then it will be asked 
 was there fear in so many minds ? There are men still alive 
 who can tell all about the events of 1798 and since, in their 
 own neighbourhood, from what they saw as boys, and the
 
 1 '^ 
 lO 
 
 memories of the horrible outrages on both sides are still fresh 
 in men's minds from tradition. In 1822 this was noted by the 
 Duke of Wellington (see Vol. ii. p. 597 of the Correspondence 
 lately published) and it is true still. Numbers too are still 
 alive who took part in repeal and later rebellious movements, 
 though they have since settled down into soter enough citizens. 
 So when the old song was heard, albeit set to another tune, and 
 with very inferior performers, it was not hard to move the old 
 feelings. Some were frightened by the former memories, and 
 others, on the opposite side, joined in shouting applause, who 
 all the time w^ould not have endangered a finger or risked 51. 
 in the cause, and would even have helped to crush it, if they 
 thought it had the least chance of success. It is forgotten 
 that it takes, not years, but generations, to change the ideas 
 and feelings of a people. Time is the only cure of grievances 
 that arise much more from long past and sentimental wa'ongs, 
 and from unreasonable expectations, than from existing or re- 
 movable causes. 
 
 Unhappily our system of government by party fosters these 
 unreasonable expectations. Proposals are made and encouraged 
 that can never be carried out in the sense in which they are under- 
 stood in Ireland. Knowledge and common sense on economical 
 subjects are wholly wanting in Ireland ; and there is always the 
 hope that in some political conjuncture a part at least of what 
 is desired may be yielded. Politicians deliberately work these 
 feelings among ignorant people for party and personal objects, 
 and thus ill-will is kept alive to the infinite hurt of the country. 
 I know of course how easy it is to give the sentimental answer 
 to such statements as these. But sentiment will never make 
 things sound that are unsound. Let the blame be where it 
 may for what is past, the same sound principles that produce 
 prosperity elsewhere can alone produce it in Ireland. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that nowhere in the world is the 
 game of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare 
 so well understood. Any movement like Fenianism, however 
 w^eak, is seen at once to give a handle that can be turned to 
 account for other objects, and it is forthwith worked, and the 
 movement encouraged up to a certain point for those objects. 
 Whilst Fenianism w^as active the Koman Catholic clergy and poli- 
 ticians, almost without exception, made light of it, and rightly in 
 my judgment. Since then the leaders of the party have one day 
 treated it as the gravest possible danger to England, and the next 
 urged the immediate liberation of the culprits as guilty of no 
 offence and the cause of no danger ! This is the explanation of 
 the immediate effect of decided measures of repression by the 
 Grovernment. So large a part of the movement is hollow, that
 
 14 
 
 the first squeeze causes it to collapse. This too is the meaning 
 of the sympathy for the Manchester murderers, and of the never- 
 ceasing efforts of many Irish politicians, and of part of the 
 Irish press, to shield the Fenian culprits of all sorts, and all 
 others guilty of sedition, from punishment. Fair dealing and a 
 resolute hand together are all powerful in Ireland, but any one 
 who trusts to fair dealing without the resolute hand is just 
 delivering himself up for a prey. No doubt in the view that all 
 discontent and misdoings of the people are caused by bad laws — 
 as if men were not to blame for their own faults and sins, 
 because they may have an excuse for them — these things have 
 little weight. I wish those who thus account for Irish evils would 
 try a seven years' residence and familiar dealing with the people. 
 They would then be better judges of the source of the evils of 
 the country, and their true extent. In truth, a familiar resi- 
 dence in Ireland for any man of common sense would prove a 
 cure for a great many illusions. Since the day when the roaring 
 Lion proved to be only Bottom the Weaver, never was there 
 such a disproportion between the thing pretended and its reality. 
 Modern journalism has, no doubt, on the whole great advantages, 
 but it has also its mischiefs. One of these is the facility it gives 
 for systematic and false colouring and twisting of everything great 
 and small for a purpose that I have spoken of. The papers con- 
 stantly recount most ferocious sentiments uttered by men who 
 we on the spot know to be of very harmless dispositions, and 
 occurrences the most commonplace are, by the suggestion of 
 motives and suitable dressing, made to bear a meaning that by 
 no means belongs to them, and we are believed to live in a state 
 of hatred and enmity with neighbours with whom we get on, 
 upon the whole, in much peace and comfort. 
 
 It is commonly believed that Koman Catholics and Protes- 
 tants live in constant enmity in Ireland. Every extreme act 
 and word of violent partisans on either side is taken as repre- 
 senting the feelings of the masses towards each other. I have 
 little knowledge of the North, which is as different from the 
 rest of Ireland as Ireland is different from England. But in the 
 South, where, though the Protestants are in a decided minority 
 yet there are many districts in which they number one in four 
 or five, this mutual ill-will does not exist. Here and there 
 individuals on both sides may be ready for strife, and where 
 proselytism is attempted a feeling of ill-will is found; but 
 the great majority of the people on both sides mix together 
 in the ordinary relations of life as if no such difference existed. 
 Honest men of one religion will be found trusting and helping 
 honest men of the other without any distinction or hesitation. 
 An election for Parliament or any local office will bring out
 
 15 
 
 religious differences, and every rogue invariably tries to make 
 capital out of religion for his own profit (as every tenant who 
 fails in his farm, from want of industry or from drink or 
 other fault of his own, always represents himself as a martyr of 
 landlords' oppression) ; but, on the whole, personal and very in- 
 ferior secondary motives are more powerful than religious. Even 
 in elections for Parliament, in every succeeding election money 
 is becoming more influential. In boroughs, neither side can get 
 many of their men to vote without it. Virtuous Protestants 
 will not stir for their own side till they have been paid, and the 
 Priests cannot move those of whose allegiance there is no doubt 
 till they have got the money. The answer, ' Why should we not 
 get it as well as another ? ' is conclusive, and a candidate who 
 will pay has to be found. In county elections the enormous 
 sums that have to be paid, sooner or later, to some one make 
 the chance of a man who cannot afford a great outlay a very 
 poor one, except in special circumstances. Small personal 
 profits are all powerful in Ireland. In the county of Cork, from 
 its great size, some expenses of voters going to the i^oll are 
 allowed to be paid. At a late election fifty or sixty well-to-do 
 farmers offered their second votes on the day of polling to a 
 friend of mine who was known to them, for whichever candi- 
 date he liked, if he would get them their expenses — some 3s. or 
 4s. per head ! 
 
 It is the same between landlord and tenant. As one w4io has 
 never taken any active part in politics in Ireland, perhaps my 
 statement may be thought worth something, that not one in ten 
 of those graphic stories of electors coerced to vote against their 
 religion has any truth in it. Wherever a landlord is trusted, 
 and is on ordinary terms of goodwill with his tenants, a large 
 majority are quite willing, without the smallest coercion, to vote 
 as he wishes, from gratitude, in the old definition of that word — 
 the expectation of favours to come. I do not mean exceptional 
 favours, but such as increased farms for themselves or their 
 children when openings occur, and other small and every-day 
 benefits. They make the most of the priest's pressure on them 
 to enhance the service to the landlord, and they talk loudly of 
 the landlord's pressure to justify themselves to the priest, and 
 all the time what they most care for is, some advantage direct 
 or indirect to themselves or their friends. 
 
 Neither the Anglican clergyman nor the Roman Catholic 
 priest meets with anything but civil treatment from those of the 
 religion of his rival. The Protestant may talk in private of the 
 misdoings of the Roman Catholic priest, but he treats him in 
 public with all the respect that could be wished ; and, prac- 
 tically, any Roman Catholic priest of moderate views is one of
 
 k; 
 
 the most iuflueiitial men in his district among Protestants as 
 much as among his own people. On the other hand, when an 
 Anglican clergyman is true and upright and conciliatory, he is 
 liked and valued by the Koman Catholics about him much more 
 than he would be by any sect of Protestant Dissenters. There 
 is none of that religious bitterness towards him that politicians 
 in England suppose to be appropriate. The badge of conquest 
 grievance, as a reason against the Irish Church, is in truth an 
 importation from England. The explanation simply is that the 
 Needy Knife-grinder was not a more thorough despiser of 
 abstract wrongs than are the lower orders of Irish Roman 
 Catholics. No greater mistake was ever made than Mr. Bright's 
 statement, that Eoman Catholics bear especial ill-will towards 
 clergymen and members of the Established Church, as compared 
 with Protestant Dissenters. The very reverse is the fact. 111- 
 Avill is much more felt and more easily excited towards Method- 
 ists and Presbyterians than towards Church people. I do not 
 mean this digression to apply to the general question, whether 
 the Establishment is or is not just towards Roman Catholics ? 
 I refer only to the narrower point, What is the importance 
 of Fenianism and the extent of disaffection in Ireland, w^hich 
 I am firmly convinced have been made to bear a weight and 
 importance that by no means belongs to them. 
 
 This brings me to the main question: Is it the object to 
 place the Irish Church at a great disadvantage for the future, 
 by reducing it to a chaos, and leaving it to its chance of recon- 
 structing itself as well as it can ? or is it the object only to get 
 rid of Protestant ascendancy, and the exclu^^ive privileges and 
 anomalies of the Irish Church, and yet to recognise all fair 
 and honest rights, and give it every chance of doing w^ell for the 
 future ? Much depends upon which alternative is that really 
 aimed at. 
 
 One great objection against the Irish Church is that it is the 
 Church of the wealthiest part of the people. Dr. A. or Mr. B. 
 has travelled in Ireland and gone to churches where he saw no 
 poor; and he generalises accordingly. But, in truth, his in- 
 duction is from insufficient facts. In much the larger number 
 of country parishes the great majority are poor, and had Dr. A. 
 gone to any number of parish churches he could not have helped 
 seeing them. In many churches in England — especially those 
 a traveller would be likely to visit — very few or no poor might 
 be seen. I believe the proportion is little larger in Ireland, 
 where the same thing occurs. 
 
 But, in truth, the wealth of the wealthy class in Ireland is 
 very different from that of the same class in England. Setting
 
 17 
 
 aside a few resident owners of great estates, the bulk of the 
 upper classes are far less wealthy than in England. There are 
 twenty men (if I said twice twenty, 1 should perhaps not ex- 
 aggerate), in districts of like extent, with incomes of 1,000/. 
 a year and over in England for one such in Ireland. 2001. to 
 500/. per annum is about the income of most of the gentr}^ 
 They are the very reverse of a rich body. Professional incomes, 
 except in great towns, are on the same scale. A shopkeeper 
 clearing 100/. to live on is considered well to do. Except in 
 the neighbourhood of a few large towns, it is a thoroughly poor 
 country. Wherever there is any number of Protestants, the 
 mass are tradesmen, farmers, and labourers, no better off than 
 the Eoman Catholics around them of like occupations. It is 
 the numbers and system of the Eoman Catholic Church, the 
 indispensable requirement of outward rites and church offices, 
 and of payment for them, that make the incomes of some of 
 their clergy so large. What voluntaryism can yield is shown by 
 the amount the Wesleyans are able to raise for their ministers. 
 Their hold is wholly among the shopkeepers. They have 
 hardly any poor. Lately, a wealthy member offered a large 
 sum, provided the salaries of their ministers in the South of 
 Ireland were raised, the unmarried to 40/. per annum, and the 
 married to 100/. It was some time before even such an offer 
 could be accepted, and this was thought a great advance ! The 
 Presbyterians have the same difficulty in providing for their 
 clergy. Except in Ulster and the large towns, their ministers, 
 even with the help of the Regium Donum^ are very poorly 
 paid, and have great trouble to sustain themselves. Whatever 
 the Church may suffer from disendowment, the loss of the 
 RegiuTYi Donum will be a much worse blow to the Presbyterians 
 in Three of the provinces. 
 
 In Ireland, all charities involving much cost, as hospitals, 
 even in the largest cities, which in England depend wholly on 
 voluntary support, invariably require and receive help from 
 rates or from Parliament. They could not exist without it, 
 simply because there is not a large enough wealthy class to give 
 to them. 
 
 Money is much more scarce in Ireland than in England, and 
 for that reason is much more thought of, and more grudgingly 
 expended. There is very little of that free spending, as if cost 
 was no object. Mere cost is carefully weighed, and inferior 
 and shabby makeshifts are constantly put up with, rather than 
 incur outlay, and that by people in almost every rank. This 
 will tell heavily on contributions for the clergy. 
 
 It is overlooked that the state in which a religious body is 
 placed by the withdrawal of its endowments is very different 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 from that in which it would have been if it had never had such 
 endowments at all. To say nothing of the gifts of good men 
 that would have accumulated in past years had no endowments 
 existed, the duty of giving to the support of the ministers of 
 any religion has to be learnt, and when just the opposite habits 
 have been engrained for centuries, it will be long before these 
 are unlearnt and the duty be recognised. It is just the case of 
 emigrants in the colonies. They have not been used at home 
 to pay their clergy, and the complaints are loud and constant of 
 the impossibility of getting them to do so. The lower classes 
 of Protestants in Ireland have been used to get help in all 
 ways from the clergy, and it will take generations before they 
 will have learnt to pay, instead of to receive. The habits of 
 300 years cannot quickly be changed. 
 
 A man reduced from wealth to poverty is in a very different 
 state from one who has never been otherwise than poor, and 
 has numberless difficulties of which the other knows nothing. 
 It. is certain non-resident owners of property will give little ; 
 it is only from residents that much help can be looked for. 
 These, however, will have to pay their tithes to the Grovern- 
 ment as before. Such of them as care little for religion will 
 think that enough, while with all but a few, the pressure of the 
 old payment will unavoidably stint the measure of the per- 
 formance of the new and additional duty. 
 
 It is, therefore, quite plain that if the tithe rent charge con- 
 tinues to be payable to the Grovernment or any one else, and 
 the Church is at the same time left dependent on the voluntary 
 contributions of the rent charge payers, it will be thereby sub- 
 jected to a great additional disadvantage, compared with its 
 position if the rent charge was simply abolished or its payment 
 made no longer compulsory by law, like Church rates in Eng- 
 land. What would have been thought of a settlement of the 
 Church rate question that forced English Churchmen still to 
 pay Church rates to the Grovernment as before, and left them 
 besides to pay for the upholding of their own churches ? The 
 legal position of Church rates in England with reference to 
 landowners w^as substantially the same as that of tithe rent 
 charge in Ireland, and the amount, 500,000L a year, not long 
 since levied for Church rates, is more than the revenue of the 
 Irish Church from tithes. Six-sevenths of the rent charge are 
 paid by members of the Church, and it will be impossible to 
 avoid the feeling in their minds that in paying it to the Grovern- 
 ment, or to whatever new object Parliament appoints, they 
 are in some sort discharging their w^hole duty in this respect. 
 The money may be misappropriated, but the responsibility for 
 that will be felt to rest with Parliament and not with the payers.
 
 19 
 
 as, in fact, it does. Let the position of tithe payers be fairly 
 considered who have just paid their 50^. or 100^. tithe to the 
 Government. Is it likely with the various demands on their 
 incomes, whether they be large or small, that most men will be 
 in a promising frame of mind for again putting their hands in 
 their pockets for another 501. or 100^. for their clergymen? 
 
 It is clear that for very many years — probably for generations 
 — the Church will labour under the greatest disadvantages in 
 these respects. Such a change is not equality in a fair race. 
 Both may start level from one goal, but one is handicapped in 
 weight with a vengeance. 
 
 Therefore, if the Church is to depend on pure voluntaryism, 
 in common justice and fair play the old rent charge must be 
 got rid of somehow. It may be sold to the rent charge payers, 
 and no doubt, though a man may have paid the value for it, in 
 some years the remembrance of the payment will have passed 
 away, and there will not be this abiding wet blanket on his 
 contributions to his clergyman. In Lord Morpeth's and every 
 other scheme for Irish Church reform between 1834-1839, 
 doing away with the rent charge by sale to the payers was an 
 essential part. I believe there is no case, among all the confis- 
 cations of Church property in Europe, in which the tithes have 
 been continued as a payment from the land. 
 
 This real difficulty is sure to turn up whenever the question 
 comes to details. It is one that the strongest voluntaries must 
 feel the force of, and which already leads many people to say, 
 in spite of the little love there is for Irish landowners, that 
 the only fair settlement, if there is to be secularisation and a 
 voluntary system, is the same as that of Church rates in England, 
 viz., that the rent charge should simply cease. There is not, and 
 has not however been, any demand for such a settlement from 
 the landowners. The difficulty will be avoided if a fair pro- 
 vision for the Irish Church is somehow still left, as seems to 
 be thought by many is Mr. Griadstone's real view. 
 
 To make a clean sweep of the property of the Irish Church, 
 except some glebes and churches, and then to turn it adrift to 
 start de novo, is a more flagrant injustice than anything that 
 can be alleged against its present privileges. It may suit the 
 ends of party politics, but the moral sense of all men used 
 to the principles of right and law, as understood among us 
 hitherto revolts from it. Whatever may have been the origin 
 of existing rights of property, even though direct injustice, yet 
 it has always been recognised that enjoyment for a long lapse 
 of time does confer a title that cannot with justice be set aside. 
 Innocent people become interested, and the original question 
 has got involved with other rights, in numberless ways, that 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 make extrication impossible, except at the cost of a still greater 
 injustice. Opportunities have been lost that can never be re- 
 covered, and to take away the property that has been even 
 unjustly got does not place things in statu quo. Every Statute 
 of limitation in fact rests on this principle. Such limitation is 
 not only expedient, but it is just, or at least more just than its 
 opposite would be. 
 
 No one can fail to see how this applies to the Irish Church if 
 he will consider what Sir B. Gruinness's over 150,000^. spent on 
 St. Patrick's implies, as well as the large donations of private per- 
 sons to the Bishop of Cork, and Lady Esmonde's proposed endow- 
 ments and donations. It is certain that had the Irish Church 
 hitherto been in poverty, it would have received very large 
 endowments by donations and bequests from zealous members, 
 and to strip it now of all its hitherto enjoyed property, is to 
 put it in a worse position than it otherwise would have been in. 
 
 No inconsiderable part of the property of the Irish Church 
 has, in reality, been acquired for it by its own members. Take 
 the case of the glebes, for instance, which it seems to be 
 considered a great merit not to take away. The glebe houses 
 have nearly all been built in the present and last generation, 
 and actually paid for, partly by the subscriptions of church- 
 men, but chiefly out of the pockets of the incumbents, with 
 money that they would otherwise have spent on their private 
 uses. It is the improvements the same men have made in 
 the glebe lands that give them much more than half their 
 present value. These glebe lands and houses therefore are in 
 every sense the property of the Church. 
 
 Irish Church history is full of accounts of the recovery by 
 its members, often at much personal cost and trouble, of Church 
 property that would otherwise have been lost by lapsing into 
 lay hands. Some reasonable consideration is surely due to such 
 exertions. It would be a poor return to say, ' Though you 
 saved all this property, none of it shall be left to your Church.' 
 
 It is strange too that it does not seem to be observed that 
 the laity have rights in the property of the Irish Church. Its 
 revenue does not belong in an unqualified sense to its minis- 
 ters, high or low ; yet every pecuniary interest of theirs is to 
 be respected, down to the parish clerks, but nothing is said of 
 the rights of the laity. 
 
 I am old enough to remember when, if the Church was 
 spoken of, everyone understood that the clergy were meant. 
 Then came better knowledge, and it was recognised that the 
 Church meant the whole body of clergy and laity combined, 
 and that the clergy were only the ministers (in the true sense 
 of that word) of the laity, and existed for their sake.
 
 21 
 
 . From the tone that has been taken in discussing this question 
 it might be thought that the old view was not exphjded, and 
 that the property of the Church really belonged in some proper 
 sense to the clergy, the laity having nothing to do with it 
 and no rights in it. The sparing of the present life interests of 
 the clergy has been spoken of as if it was a concession to the 
 Irish Church, as if it was leaving the largest part of its property 
 in its own hands. 
 
 But this is a complete delusion. The securing of these life 
 interests to the present clergy will be no advantage to the laity. 
 If the property is, sooner or later, to be swept away, it would 
 be more to their advantage that it should be done at once. It 
 is quite a mistake that the gradual change by letting the present 
 incumbents go on as they are till their parishes become vacant 
 by death will be favourable to the Church. It will be only 
 letting it die by inches. Such a course will hinder all enthu- 
 siasm. It will never be clear when the right time for an effort 
 has come ; in truth, the bitterest malice could contrive no plan 
 more hurtful to the Church. 
 
 The necessary resource of the Church, whether its revenues 
 are wholly taken away or only lessened, is in the grouping of the 
 parishes — say by making a parish to consist of an area contain- 
 ing, on an average, 400 or 500 Protestants. But if tile present 
 incumbents go on as now, this grouping can only be effected 
 when the last incumbent of the parishes to form the group 
 dies. There will be no power to make the other incumbents 
 do the duties of the parishes first vacant, which will be often 
 laborious, such as Services and visiting the sick in distant 
 places, &c. In the meantime all will be confusion and loss. 
 Further, bishoprics must be grouped too, and should a bishop 
 die soon (suppose the Bishop of Cork, the area of whose see 
 is one-eighth of all Ireland), how are the duties of his diocese 
 to be performed ? Who is to superintend the needful arrange- 
 ment of grouping parishes, when a chance occurs at the critical 
 time ? How is an adjoining bishop, or a new bishop (is he 
 to be elected, and by whom ? to suppose possibilities) to get 
 jurisdiction over the old incumbents, or to use it, during the 
 30 years or more they will be d_ying out ? This grouping must 
 therefore be done at once. 
 
 No doubt it is possible to make these life interests a means 
 of helping to provide for the Church of the future. But this 
 can only be dune by fit arrangements for that end, and without 
 such arrangements no advantage will accrue to the laity by 
 sparing these life interests. 
 
 Tithe rent charge is commonly spoken of as an annuity, sub- 
 ject to which landowners or their ancestors bought their estates,
 
 22 
 
 and in respect to which annuities they have consequently no 
 rights. But this is by no means a true statement of the case, 
 especially where the landowners are resident. In such case it 
 is clearly an annuity for which the payer receives a consideration 
 in return, by the performance of the services of religion for 
 himself, his family, and dependents. This consideration very 
 materially affects his residential position. It has a clear pecu- 
 niary value, the amount of which there is no difficulty in fixing. 
 It is just what would have to be paid to procure these religious 
 services as well and conveniently. 
 
 Men's minds are familiar with the idea of advowsons being 
 bought and sold, and so being a species of property, and there- 
 fore no question is made that the owners of advowsons are to be 
 compensated. But, surely, to deprive a man of the right of ap- 
 pointing a clergyman to a parish is to deprive him of a much 
 less real and personal interest, and that right is in its nature 
 much less of an ' individual right of property,' both in the words 
 and sense of the Eesolutions, than to deprive him altogether of 
 the services of a parish clergyman — the very consideration in 
 his favour, subject to which he has always paid his tithes — the 
 legal consideration of the annuity charged on the land he or his 
 ancestor bought ? 
 
 If the case was one between man and man, of money to be 
 paid by one and services rendered by the other, there could not 
 be a moment's doubt of the rights and the law. If an estate 
 was bought in England charged with an annuity in favour of a 
 schoolmaster or dissenting minister for his services in any place, 
 whether the origin of the arrangement was prescription or an 
 express deed, there is no sort of doubt the Court of Chancery 
 would enforce the condition ; and if the services were withheld, 
 the owner of the estate would not be bound to pay the annuity. 
 It is quite clear he did not buy subject to a simple annuity, but 
 to an annuity on condition of services to be performed. Those 
 services, whether secular or religious, are a benefit to him, and 
 he has a clear equitable right to them, w^hich on every recognised 
 principle of property he cannot be deprived of without compen- 
 sation. 
 
 If, indeed. Parliament thought fit to make over the annuity 
 to the Eoman Catholic parish priest, there might be the answer, 
 that the religious services were there in another form for the 
 payer of the annuity, if he liked to avail himself of them. But 
 if Parliament appropriates the money to the secular purposes of 
 the State it represents — i.e., to itself — the claim for compensation 
 becomes irresistible. If the question could be argued before 
 any Court of Equity without the technical difficulties and the 
 prejudices that exist, the result would not be doubtful.
 
 23 
 
 . The words of the Resolutions of last Session are, ' That it is 
 necessary the Established Church of Ireland should cease to 
 exist as an Establishment, due regard being paid to all personal 
 interests and to all individual rights of propert}^ ;' and whenever 
 the details of the measure come to be considered, I think it will 
 be impossible to contend that the rights of resident tithe payers 
 who have bought land under such conditions do not fairly come 
 within the words, ' personal interests.' 
 
 It is no answer to say that if the money is applied to educa- 
 tion the tithe payer will profit by that. When property is taken 
 for a railway, the man from whom it is taken profits by the line 
 as much, and often more, than his neighbour whose land is un- 
 touched. But he is paid for his land nevertheless, because he 
 is deprived of something, whilst his neighbour is not deprived 
 of anything. The case of the resident tithe payer who is de- 
 prived of the services of religion is just analogous. 
 
 Many resident laymen have, however, a further claim than 
 this. Many have spent large sums on Churches and for Church 
 purposes, in the full confidence that, though the present status 
 of the Church might not remain, yet the substance would be so 
 far preserved as would still endure for the purposes for which 
 their money was given. It was felt that the sweeping away of 
 endowments from parishes where congregations are numbered 
 by scores and hundreds (there are many such parishes in Ireland) 
 involves the whole question of religious endowments in England 
 and Scotland, and could not be carried out in Ireland, except on 
 principles that would equally strip those Churches — viz., on the 
 principle of the superiority of voluntaryism. 
 
 The case of one by no means wealthy layman is within my 
 knowledge, who in the past twelve years has laid out in this 
 confidence nearly 3,000Z.: 2,100L in building a new church, 500^. 
 towards a new cathedra], and 300^. towards a glebe house in 
 another parish, besides being security for a further 400/. bor- 
 rowed to build that house. The motive was by no means 
 sectarian, but to help in raising the state of religion, by enabling 
 the services of Grod to be performed with decent fitness, instead 
 of in buildings where every association was common and mean. 
 The glebe house was to secure a resident clergyman as a means 
 of goodwill and charity to Protestants and Roman Catholics 
 alike, in a parish where there was no house in which even a 
 curate could dwell. And the goodwill hoped for has resulted 
 now for several years. It was not expected the Irish Church 
 would remain as it was, but the continuance of moderate en- 
 dowment, in some way, where a good congregation existed, was 
 never doubted, and such endowment was the felt and implied 
 consideration upon which the money was given. The advowson
 
 24 
 
 of the parish where the church is built is private property. It 
 may be worth about half the money spent upon the church. It 
 was bought for mere lucre's sake. Yet its owner is to be com- 
 pensated, and discharged from the condition in favour of the 
 builder of the church upon which he has hitherto held his pro- 
 perty, of nominating a minister who shall perform the duties of 
 the parish. 
 
 But it will be said such cases are rare. I can only speak of 
 the diocese I know. The bishop of it has within a few years 
 had the sums of 17,000L and 10,000L placed at his disposal by 
 two laymen for Church purposes. Half of these sums has been 
 spent in the past six years on churches and glebes within the 
 diocese, and the remainder elsewhere. In addition, 23,500^. 
 more has been subscribed in the diocese for the same objects by 
 private persons, mostly laymen ; making 37,000^. in all in six 
 years spent on one diocese alone. 
 
 It may be said these sums were spent on churches and glebes 
 of which it is not proposed to deprive the Church. But the true 
 consideration, in a legal sense, on which these sums were given 
 was the existing endowment for a clergyman to perform the 
 duty of the parish, to which the church and glebe are mere 
 accessories and aids. If this consideration is now otherwise ap- 
 propriated, the right of compensation is in justice as complete 
 as can be. What will be the use of church and glebe without a 
 clergyman ? 
 
 It is often said the Irish Church has vastly improved in the 
 past quarter of a century. It is forgotten that that improvement 
 has shown itself in substantial good works, and that if it is to 
 be deprived of that which alone makes those works of any 
 benefit, it has at least a right out of its former revenues to the 
 actual outlay as a help towards a future provision. 
 
 I am convinced there will be found an overwhelming pre- 
 ponderance of the opinions of all men used to weigh questions 
 of Law and Equity in favour of the justice of this claim. It 
 already has in its favour the opinions of two such lawyers of 
 opposite politics as Lord Cairns and Sir R. Palmer. In questions 
 of this kind, even doubtful rights have to be conceded ; much 
 more cannot rights be refused that rest on sound and acknow- 
 ledged principles and everyday practice. 
 
 When negro slavery was abolished, compensation was given 
 for the claims of slave owners to the amount of twenty millions, 
 paid out of the national parse. These claims were derived 
 from cruelty and immorality, and were contrary to every 
 principle of moral right. Compared with them the claims of 
 Protestant laymen to pay the tithes of the land they own to 
 their own Church must be innocent and meritorious in the eyes
 
 25 
 
 even of the strongest opponents of the Irish Church. How, then, 
 can the compensation that was given in the one case be with- 
 held in the other ? No one can doubt that a large pecuniary 
 burden will be put on the resident tithe payer, who is a member 
 of the Church, and to this extent his claim is just. He may 
 not, indeed, claim to be paid compensation in money, but he 
 claims that in the arrangements on the subject his rights shall 
 be fairly taken into account. 
 
 There is also another most important practical question. 
 Admitting that the Church is to be deprived of exclusive privi- 
 leges of every kind that affect any outside her communion, 
 what good reason is there for depriving her of those legal rights 
 that her members now have as between themselves ? 
 
 This is quite a different question from that of Establishment, 
 though often confounded with it. All religious bodies in the 
 kingdom, in fact, have some such legal rights. 
 
 When the rights of any dissenting body come before the 
 Courts, whether those rights depend on the intention of a 
 testator, or upon the law of contract, express or implied, those 
 rights are thereby recognised by law. When the Court of 
 Chancery, in the case of Lady Hewley's charity, investigated the 
 differing doctrines of different sections of such a dissenting 
 body, it recognised rights by law to exist in* such body. 
 So when the courts at Natal decided whether Dr. Colenso or 
 the incumbent of a church was entitled to its use, they were 
 clearly recognising existing legal rights of the members of the 
 same church between themselves. Yet no one ever thought 
 that the Church of Natal, or these dissenting bodies, thereby 
 became Established Churches. 
 
 Further, the law of trusts in our courts is the very charter 
 upon which every sort of religious body holds the most part of 
 its endowments. The law of France does not permit such 
 trusts even for the French Church, and the strong wish of 
 earnest and intelligent French Eoman Catholics (no one has 
 spoken so strongly on the subject as M. de Montalembert) is 
 that their Church might have the benefit of such a law. Here 
 again such trusts are equitable rights recognised as existing in 
 religious bodies by the law of the land, but having nothiug to 
 do with establishment. 
 
 Again the Queen appoints bishops to our colonial Churches 
 and in India, and many chaplains in India are even paid by the 
 Government, but this does not make the colonial or Indian 
 Churches Established Churches. 
 
 If an Act of Parliament was to settle the rights of dissenting 
 bodies that are now settled by the courts on the principles of 
 Common Law or of equity, it would not thereby make them
 
 26 
 
 Established Churches. After the decision of the Court of 
 Chancery in Lady Hewley's case, such an Act was actually 
 passed, without any such effect. 
 
 Is it not the truth that there has been no precise definition 
 hitherto attached to the words Established Church ? The ex- 
 pression, the Church by Law Established, is a description, not a 
 definition, and has given rise in the minds of many to the im- 
 pression (for it is no more) that any rights given by law to a 
 Church make it thereby an Established Church. When this 
 expression came into use, connection of a Church with the State, 
 i.e., Establishment, meant a very real support and the gift of 
 very exclusive privileges in endowments and rank, &c. Any 
 other body not the Established Church was in a sort of out- 
 lawry. 
 
 It is the recognition of these exclusive privileges, as against 
 other bodies outside her communion, whether through the 
 action of Church courts or otherwise, that constitutes the true 
 idea of an Establishment, not the recognition by the Courts 
 or by Act of Parliament of more or less legal rights in the 
 members of a Church as between themselves. To take away 
 the legal rights of the Irish Church as between its own mem- 
 bers is simply to reduce it to a state of anarchy. This must 
 have been Mr. Bright's idea when he talked of 1,000 or 500 
 members of the Irish Church holding a convention in Dublin 
 to settle all its affairs de novo. It would be quite as easy to ' 
 settle a new Social compact. The ideas needful for such a work 
 are wholly wanting in Ireland, both among clergy and laity. 
 Neither the one nor the other have the knowledge, or habits, 
 or temper for it. 
 
 But even if it was otherwise, to reduce a Church that has 
 hitherto had settled laws to a state of anarchy, and then leave 
 it to reconstitute itself as it can on purely voluntary principles, 
 is an ordeal such as no Church could go through without grievous 
 injury. Such an upset and reconstruction is quite different 
 from the gradual growth of a Church or religious body from small 
 beginnings, under whatever disadvantages. It is to put a posi- 
 tive obstacle in the way of a most serious kind. Consider, too, 
 , the preliminary questions that have to be settled. Who are to 
 sit in such a convention ? What clergy ? What laity ? What 
 shadow of power would they have to regulate any questions, 
 unless power was given them by Act of Parliament, which 
 would, in substance, thereby settle the whole business ? Conceive 
 a convention in Ireland of all who liked to attend, with the 
 Orange element uppermost, or every man with a crotchet, 
 either on doctrine, or discipline, or ceremonies, urging it to 
 the uttermost, as he would have a right to do. What authority,
 
 27 
 
 unless conferred by an Act of Parliament, would there be to 
 hold even an acre of glebe land, much less to do any other 
 legal act? 
 
 The colonial Churches afford no precedent. Their circum- 
 stances were quite different. At first the colonial clergy were 
 paid mainly by Societies at home, and were under the direction 
 of those societies. When bishops were appointed, such Churches 
 were still in their infancy. The bishop was the channel through 
 which the Societies at home chiefly acted ; he held the purse- 
 strings, and had thus great influence over the clergy. The 
 Church in the colony in this way grew up gradually from a 
 small beginning. 
 
 The law of contract and the law of trusts are held in sub- 
 stance now to regulate the rights of the bishops and clergy and 
 laity of such Churches among themselves in all that relates to 
 jurisdiction and control, as well as to endowments. It is the 
 same with dissenting bodies; the laws of contract and trusts 
 really govern them too. 
 
 But the Irish Church has to get from the one state to the 
 other — from being governed by the laws that now govern it, to 
 another state under the laws of contract and trusts. For thirty 
 to fifty years there will be some bishops and clergy under the 
 old laws, and free from all contracts or trusts, anc^ others work- 
 ing under quite a different system, and unless by Act of Par- 
 liament power is given to adjust those two systems, they cannot 
 help clashing. When a bishop dies, the bishop appointed in 
 his place, suppose by voluntary election, will have no authority 
 over the old incumbents. If the bishop should die soon after' 
 the change has taken place, there may be no voluntary clergy, 
 or only two or three in the diocese, for him to preside over. 
 The old incumbents, except by Act of Parliament, cannot be 
 brought under the new law of contract, and if the Act of Par- 
 liament has to define the new contract, it will have a very 
 tough job — nothing less than to make a new code of eccle- 
 siastical law. 
 
 Nor, as far as I can see, is there any way out of this difficulty, 
 unless it is admitted that the rights of the members of the 
 Church, as behueen themselves, shall continue. If that is ad- 
 mitted, then the Act of Parliament may make the old law of 
 the Church to that extent binding upon its members, as if it 
 had been a contract between themselves, and until altered, by 
 whatever authority, as of a synod, shall hereafter have control 
 over the affairs of the Church. I believe there is no objection 
 in principle to such an Act, and to refuse it would be to subject 
 the Church, as I have said, to an ordeal of difficulties. Without 
 a start of this kind, the Church will not have fair play. Special
 
 28 
 
 provisions can alone adjust the relations of the old system with 
 a new system. It will else be in the power of individual per- 
 versity, or temper, or fancy, wherever such exist, to bring every- 
 thing to a dead lock. 
 
 The sum of the whole is, that an equitable compromise is the 
 only practicable course. As long as men keep to generals, and 
 look only at one side of the case, nothing is so easy as doing 
 away with the Irish Church. Directly they condescend to par- 
 ticulars, and are forced to look at what is just to both sides, 
 every step carries them into greater difficulties, which can only 
 be settled fairly by compromise. 
 
 Such a compromise is for the interest of all parties. The 
 proposed plan of equally stripping the Church of its revenues, 
 the Eoman Catholics of the Maynooth grant and the Presby- 
 terians of the Regium Donum, can rightly be described as rest- 
 ing on no other principle than that of mutual hatred. 
 
 Its only claims on each denomination are that it will injure 
 its neighbour. It may be welome to the bitter Eoman Catholic, 
 because it will hurt the Church. It may be welcome to the 
 bitter Protestant, because he knows the loss of the Maynooth 
 grant will be keenly felt by the Eoman Catholic — and already it is 
 said the ill-omened words are heard in the North: *At any 
 rate, in future we need keep no terms with Papists ' — whilst the 
 ultra-Presbyterian may rejoice in the loss to both the others. 
 
 While extreme and violent men are more or less content, the 
 reasonable and moderate men of all parties are correspondingly 
 dissatisfied. It ought to be distinctly understood that it is upon 
 these moderate men, of all parties, that the peace and progress of 
 the country depend. It is not too much to say that the very 
 first object of all their doings is to keep down and get rid of 
 all mutual hatred, a.nd to encourage goodwill in its place, as 
 the condition of any moral and social good in the country. In 
 truth, the encouragement of goodwill between men of different 
 parties and religions ought to be the first end considered in 
 every measure for Ireland. So far as changes affecting the 
 interests or feelings of any class are necessary, no sacrifice in the 
 mode of carrying them out is too great, if it attains this end. 
 There is this great help, that compromise is much more con- 
 genial to the Irish mind than to the English. That stiff back- 
 bone and grasp of his rights so common in the English is very 
 much wanting in the Irish, and the loudest and fiercest declara- 
 tions are always to be understood with the implied reserva- 
 tion that they are not ' the last words,' and are often only meant 
 to help towards getting better terms in the foreseen settlement. 
 
 That which is most wanting in Ireland is that Protestants and
 
 29 
 
 Eoman Catholics should in matters of religion look on each 
 other as fellow Christians. Of course intelligent men do not 
 deny this in words when the question is put to them, but the 
 practice on both sides is to act as if it was otherwise. It would 
 not so much matter if they would even look on each other as 
 erring Christians, provided only they really felt each other to be 
 Christians at all. The result is very discreditable to both re- 
 ligions. Any schemer who professes himself a convert and 
 reviles his former religion is treated as a good Protestant. On 
 the other hand, the efforts to get the priest to a dying Protes- 
 tant, in whatever state of weakness and half-consciousness, if so 
 be he may profess himself a Eoman Catholic, are enough to 
 justify the charge that Eoman Catholics believe salvation and 
 damnation are in the priest's hands. It is very desirable there- 
 fore that nothing should be done that will give a triumph to 
 one side or the other. 
 
 Moreover, this plan of tearing up everything by the roots on 
 both sides, whether it has existed for centuries or has been the 
 deliberate action of Parliament approved by some of the 
 greatest men the country ever had, and starting instead a bran- 
 new arrangement on wholly different principles, is necessarily 
 destructive of confidence. Next to peace and goodwill, con- 
 fidence is that which is most wanted in Ireland. Even in 
 England, though it may suit a section of the Eadical mind to 
 talk of such a course, it is contrary to all the traditions and feel- 
 ings of the people. The steady improvement and reform of 
 existing institutions is the end sought by sober men of ever so 
 advanced opinions, not the destruction of such institutions and 
 invention of new* ones in their stead. In the social state of Ire- 
 land this loss of confidence will be most hurtful ; it will do 
 unmixed mischief. If it is needful for the sake of three- 
 fourths of the Irish people to displace the Irish Church from 
 its position, it is not for the good of the kingdom to do so in 
 such a way as will needlessly aggravate and outrage one-fourth 
 of its most intelligent and loyal subjects. Eeligious strife un- 
 happily is not hard to stir up, and may be stirred up from either 
 side ; witness the Belfast riots three years ago. 
 
 A compromise is for the interest of Eoman Catholics. What- 
 ever hurt they may succeed in doing to the Irish Church, the 
 Eoman Catholics may be sure they will not get rid of it. It 
 will not be for their advantage to have its clergy forced 
 on the support of proselytising Societies in England, with 
 Exeter Hall as headquarters. It is said, on good Eoman Ca- 
 tholic authority, that no less than 80,000^. a year is now spent, 
 one way or another, for this purpose by English Societies. 
 One such Society undoubtedly spends over 30,000^ per annum
 
 30 
 
 in proselytising in Ireland. It has not hitherto been very 
 successful (with one notable exception), because the common 
 sense of Irish Protestants living among Eoman Catholics is 
 too strong, except in times of excitement, and compels them 
 to make peace their first object. 
 
 If the mind of the great religious party in England that now 
 supports the Society alluded to should be thoroughly roused, 
 and much larger funds be subscribed (the same party already 
 raises four or five times 30,000?. a year with no great effort for 
 another of its Societies, and it is at least possible might largely 
 increase its efforts to proselytise in Ireland), and if at the 
 same time there was an ill-paid and poor clergy with wives 
 and children dependeat, the result may easily be imagined. 
 What has been done in West Connaught is at least possible 
 elsewhere, and the excessive fear and hatred of proselytism the 
 Koman Catholic clergy show at all times is not without its 
 significance. 
 
 Neither is it well that a direct pecuniary motive should be 
 given to landlords to prefer Protestant tenants, or that there 
 should be even a suspicion of such a motive. At present no 
 one of sense or intelligence makes any difference. W^ill it be 
 so when a constant struggle has to be carried on to support 
 a clergyman, and the subscription of every well-to-do farmer 
 will lighten the burden on the landowner of a few hundreds 
 per annum ? Putting aside every unworthy motive, I believe 
 there is a source here of abiding bitterness. 
 
 It is not many years ago since the Maynooth grant was 
 deliberately increased by Sir Eobert Peel, because it was for 
 the good of all alike that the future Eoman Catholic clergy 
 should not undergo during their training the coarse hard life 
 that the poverty of the College had previously compelled, but 
 should have the benefit of the civilising effects of more refined 
 habits. 
 
 I do not think that any one who knows practically the 
 exceedingly rough material out of which the Eoman Catholic 
 clergy are formed can doubt that this step Avas dictated by the 
 soundest judgment. 
 
 The Maynooth students are the sons of farmers and others 
 whose previous lives have been passed in the low habits of 
 humble Irish boys of their class, without one idea fitting them 
 for the position of clergymen of any denomination. Every 
 thought that is to raise them above their fellows, of whom they 
 are to be the guides, must be got at the College. Can there 
 be any doubt that it is desirable the habits of that College 
 should be of a civilising and refining tendency ? Yet all this 
 is now overlooked.
 
 • 31 
 
 . As a mere matter of State wisdom, is it wise to allow religious 
 partisans to avail themselves of coarseness and poverty, and 
 work them up into furious bigotry ? Let the example, too, and 
 the unsettling effect of depriving the Eoman Catholics of what 
 was £0 solemnly and with so much consideration given them, 
 for the very purpose of securing the grant from future dispute, 
 by the greatest Conservative statesman of these times, and with 
 the applause of the whole Liberal party and of a great majority 
 of Parliament, be considered. There has surely been no pre- 
 vious instance of the reversal of such deliberately conferred 
 rights. No matter what the excuse, ought such a course to be 
 taken by the British Parliament ? 
 
 Doubtless the Eoman Catholics will not allow Maynooth to 
 fall, but the difficulty of raising money, even with their num- 
 bers and organisation, for an additional and distant object is 
 great ; and the same poverty as before Sir E. Peel's increased 
 payment will unavoidably be its lot. It is little known how 
 much personal influence and exertion have to do with the 
 money the Eoman Catholic clergy now raise. It is the fact 
 that every extra demand, even that of late years for the 
 Pope, is most heavily felt and disliked by the Eoman Catholic 
 farmers and others on whom the burden falls. Let it be ob- 
 served, too, that this is proposed to be done wBen, as the 
 Maynooth grant and Regiu'in Donuni are not very different 
 in amount, equality, to that extent at least, could be obtained 
 by leaving an equivalent share of its revenues to the Church ; 
 so that it would be a purely wanton mischief, resting on no 
 principle except that of mere voluntaryism. 
 
 I feel bound to add, that there is a further concession that 
 I think Eoman Catholics may fairly claim in the event of a 
 compromise. Mr. Grregory, member for Gralway, in his speech 
 on the state of Ireland, in March 1868, urges that a glebe 
 house and some acres of land ought to be provided for every 
 Eoman Catholic clergyman. This proposal was first made by 
 O'Connell, and it was strongly pressed by Mr. Bright, so 
 lonof aoro as 1852. It deserves far more notice than it received 
 amidst the din of party warfare. The cost will be so small, 
 and the actual value in money will be so trifling, that it can 
 hardly be called an endowment. It will scarcely be more than, 
 after the tithe-war of 1 832-3, was contemptuously tossed to the 
 Irish clergy for the relief of their distress, because they could 
 not collect their tithes. Of course the value of a house and a 
 few acres of land is something, yet it is not a great addition 
 to such incomes as many of the Eoman Catholic clergy now 
 possess. The motive for such a gift in a great settlement of 
 this kind is as a proof of goodwill and conciliatory feelings. No
 
 32 
 
 one can object more than I do to truckling to the Roman 
 Catholic clergy, or any approach to it. I think there is often 
 too much of such truckling on the part of Government, and of 
 many men who at other times express very strong Protestant 
 opinions. I believe the Roman Catholic clergy should be 
 opposed in a manly, straightforward way, more strongly 
 than they are generally now opposed, when they are in the 
 wrong, as they often are, I am quite alive to the unjustifiable 
 preteusions and overbearing conduct of some of the Roman 
 Catholic clergy (especially in the high places in their Church) ; 
 and whatever may be said against the undue influence of land- 
 lords over tenants, the undue influence used by the Roman 
 Catholic clergy for election purposes is quite beyond that used by 
 anyone else in the Three kingdoms, and would raise a shriek of 
 reprobation from the Liberal party if it was used against them. 
 But I believe none the less that the greater number of the 
 Roman Catholic clergy are the friends of law and order. I 
 think their influence, on the whole, is used in favour of right ; 
 and though occasionally individuals make themselves con- 
 spicuous in a bad sense, yet the majority are worthy and cha- 
 ritable men, doing their duty in their station in proportion to 
 their lights, and that the country owes much to them. In the 
 late Fenian excitement, so far as my observation extended, I 
 can bear witness that the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy 
 was deserving of every praise. No doubt the American Fenians 
 were as hostile to the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy as 
 to that of the British Government ; but this is one of those 
 happy coincidences which it is for a wise Government to take 
 advantao^e of, especially as it is certain the Roman Catholic 
 clergy feel that they deserve well of the Government in this 
 instance. 
 
 A house and a few acres of land — a house of their own for 
 their lives — is the one thing within reach that would add to 
 the contentment and enjoyment of these men. It could in no 
 way interfere with their influence, or add to it. It is not valu- 
 ble enough to be thought of as a bribe. It is a personal grati- 
 fication, in the good sense of the word, to men whose lives have 
 not too much of enjoyments of any sort. It could be perverted 
 to no ill end. Such an opportunity may never occur again. 
 It should by no means be lost. now. Done under present cir- 
 cumstances, it will be no precedent. If the glebes are to be left 
 to the Irish Church, it will be mere equality. Above all, it 
 will tend strongly to promote peace and quiet in the land. 
 How much it will be prized may be judged from an advertise- 
 ment that, whilst I write, has appeared in one of the Cork 
 newspapers :
 
 33 
 
 ^LoED Lisle and his Tenantry. 
 
 ' To the Editor of the Constitution. 
 
 ' Dear Sir, — Your readers who have seen your report of the 
 public rejoiciugs in honour of Lord Lisle, and the cordial wel- 
 come given him on the occasion of his auspicious arrival among 
 his tenantry in this and the adjoining parishes, will not be un- 
 prepared to hear acts of liberality and kindness at his hands. 
 
 ' His lordship has shown the sincerity of his liberal profes- 
 sions in many instances, one of which, intimately concerning 
 myself and my parishioners, I feel called upon in gratitude to 
 bring under the notice of the public through the columns of 
 your journal. Some days since he did my curate, the Eev. 
 S. O'Donnell, who has the good fortune of being one of his lord- 
 ship's tenants, the honour of a visit. He inquired how much 
 land he held, how much rent he paid ; and being informed that 
 his lot contained seven acres Irish, at a rent of IL 10s. a year, 
 he, with a munificence worthy of his high title, made him and 
 his successors a present of his little farm. He also inquired was 
 the parish priest's house on his property, and when answered in 
 the negative, he appeared to regret that he had not an oppor- 
 tunity of complimenting him in a similar handsome manner. 
 Would that we had many such landlords in poor, unhappy Ire- 
 land. We would not then hear of such harrowing scenes as 
 have lately sent a thrill of horror through the heart of the 
 country. That Lord Lisle may enjoy his title and ancestral 
 estates for many a long year is the fervent prayer of the 
 priests and people of this district. — Yours truly, 
 
 ' C. O'CONNELL, P.P. 
 'Meelin : September 1, 1868.' 
 
 A compromise is for the good of the Anglican Church. The 
 present state of things is not satisfactory in any respect. In 
 many cases the grouping of parishes will be a gain to the 
 Church, and not a loss. Parishes with congregations of 3 or 5, 
 or 10 or 20 souls, are a scandal, and do harm. Even where the 
 parishioners number from 100 to 200, the Church will thrive 
 better with a larger parish and more parishioners. 20 or 40 
 families do not give half work to a clergyman ; at first, pro- 
 bably, he tries to make work, but soon finds everything can be 
 done in one or two days a week, and the result is by no means 
 good on his own character or on his people. 
 
 On the other hand, the strife of proselytism under a volun- 
 tary system relying for help on English Societies, and the evils 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 of a dependent clergy, are not favourable to the true character 
 of the Church or to her usefulness. Whatever other fruit the 
 Church of Ireland has hitherto produced, I have long been con- 
 vinced by observation that it has influenced the Roman Catholics 
 in Ireland for good, and does so still, amidst whatever draw- 
 backs. The observation of the Archbishop of Dublin,Jn his late 
 Charge, that the pressure of the Church has made our Lord's 
 Atonement a much more prominent article of faith among Irish 
 Roman Catholics than among those of other parts of Europe, is 
 in my opinion quite true. They have felt the pinch in the 
 controversy, of having to defend the worship of the Virgin and 
 Saints ; and however romantic minds may satisfy themselves 
 with reasons in favour of such practices, the common sense of 
 large numbers in Ireland is against them, and not half the 
 prominence is given to such doctrines as in other Roman Catholic 
 countries. It is the same with reading the Bible. The common 
 sense of the more intelligent Roman Catholics will not bear to 
 be deprived of it, and numbers of them possess and read it, of 
 course in their own version. Another instance is the tone of the 
 better sort as to the manner in which Sunday should be kept. 
 They constantly keep it and speak of it in a way that no reason- 
 able Protestant can dissent from, and wholly different from that 
 in which it is viewed in other Roman Catholic countries. I think 
 the same influence obtains on other points of morality, and 
 if religious bitterness could be lessened, w^ould do so more and 
 more. This is the true work and field of labour of the Irish 
 Church in regard to Roman Catholics. 
 
 I do not put any faith in the assertions of the benefit of dis- 
 establishment ; nor, on the other hand, do I believe in the 
 extraordinary virtues Mr. Grladstone is in the habit of ascrib- 
 ing to the Irish clergy. But I think that anything that com- 
 pels the clergy to more work will be eminently useful to the 
 Church. 
 
 This brings me to the question, In what way can a com- 
 promise be effected ? 
 
 It is quite plain no help from the general taxation of the 
 country can be expected. It would not be endured, even if it 
 was reasonable. But one source of money has been overlooked, 
 which, with the help of some time and patience, is capable of 
 yielding any amount that is wanted — I mean the surplus annual 
 revenue of the Irish Church itself. Let it be supposed that the 
 proposal of last session was carried out simply as a matter of 
 finance. The life interests proposed to be left to the present 
 incumbents will take thirty years for the bulk of them to run 
 out — i.e., before the present state of things will have passed
 
 35 
 
 substantially away ; and as they would begin to fall in at once, 
 unless the reversions were sold, the accruing total from the 
 revenues of these vacant benefices would, by the end of these 
 thirty years, amount to a very large sum — to half the total net 
 income multiplied by the thirty years. If the net income of the 
 Irish Church is 600,000^. per annum, such surplus will in thirty 
 years amount to nine millions without the interest, which could 
 be used to supply present needs. If the net income is more 
 than 600,000^., this surplus will be so much more. In this way 
 the surplus revenues of the Church in time will give any 
 amount of money that may be desired for effecting any sort of 
 compromise in favour of any religious body, and in any propor- 
 tions. 
 
 When so long a period as thirty years is unavoidable to bring 
 the present state of things substantially to an end (and probably 
 twenty years more wholly to do so), surely some time more or 
 less is of little moment, nor can it matter in a national point of 
 view, whilst these years are running out, whether the accruing 
 surplus is applied to the purposes of a compromise or to the 
 secular objects that are to be its ultimate end. It is clear that 
 out of this accruing surplus a provision may be made for the 
 Church, to whatever extent is judged reasonable — to that of Mr. 
 Gladstone's three-fifths, or any other. A few years more would 
 provide for the Maynooth grant and Regiura Donum. And at 
 the end of the period the whole present ecclesiastical revenues 
 of Ireland would be available for whatever objects were judged 
 best. 
 
 Of course, if that form of compromise is preferred, it can be 
 made in the way of a purchase of the life interests of the 
 clergy and other rights that all agree are to be spared ; and in 
 the same way a purchase of the Maynooth grant and Regium 
 Donum can be made. The purchase-money can be paid out of 
 this accruing surplus, with some arrangement as to the interest 
 in the meantime. A very moderate share of the liberality that 
 has been so largely promised would get over any difficulties. 
 The affair could be arranged much as was done in Canada, when 
 the clergy reserves were taken from the Church there, and the 
 life interests in them bought up by the Grovernment, the pur- 
 chase-money being paid over to the Church for its after-support. 
 
 Or it might be done by allowing a certain number of years 
 of grace to the Church after each benefice becomes vacant, 
 during which the tithes of the parish should accumulate for a 
 future provision. 
 
 Surely some such plan as this is preferable to mere destruc- 
 tion. The object is to leave the Church reasonably provided 
 for, and yet remove the whole bone of contention, the corpus 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 of the endowments of the Irish Church. So long as endow- 
 ments of any sort are permitted to any Church, there can be no 
 objection on principle to such a compromise. 
 
 The arrangement about the Canada clergy reserves is not 
 generally known. The Canadian G-overnment acted with great 
 liberality to the Church, in regard to the life interests of the 
 clergy in the reserves. The Government offered to buy up 
 those life interests, at such a rate of purchase, that when the 
 purchase-money was re-invested in the colony at the ordinary 
 rate of interest current there on landed security, it produced in 
 perpetuity as large an income as the clergy gave up. The pur- 
 chase-money was paid to the Bishop and Church Society in trust, 
 and invested by them accordingly. Neither the Church nor 
 the clergy lost anything. 
 
 It was no mere actuaries' valuation of the life interests, but a 
 bona fide liberal treatment of the Church at large, securing her 
 against voluntaryism and a poor clergy, whilst getting rid of the 
 political difficulty of an establishment and endowment from the 
 public estate. The diocese of Montreal alone has 23,000^. per 
 annum endowment left for less than 100 clergy. And if the 
 Irish Church is treated according to this precedent, or any- 
 thing like it, it will have little to complain of in a money point 
 of view. 
 
 No doubt there are many to whom it will seem a great object 
 so to clench the question, that the Koman Catholic Church may 
 never in future times have a chance of acquiring any of these 
 revenues. I think such a feeling is very narrow and unworthy. 
 At present, public opinion is against giving these revenues to 
 the Eoman Catholics. But the revenues are not yet available 
 for any purpose. The life interests have yet to run out, and 
 will take thirty years in doing so. To dispose of these future 
 accruing revenues now, or to dissipate them, is for the present 
 to forestall a future generation. When these revenues have 
 accrued, if the public opinion of that time is the same as that 
 at present, Eoman Catholics will get none of the money. If 
 more goodwill and more united feelings have by that time 
 increased, as we are told the disestablishment of the Irish 
 Church will increase them, this generation will by such a course 
 be only making a difficulty for the next. If public opinion is 
 then in favour of the justice or expediency of in some way 
 endowing the Eoman Catholic Church, the money for the 
 purpose will have to be found elsewhere, and the endowment 
 will be made all the same. It was no small wisdom that said, 
 * Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.' The Irish Church 
 is quite big enough a job without deciding on the disposition of 
 .its revenues thirty years hence. Even if the revenues are to
 
 37 
 
 be applied to secular objects, they will be applied with ten 
 times more effect when they have accumulated than if applied 
 by driblets as they accrue ; and in calmer times, and after more 
 consideration, they will be disposed of for much better objects 
 than now that they are the sport of party in a moment of ex- 
 citement. 
 
 Some details will show that a compromise is more practicable 
 than is believed by many. The present net revenue of the 
 Irish parochial clergy amounts to no more than 366,262^. per 
 annum. The ecclesiastical commissioners, the bishops, and 
 the deans and chapters absorb the residue of the income, 
 making up about 600,000L in all. If, as some say, it is 700,000^. 
 per annum, the case is so much the stronger. 
 
 But 366,262^. is so exactly between the three-fifths and two- 
 thirds of 600,000?., that Mr. Griadstone at first stated his pro- 
 posal would leave to the Church, that it is hard to believe he 
 was not aware of the fact when he committed himself to that 
 proportion. If otherwise, it is a singular chance he should 
 have arrived at a sum which, if made over in any form bona 
 fide to the Church and not to the clergy as individuals, will so 
 simplify the difficulty. The Church would have to provide for 
 the life interests of the bishops, of the deans and chapters, &c., 
 and it would have to take on itself the charges now •borne by 
 the ecclesiastical commissioners. 
 
 But the 366,262?. includes all the parishes that ought to be 
 grouped from smallness of numbers, &c. ; and by such grouping 
 at once, by compromises with incumbents, and other expe- 
 dients hereafter to be stated, enough could be raised to meet 
 the incomes present and future of the bishops and others, 
 whilst the present charges of the commissioners could be raised 
 by subscription. 
 
 These figures have been taken from the Eeport of the Com- 
 mission on the Irish Church. That they should show any such 
 plan, even to approach to being practicable, is a clear proof 
 that everything depends for the Church on the manner in 
 which the change is made. All turns on the subject proposed, 
 whether good or ill to the Church is really meant by Mr. Glad- 
 stone's words, whether the three-fifths is a reality or a fiction. 
 
 Over and over again Liberals great and small have declared 
 that it is not at all a question of money. The utmost liberality 
 has been repeatedly promised. It is certain the more intelligent 
 Roman Catholics have no wish to see the Church stripped of 
 its revenues beyond a certain point. An endowment of at least 
 200,000/. a year is the amount that has been stated to me by 
 such men as the sum they wished to see left. If the Irish Church 
 is not to be sacrificed to the present generation of its own
 
 38 
 
 clergy, if it is not the object to subject it to the evils and 
 difficulties of voluntaryism in the future, it is plain how a 
 reasonable compromise can be attained. 
 
 Another motive for a compromise, that has not been yet fairly 
 considered, is that there are parts of the revenues of the Irish 
 Church to which, on plain grounds of right and justice, it has 
 the clearest title. I think it must have surprised every one to 
 read the way in which Mr. Gladstone lately in Lancashire spoke 
 of leaving to the Irish Church endowments made by private 
 persons, and the glebes and churches built in no small part out 
 of the personal income of churchmen. It was put forward as a 
 great concession that these were to be left, although, in truth, it 
 is no concession at all. 
 
 They rest on the same grounds of common right as the 
 private gifts of Eoman Catholics to their Church, which we are 
 told have amounted to five millions of money in no great number 
 of years past. The Church has an indisputable right to all such 
 endowments from private persons. Such is Primate Boulter's 
 fund and the many additions to livings that have been made 
 from it. The income of the fund now exceeds 6,000?. a year. 
 There are similar funds bequeathed by others, but of smaller 
 amount. 
 
 Such donations also as that of Sir B. Guinness have the 
 strongest claim to respect, as well as many others of smaller 
 amount. It is not good for the cause of right and truth in the 
 land that private liberality of this sort should, be rendered 
 nugatory by the action of Parliament. Without the endow- 
 ments heretofore supporting Divine Service in the churches that 
 have thus been built, these churches will be stripped of the 
 consideration upon which their builders gave their money. 
 There is a righteous claim that those endowments should be 
 spared, or replaced by a,n equivalent from the surplus revenues 
 of the Church. Where men have freely given to God's service, 
 it is not wise to destroy the result of their labours for a small 
 gain, still less in order to gratify the jealousy of those of a 
 different religion. 
 
 There is also the question of the advowsons. Here, though 
 the patron has the right of presenting to the living, surely the 
 parishioners have their rights also. The patron may continue 
 to present to the new parish of which the value of the ad- 
 vowson helps to provide the endowment, but the parish ought 
 not to be deprived of that valile. 
 
 Everybody too must feel that there is a wide difference 
 between the Pre-Reformation and Post-Reformation endow- 
 ments. Whatever claim Roman Catholics can urge to the 
 tithes — whether they did or did not once belong to their Church,
 
 89 
 
 or whether they were first given to a Church of which we 
 have as much right to be considered the lawful successors as 
 they have, it is beyond all question that to endowments 
 of the Church since the Eeformation they have no such 
 claim. The grants of Elizabeth and James to the Irish Church 
 were large. They were deliberately and knowingly made for 
 the benefit of the Church and the promotion of its Protestant 
 principles, out of lands legally and justly, according to the 
 views of those times, at the disposal of the Sovereign, and 
 which would otherwise have been bestowed on individuals 
 at the Sovereign's mere pleasure for private purposes. 
 
 The grant of 111,000 acres of glebes in Ulster was made by 
 James I. at the same time as the grants of estates to the Com- 
 panies of the City of London, which those companies now 
 possess, and the title of which no one disputes. 
 
 The only possible ground for questioning the right of the Church 
 to these grants, and the similar ones made by Elizabeth to 
 Trinity College (which were also in reality grants for Church 
 purposes, i.e., for distinctively Church education, and intended so 
 to be), is that they were grants by a Sovereign as such. But so 
 were the grants of Greorge III. at New York to the Church 
 there, before the American revolution. These grants of King 
 Greorge now yield the Church at New York an endowm*ent of over 
 100,000/. a year, a larger amount than the grants of Elizabeth 
 and James together. Yet they have always been respected by 
 a Eepublican government, in spite of attacks. 
 
 That they were grants from the Crown is therefore no sufficient 
 reason for depriving the Church of them after a possession of 
 centuries. They were not grants out of public property : had 
 these lands not been granted to the Church, they would have 
 been granted to individuals or corporations like the rest. 
 
 Bishop Moriarty, in his statement of the Roman Catholics' 
 claim to the Church property, expressly excepts all property 
 acquired by the Church since the Reformation. It would be 
 a strange sight to see the British Parliament setting at nought 
 the grants of British sovereigns, and American republicans 
 respecting them. 
 
 In fairness, too, I think no sufficient case can be made for 
 depriving the Church of that proportion of the tithe rent charge 
 that would fall to it, if the whole w^as divided per capita ac- 
 cording to the religion of each, say the one-eighth. 
 
 Let it be remembered that this is a question of taking away 
 from men that which they have had by law for three hundred 
 years. Grant that the Church has no right to the whole, because 
 seven-eighths of the people are not of her communion. On 
 what principle of equity is she to be deprived of her fair pro-
 
 40 
 
 portion of the revenues ? Surely, the landowners of the Church, 
 who pay six-sevenths of the tithes, have at least a claim on 
 that account not to be deprived of the proportion that the 
 Church population justifies. 
 
 It may be answered that the majority of the people of Ireland, 
 the Koman Catholics, do not desire their share of the rent 
 charge, and therefore the Church shall not have her share. 
 But this, if it was true, as it is not, is nothing else than the 
 argument of the Dog in the manger. It may be reasonable for 
 the Eoman Catholics to refuse their own proportion, if they so 
 please, but it is quite contrary to reason that they should thus 
 deprive the Church of her proportion. 
 
 It is said, equality must be the rule. 
 
 When, however, the glebes and churches are left to the 
 Church, and no glebes and churches provided for the Eoman 
 Catholics, is this equality ? And when their life interests are 
 preserved to the clergy of the Church, and no equivalent offered 
 to the Eoman Catholic clergy, though the money is actually 
 there and it is a puzzle how to dispose of it, is that equality ? 
 
 Plainly it is nothing of the sort. It is either equality so far as 
 is consistent with equity to the Church — and that makes the true 
 issue, not what is equal, but what is equitable ; in which case, 
 whatever else is equitable has as good a claim to be left to the 
 Church as the glebes and life interests—or else it is equality so 
 far as is consistent with the views of a party and the interests of 
 that party, which is no equality at all, but a sham. 
 
 I must not end without saying what, in my view, needs to 
 be done by the Church itself to meet the difficulties, either 
 of a compromise, or of still harder measure. Whether its 
 revenues are largely reduced, or wholly taken away, there is no 
 choice but that parishes must be grouped, otherwise the result 
 will be, that whilst the richer parts of the country may provide 
 themselves with religious ministrations, many large districts, 
 and all the poorest, will be left wholly destitute. 
 
 The practical course would seem to be to occupy efficiently 
 the centres of the Church population where we have consider- 
 able numbers, and group the outlying more thinly-peopled 
 districts into large parishes, as large as the necessity arising 
 from want of funds may compel. No doubt such parishes will 
 often be too large, will require great activity, and after all will 
 be icefficiently served. At worst, however, they will be better 
 off than great colonial parishes. When complaints are made of 
 the difficulty of working parishes 10 or 12 miles square, it is 
 forgotten that colonial parishes are often many times larger. 
 
 In many cases, however, though it may be impossible to pro- 
 cure funds to enable such parishes to be subdivided, it may be
 
 41 
 
 possible to raise enough to pay a curate. Services will have to 
 be held in different parts of such parishes on Sunday mornings, 
 afternoons, and evenings, and weekday services on other even- 
 ings. Lay help must be resorted to, perhaps even on Sundays, in 
 reading those parts of the service fit to be read by laymen, when 
 the clergyman is engaged elsewhere; and thus these great 
 parishes must be worked, till funds can be procured to subdivide 
 them. 
 
 But it is essential that this grouping should be carried out at 
 once. In order to carry it out, somebody must be authorised 
 by Parliament, with power to make those arrangements that 
 are needful for the purpose, otherwise there will be inextricable 
 confusion between the present legal rights that will remain un- 
 touched and the new voluntary arrangements that are to take their 
 place hereafter ; as I have before shown, the life interests and 
 rights of some of the clergy effectually stopping all new arrange- 
 ments. There must be some power of dealing absolutely with 
 these rights consistently with reasonable fairness to the present 
 holders. Without power to that effect by Act of Parliament, a 
 clergyman, even if consenting, could not be discharged from 
 future duty in his parish. It is essential, too, that the Church 
 should have the power of adding to the duty of those incumbents 
 who remain, by enlarging their parishes, or removing them to 
 other parishes wdth more duty. Surely it would be monstrous 
 that clergymen with twenty or fifty parishioners should remain 
 doing little or nothing, and with large incomes, whilst places 
 numbering Church people by hundreds were without cure. A 
 body of a few bishops and clergy, and as many laymen, with 
 powers on the same principle as those of the English Universities 
 Commission would probably be the best for the purpose. A 
 large body could not do it. 
 
 There seems to be a general opinion that, provided the life 
 interests of the present incumbents are left to them, the clergy 
 will be no losers in a pecuniary sense by such a plan as that of 
 last session. But this is a great mistake — a large number of 
 the clergy will be great losers, especially the most able and 
 vigorous class, by the almost entire stoppage of promotion to 
 better livings. Mr. Gladstone saw this in the case of curates, 
 and so was led to promise compensation to them. But the case 
 of the incumbents of the smaller parishes is in reality much 
 harder. Nearly all the patronage in the Irish Church being in the 
 hands of the bishops, the result is a regular promotion step by 
 step, of such of the clergy as have not some disqualification, 
 from a curacy to a small living, then after eight or ten years to 
 a better living, and at last to one still better. Of course, the 
 smaller livings are most numerous, those under or about 200^.
 
 42 
 
 a year. These are held by men of from thirty-five to forty-live 
 years of age, and the loss to them by the stoppage of promotion, 
 just at the time when their families are rising and so expenses 
 increasing, will be most severe. It will be a great and direct 
 pecuniary loss that will be felt in the very tenderest point, and 
 that will leave them without prospect or even hope of bettering 
 their condition afterwards in any way, or of educating and put- 
 ting forward their children in their own condition of life, as but 
 for the change they would have been able to do. The loss will 
 really be much worse than if they were deprived of an appreci- 
 able part of their present incomes, and the prospect of future 
 promotion was left. It would be more felt, because though 
 the loss of present income might cause some straits, there 
 would be hope for the future; whereas, in the other case, they 
 will have no hope but to live and die in their present parishes in 
 no better circumstances. All this portion of the Irish clergy, 
 therefore, those of age and strength for work, would be equally 
 well off with some present sacrifice, if arrangements could be 
 made that would still carry on promotion. 
 
 It follows, too, that if parishes are grouped, many of the pre- 
 sent clergy will not be wanted, and should be released from the 
 obligation of further duty. Many of the older clergy, especially 
 those unprepared for increased work, might reasonably be dealt 
 with on the principle of superannuation. In many worldly 
 services it is not thought unfair that men should be superannuated 
 on a portion of their former emoluments free from further duty. 
 A clergyman's income is not really net income ; schools, charities, 
 and other claims of a parish, and in case of ill-health a curate, 
 absorb a considerable portion. 
 
 There are probably some of the clergy, both old and young, 
 who would prefer to be discharged from future duty on equi- 
 table terms. Some would seek duty in England or the colo- 
 nies, as curates and otherwise, and a sum of money in lieu of 
 their life incomes would enable their claims in many cases 
 to be compromised advantageously to the Church ; the desire to 
 advance children, and other pecuniary reasons, would lead to the 
 same end with others. It is plain that the incumbent of a 
 living of 200^. or 300^. a year, who gave up one-third of the 
 income to be discharged from future duty, might by taking 
 duty in England or the colonies even better his circumstances. 
 To one with children of a suitable age, and wishing to go to the 
 colonies, an equivalent in money for a portion of his income 
 would enable him to put forward his children, whilst supporting 
 himself by clerical duties there. 
 
 Now no less than 1,074 out of 1,518 incumbents of benefices 
 have incomes under 3001. a year. It is plain, therefore, to how
 
 43 
 
 ■great an extent this course might be adopted without loss to 
 any one. An incumbent with SOOl. a year, giving up 100^. for 
 an annuity of 200^. free from duty, and taking a curacy in 
 England of \00l. a year ivith chance of futiire jproniotion^ would 
 be better off than remaining to live and die in his parish in 
 Ireland without hope of promotion. In all livings below 300^ 
 a year the gain to the Church would be greater in proportion 
 as the living was smaller. 
 
 I am persuaded this course could be carried out to a large 
 extent, if proper machinery for the purpose was provided. By 
 a fitting appeal to the Bishops and Church in England and the 
 Colonies, great aid would be surely procured in such a time of 
 need, in the way of helping Irish clergymen at first to get 
 nominations to curacies and small incumbencies. 
 
 But in justice to the laity and the whole Irish Church, such 
 a course ought not to be made dependent on the likings of the 
 clergy — a fair settlement of their present pecuniary claims is all 
 they have a just right to. If a compromise for a part of their 
 present incomes free from further duty will, by enabling them 
 to take duty elsewhere, subject them to no loss, justice to others 
 requires that such compromise, when for the good of the Church, 
 should not be left merely at their pleasure, but should be made 
 to depend on the decision of competent authority. * Many men 
 would gladly make sacrifices for the love of their Church, 
 especially it is to be hoped those having large Church incomes. 
 Equivalent subscriptions from the laity would of course also 
 be made. These would go much further by using them for 
 life insurances. The circumstances of most of the landowners 
 would make it easier for them to pay the premiums on in- 
 surances upon the lives of the incumbents of their parishes 
 than to pay large sums at once to form an endowment fund. 
 50^. or 100^. a year could often be afforded, when 1,000^. or 
 2,000^. would be impracticable, while by allowing laymen to 
 acquire the right of patronage in the new incumbencies in 
 return for adequate contributions, some might be induced to 
 help still more largely. Some may object to lay patronage, but 
 a layman presenting to a parish endowed partly by himself is 
 surely much less objectionable, than a parish depending on 
 subscriptions, by the stoppage of which laymen could control 
 the clergyman during his whole incumbency. Without power 
 by Act of Parliament, neither insurances nor such la}^ patron- 
 age could be arranged. 
 
 An instance will best show how at worst such a plan could 
 be worked out. The diocese of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross is co- 
 terminous with the county Cork, which is one-eighth of all Ire- 
 land ; the net income of its clergy is about 46,000/. per annum.
 
 44 
 
 There are nearly 180 parishes, but only 90 Roman Catholic 
 parishes. 
 
 If the Church parishes were grouped to form ninety new 
 parishes, 23,000^. a year would give as sufficient incomes to 
 ninety parishes as 46,000^. a year does to 180. In the west of 
 the county most parishes have not less than 100 to 150 Church 
 people ; town parishes many more. Of the remote parishes that 
 form the rocky headlands running out into the Atlantic, many 
 are very poor, with large numbers of Church people, nearly all 
 of the lower orders. Skull has 1,139; Kilmoe 590; Berehaven 
 313 ; Durrus 524. In these parishes there are hardly any 
 gentry or persons in good circumstances. But in many of the 
 Cloyne parishes, with the largest incomes, there are very few 
 Protestants. These would be still more freely grouped. It is 
 not too much to say that 20,000L a year would suffice for this 
 diocese. 
 
 If by arrangements with the clergy like those above sug- 
 gested part of their present life incomes could be economised, 
 say only 12,000^ per annum, this, at an average age of fifty-three, 
 would insure about 230,000^., which, at rather over 4 per cent, 
 (the rate at which good security can be had in Ireland), would 
 yield about 10,000^ per annum. It is probable more could be 
 made thus, but this is taken as a minimum. 
 
 The Church could compromise the minor interests of parish 
 clerks and expectations of curates on easier terms than the 
 Government. The value of advowsons and glebes, subscrip- 
 tions from the laity and arrangements allowing laymen to 
 acquire rights of advowson, would go far to make up an income, 
 not indeed sufficient, yet not wholly inadequate. I do not 
 think it reasonable to expect that a full provision for the Irish 
 Church should be made. There is not a full provision for the 
 Church in England — witness London and the great towns. As 
 much may rightly be left to private exertion in Ireland as now 
 depends on it in England. 
 
 In the whole of Ireland, exclusive of the present three dioceses 
 of Armagh, Down, and Dublin, there are only 283,000 members 
 of the Church. 
 
 These are scattered over less than 1,100 ecclesiastical (not 
 civil) parishes. If these parishes were grouped into 600, i.e., 
 with few exceptions grouped two into one, 283,000 souls would 
 give an average of few more than 450 parishioners to each 
 parish. But in not a few cases where Church people are very 
 thin, three or four parishes might rightly be grouped into one ; 
 and in most town parishes and all parishes in cities the Church 
 people are much more numerous, and count by hundreds and 
 even thousands, and there are some country parishes with ex-
 
 45 
 
 ceptionally large numbers. About one-sixth of these parishes 
 have thus over 500 Church people. As these are included in 
 the 283,000 souls, the average of country parishes after such 
 grouping would be less than 400 parishioners each, or eighty 
 families. 
 
 Now, are eighty families too many for one clergyman to 
 attend to, even though they may be scattered over a large area ? 
 I think clearly not ; and it is only the habits of the past state 
 of things that would make any difficulty in such cases. There 
 is a feeling in Ireland that a clergyman ought not to have hard 
 work, and has a right to cemplain if he has. The work that a 
 doctor or a lawyer does for the same income would be thought 
 too much for a clergyman. But this must be changed. 
 
 No doubt, if parishes are thus grouped, there will be cases in 
 which the area will be too large for efficient ministry. In 
 these the effort must be made to provide a curate. Probably 
 there will be a former glebe house and some land available for 
 him. Sometimes a landowner who is interested will provide a 
 salary or a large part of it. There will be Additional Curate 
 Societies to help. And where the case is really a strong one, 
 exertion will in time provide an endowment sufficient to enable 
 the parish to be divided. 
 
 Then as to bishoprics, good churchmen tell us ^e ought to 
 have plenty of bishops, more instead of fewer, and no doubt it 
 goes against one's Church feelings that bishoprics should be 
 suppressed. But in all Connaught there are no more than 
 about 40,000 Church people, and in the whole of Munster 
 80,000 — numbers much less than those in either of the dioceses 
 of Armagh, Down, or Dublin. Common sense is forced to 
 acknowledge that either the one or the other number is not too 
 many for the oversight of one bishop. It will be said the areas 
 of such bishoprics will be large. But even now railroads are 
 so spread that a bishop could travel over every part of Munster 
 in less time and at less expense than he could have travelled 
 through the diocese of Cork twenty-five years ago, and every ten 
 years is sure to see these facilities extended. 
 
 Incomes on an average of 300^. a year each to 600 parishes 
 would amount to 180,000^ If 20,000^. a year more was 
 added for endowing the bishoprics, &c., it will be seen that all 
 Ireland, except Armagh, Down, and Dublin, would be not ill- 
 provided for on 200,000^. a year. These three dioceses are 
 much the most wealthy parts of Ireland, and therefore the best 
 able to help themselves ; but add another 100,000L a year for 
 them, and thus for 300,000^ a year, just half the present income 
 of the Irish Church, a not very insufficient provision would be 
 made for the future, and I suppose there are very few who
 
 46 
 
 would grudge the Irish Church half its present income. If the 
 boasted liberality in regard to money that it is meant to show 
 on the treatment of the Church means anything at all, it can 
 hardly mean less than this. As far as my knowledge of the 
 country goes, the union of two parishes on an average into one 
 with well-arranged boundaries, and the other suggestions I 
 have made, could be carried out without injury to the Church. 
 
 I have made these statements, not as definite plans that can 
 be carried out without many modifications, but as sketches to 
 show in what direction our future arrangements necessarily lie. 
 If we get the liberal treatment that has been promised, in any 
 true sense, I think we have no reason to fear the result. It 
 will, perhaps, be thought that some things I have stated may be 
 taken advantage of by the opponents of the Church ; but I have 
 judged it better nevertheless openly to say them, as a fair com- 
 promise that will avoid the mischiefs of voluntaryism is all that 
 I and many other laymen desire, and plain dealing will best 
 approve itself to honest men. 
 
 In conclusion, I must express my conviction that peace ought 
 to be the first, and second, and third object of every measure 
 relating to Ireland, and that it is the indispensable condition of 
 all improvement there. Protestant ascendancy is no doubt 
 bad. But Eoman Catholic ascendancy is no better. It is pos- 
 sible to promote ascendancy by other means than by Establish- 
 ment and Endowment. If a great triumph is to be given to 
 one side or the other, it is not in human nature that peace 
 should be the result. The true mark to hit on all Irish ques- 
 tions, is that fair middle line that will remove all reasonable 
 and honest grounds of offence without giving in to sentimental 
 talk or jealous grudge, and that above all holds fast to sound 
 principles. 
 
 If those honest principles that have been hitherto acted on 
 by the British Parliament in all questions of pecuniary rights 
 are now departed from in the manner of dealing with the Irish 
 Church, instead of the settlement of the question being a step 
 towards peace, it will be a step towards increased religious 
 hatred and strife in Ireland. The furious ill-will and violence 
 the elections have already produced both in North and South 
 are surely warnings of the need of caution and moderation. 
 
 LissELAN, November 21, 1868.

 
 
 .^ 
 
 - >^^^.>j 
 
 ^«t% 
 
 
 ->'-.^- 
 
 /^itf*:* : ".