words of the Amendment without our knowing exactly what they are, and of our being compelled to ask you, Sir, to read the words over and over again as we proceed to discuss them. I therefore ask that these words might be distinctly put before us in print before we are called upon to discuss them that they should be printed in the Votes, in order that we may have an opportunity of fully considering them. That course, I feel convinced, will commend itself to every Member of this Committee. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There is one expression which has just fallen from my right hon. Friend which exactly touches the point. He first spoke of this as a great national settlement, and then immediately corrected himself by say ing it was a great national unsettlement.

MR. GLADSTONE: I said no such thing. I did not want to be interrupted by my right hon. Friend and others of his mind, and to avoid it I said "unsettlement," knowing the view he takes of the question.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Precisely so. The question before the Committee is the settlement or the unsettlement of the Irish Church. If it is to be a settlement of the question we ought to know what is to be done with the funds of the Church; and, if the object is to be unsettlement, it is an unstatesmanlike proceeding which we were told before was a desire to be in a position the better to settle it. It is hardly to be wondered at now that we have arrived at this point, that hon. Members who now begin to see the practical bearing of these Resolutions should begin to ask some questions, so as to endeavour to arrive at a clear conclusion as to what it is that is really to be done. It may be necessary to take a little further time to consider this Resolution. As the Amendments grow out of that which has already been passed. I do not see that any reproach attaches to those hon. Members who have been called on to consider Resolutions for the disestablishment of the Irish Church, for putting forward Amendments on which to test the sense of the Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE: Considering that the right hon. Baronet rose to reply to me I take the liberty of saying that he has not attacked one word that I said. I cast no reproach on the hon. Gentleman for proposing this Amendment; but I merely asked for time to consider it. And the demand for time is so equitable that even the right

hon. Baronet cannot decline to recommend it. I ought to recollect that the right hon. Gentleman's mind must be filled with the questions which he gave us distinct intimation he had within him, and which he intended to propose in Committee. He said he would oppose the first Resolution; if that was carried he would oppose the second Resolution; and after the second he would oppose the third Resolution; but the political exigencies came upon him which made the redemption of those pledges inconvenient, and we need not be surprised if a little of his pent-up matter has irregularly spent itself.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) complains that there is a disposition on the Ministerial side of the House to support Amendments not previously placed on the Paper; but is he not going to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) which has not been put on the Paper, and which was only placed in the Chairman's hands, in writing, a few minutes since? Allow me to point out also that, by the course adopted, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) has been precluded from altering his Resolution in a manner that would have commanded the support of the hon. Members for Brighton and Westminster (Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Stuart Mill). It does not, therefore, lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to tell the hon. Member that he is improperly seeking to ask the Committee to vote upon an important Amendment that has not been placed on the Paper. It is of the greatest importance that the Committee should be pledged on this point if we are to deal with the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland; because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), who filled the important office of Chief Secretary for Ireland told them, in an elaborate speech which he delivered the year before last, that the revenues of the Irish Church ought to be divided amongst other religious communities.

SIR GEORGE GREY: I thought, from what the right hon. Gentleman the first Minister of the Crown stated early in the evening, that it was the desire of the Government to avoid discussion on the main subject in order that the evening might be devoted to the progress of business which it was essential should be transacted; but the conduct of the Government during the last two hours has entirely negatived that sup

meant to be done? He had spoken of retaining the churches and the glebes for the Protestant Church. But how would that satisfy his followers who advocated total disendowment? Would the Gentlemen below the Gangway follow him in this? What distinction did he make between tithe and glebe? In some cases the glebes formed a large part of the income of the parsons; in others he spoke of tithes where there was scarcely any glebe. [Mr. GLADSTONE : I never said anything of glebe.] Then the right hon. Gentleman probably drew a distinction between the glebe and the glebehouse; but how would he separate the house from the glebe? On each side he was led, unintentionally, of course, into an appearance of disingenuousness. The right hon. Gentleman had given a sound of so uncertain a character that his supporters outside the House would to-morrow, when they read the debate, find themselves in a very anomalous position. They would see that the right hon. Gentleman, having taken away the revenues of the Established Church, still retained in his hands the power of distributing them among other denominations. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) had just said that, if the funds of the Church were to be applied to the endowment of the Roman Catholics he would have voted against the Resolutions. The hon. Member was equally in error on the point of Order. He supported that part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy which the Chairman said was out of order; but he felt a difficulty in supporting that which was in order. In fact the hon. Gentleman appeared to have been entrapped, by the course which this discussion had taken, into supporting a proposition, the tendency and results of which he did not approve.

MR. POWELL said, that whatever might be the result of this conversation, it had cast a broad light upon previous discussions respecting the Irish Church, and had shown that the further they advanced the greater were the difficulties in the way. There were various modes of conducting public proceedings, and the plan pursued by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was to carry his Resolutions and then withdraw the explanations which had accompanied and recommended his Resolutions. The explanations which the right hon. Gentleman had given had illustrated his meaning, and he had shadowed forth with more or less fulness various schemes. They had a denunciation of levelling up and a commendation of levelling down, and they had been told what portions of the Irish Church property should be retained and what would be required for other than existing interests. When, however, the Committee proceeded to carry into effect the spirit of the explanations by which the Resolutions were accompanied, then a different voice came from the other side, and they were told that they were not to proceed any further. If they disestablished the Irish Church they must disendow her, and they must also deal in a corresponding manner with the grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum. He was one of those who had never given a vote on the Maynooth question; but if the Irish Church was to be deprived of its revenues, then the question of Maynooth must be gone into, and, much as he should regret that the Presbyterians should lose their annual grant, the lesser must share the affliction of the larger denomination. Having passed these Resolutions it was plain that our difficulties had not come to an end. In fact, they had not yet been discovered, and as the House went into the details of the disestablishment of the Church they would find their difficulties increase and their embarrassments multiply.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, this was the first real and substantial bona fide discussion which they had had on the subject of disestablishment, for it had really brought out the merits of the question for the first time. It may be said that this was an attempt to obtain an indefinite and abstract Resolution by impulsive speeches, and to obtain powers over the funds of the Church without the House or the country knowing what was to be done with them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had declined to intimate anything with any certainty on the subject. Who knew what was

MR. SCOURFIELD said, that the House was landed in a confusion which was becoming still more confused already. He had always abstained from saying or doing anything which might excite religious animosity, and had always voted for the continuance of the Maynooth Grant, though opposed to the wishes of the constituency which he represented. There were two modes of disturbing the religions peace of a country--the one was by transferring the Church revenues from one denomination to another, the other by levelling downwards. But he contended that there was a third and better course for the House to follow, and that was to have a religion established which would exercise a perfect

toleration towards other religions. That was the best arrangement for the preservation of religious peace. But now they were beginning to quarrel over the spoils. His idea was that, if there was money to be had out of the Irish Church the lawyers and Commissioners would get the greater part of it. And, after all, how much did this money amount to? If he was not mistaken, it was only £447,000 a year, of which £380,000 alone was devoted to parochial endowments. But, in order to show how small a sum that was, whether absolutely or relatively, he would remind the Committee that the cost of the printing and stationery for Parliament this year was estimated at £395,000. He hoped, therefore that, in whatever spirit they discussed the question, it would not have ference to money. He had also a great objection to the use of the word "doomed." He could not bear to hear people speak, as if they were Pagans, about things being "doomed.'

MR. HIBBERT appealed to the hon. Member (Mr. Greene) to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!" He begged to direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact, that whatever words he might introduce into the Resolution, or whatever Resolutions might be passed by that House, it was the next Parliament that would have to say what was to be done.

MR. SCHREIBER said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not comply with the request of the hon. Member, as his Amendment would have exactly the same force as the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, which might express the opinion of the existing Parliament, but could not pretend to bind that which was to come. He remembered in the Session of 1866, when the right hon. Gentleman, at that time the Leader of the House, had not thought it inconsistent with his position to say of those sitting on the opposite Benches that they had exhibited "a perfect mastery of the arts of ambush." The time had come when he might retort, and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his perfect mastery of thearts of ambush." Now, when some one came behind him stealthily, and in the dark, and tried to stab him in the back, he would catch at the first weapon that came to his hand and try to knock him down with it. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was suddenly presented to him: he caught at it in his need, and would use it against the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. HERBERT remarked, that on his election, he was questioned respecting the Irish Church, and gave a decided opinion upon it.

MR. NEWDEGATE hoped the Amendment would be pressed, since the division upon it would be a test of the feeling of the Committee; but if the question had come upon Members by surprise the debate should be adjourned.

MR. WHALLEY, regarding the Amendment as a crucial test, moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Whalley.)

MR. DISRAELI hoped a decision would be at once arrived at, for, considering the state of public business, adjourned debates ought to be discouraged.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

added to the said proposed Amendment, as Question put, "That those words be amended."

The Committee divided :

Before the Tellers reported the numbers, Mr. Holden, Member for Knaresborough, came to the Table and stated that he had been in the House when the Question was