But perhaps it may be said the hon. Baro- | do you think you are going to purchase net did not represent the feelings of the their affection by adopting these ResoluRoman Catholics. I will, then, give you tions? I am going to leave the use of what was said by the representative of a flattering words to others, and to say that Catholic constituency (Limerick) in reply which I believe to be true. You ask me to Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, then Mem- what I believe to be the cause of the disber for Colchester, who had stated that the satisfaction which exists among the Irish ground on which he supported the mea- people? and my reply is-It is the result sure for the relief of the Roman Catholics of what you yourselves have done - it is was that it would lead to a combination the result of the sympathy you have shown between the Catholics and Dissenters for for revolution elsewhere to the moral the purpose of making a joint attack support, as it is called, you have given upon the Establishment of the Protestant to popular movements on the Continent. Church. And now you shall hear what Have we not heard some of those, who the calm man of Limerick of those days ought to have the greatest sense of the said. Mr. Spring-Rice saidresponsibility resting upon them, say that the majority of a nation is entitled to decide upon whatever form of Government it thinks the best? And, if that be true, no doubt the Roman Catholics in Ireland are entitled to the benefit of the argument. I have said that I have never joined in the cry of "No Popery!" I never had the least sympathy with Orangemen or Orange Lodges, as long as there was no attack made upon their religion—as long as their demonstrations could only be considered as offensive to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects and as long as they were acting on the offensive, instead of on the defensive. But I regard their assembling now, in order to protect their religion, as the proper discharge of their

"If this measure were likely to endanger the Protestant Church, or at all to trench upon its constitution, then he should think Catholic Emancipation a measure attended with danger."-[2 Hansard, xx. 812.]

He concluded by saying

"If the question were to go to a division on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for Colchester, position side of the House, and, he hoped, not a friend to the Established Church on either side, who would not unhesitatingly refuse his support to it."-[Ibid. 813.]

there was not a friend to the Catholics on the Op

-

Well, then, the Catholics accepted the relief on the terms it was offered to them on the Resolution providing security for the Protestant Church. But then I am told that times have changed since then, and no doubt I shall be accused of belong-duty as members of the Irish Protestant ing to that party which the present hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) called "stupid," who never keep pace with the times. Well, the times have changed; but that is exactly what I predicted, and surely it is no proof of stupidity in foreseeing what has occurred; at all events, I was wiser than the hon. Member for Westminster of those days, who said it never would occur. But the times are now going at such a rapid pace, and that not only without any control, but with a rivalry on the part of the Leaders, on both sides, who shall outstrip the times, bringing us so suddenly to such dangerous and unheard-of changes, that if any sensation novelist could have ventured to anticipate them, they would have appeared incredible. I will not venture to predict what they will not do; but this I will say-if these Resolutions be carried, the inevitable result will be the separation of the Church from the State in this country, and the repeal of the Union with Ireland. We are told that there are great masses of the Irish people dissatisfied with the Government;

Church, and as affording an example which Churchmen in this country would do well to follow. Members of the Established Church, in all parts of the country, should endeavour, by petitioning and by every constitutional means in their power, to put a stop to the progress of these ideas. It has been stated that this question can only be decided by a new Parliament, to be returned by the new constituencies. Now, I have always objected to the practice of constituencies extracting pledges from candidates with reference to the course they would pursue upon a particular political question on which their opinions might be altered by argument. But this question of the Irish Church is one of principle-it is a question of the Constitution of the country, of the Throne, and of the State; and I should advise every Protestant elector in both countries not only to extract from his candidate a statement as to his present feeling upon the subject, but also a pledge that he is not to be "educated" so as to change them. I have lately

been invited to join a new party, who, | Irish Church. It is suggested that the I think, call themselves Constitutionalists, issue of this debate may be to bring in a who profess to stand by the principles laid Liberal Government; but I say to the down in the now famous letter of the right Protestants of the Established Church, hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the "By no means give way to despair; be Treasury, addressed to Lord Dartmouth. strong and of good courage, and be not disAnd by the principles enunciated in that mayed; you have the examples before letter I hope that the writer will strictly you of 1835 and of 1859." The Liberal abide. But, Sir, when I ran my eye party have been referred to as the "enover the list of the vice presidents and gineers " and "pioneers" who clear the members of the association which I was road; but I rather look upon them as invited to join, I found that it consisted guide-posts which point out the road-and of only my old friends the Conserva- a very bad road it often is-but who never tives under a new name. Now, I do not advance one inch themselves. It may be like changing names. I am always sus- said that I am about to raise the old cry picious of persons having a great many of "No surrender," and as far as the conaliases. When I found that my friends nection between Protestant Church and the Constitutionalists were the very people State in Ireland is concerned I join most who, in my opinion, destroyed the Consti- heartily in that cry. Upon the subject of tution last year, I had no wish to enrol the "modification of the temporalities,"myself among them. No, Sir, if I am whatever that phrase may mean-I do obliged to go back and change my name, not believe that there is one man in a I would much rather go back to that un- hundred who would not be inclined to do der which I was brought up-that of the away with the anomalies mentioned by good old Tories. They, I believe, were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the best Constitutionalists, and the best South Lancashire. But I think it will be supporters of our Constitution, both as quite time enough to decide that point regards Church and State. I was not in when we see the Report of the Royal the least surprised at the warmth and Commission now sitting to inquire into energy with which my noble Friend the subject. We can easily decide what near me (Viscount Cranborne) opposed the shall be done with any surplus revenue Amendment brought forward by the Go- not required by the Irish Church when vernment as explained by the speech of we have ascertained what that surplus is. the noble Lord who moved it. It is diffi- I am guided on this point by the opinion cult, if not impossible, to know what that of Sir Robert Peel. In the course of the Amendment means. It might mean no- debate upon the Appropriation Act of thing; it might mean anything; or it 1835 the then hon. Member for Derbymight mean everything. The way I read it shire quoted from Captain Macheath, was this:-That the Cabinet was not yet whereupon Sir Robert Peel turned round entirely converted; that the party behind and said, "He was a much cleverer man them was not sufficiently educated; and than you are, for he never appropriated that the proposal of the Government, as his surplus until he ascertained that he explained by the noble Lord, was this: had got it." I am content to act upon "Go thy way this time; when I have a that principle, and to wait until I hear more convenient season I will call for the Report of the Royal Commission. you;" and that the destruction of the Meanwhile, I shall meet both the proposal Irish Church might prove hereafter to of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and be one of those Conservative triumphs the Amendment of the noble Lord with a which the right hon. Gentleman the First direct negative. Lord of the Treasury promised the party. But I was quite relieved from that impression by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. As long as that right hon. Gentleman sits upon that Bench which he adorns-and I hope that he will continue to sit there for a very long time-I shall feel perfectly safe, because I know that no Government of which he is a Member could propose the disestablishment of the

MR. LOWE: I have listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) with great pleasure, for two reasons: first, because he promised us his vote; and, next, because I derived additional conviction of the strength of our case from finding that his feelings in our favour are so deeply rooted that he is about to give us that vote in despite of every argument that he used against us. I will not occupy the

difference between the numbers of the members of the Church of England in this country and in Ireland, and then recollect that there are twelve Bishops belonging to the Irish Church. I am reminded, in pointing attention to these facts, of the linesIf, in England, for three million souls 'tis conceded

Two proper-sized Bishops are all that is needed;

'Tis plain, for the Irish half-million who want 'em,

One-third of a Bishop is just the right

quantum."

time of the House in commenting upon the speech of the hon. and learned Member, because he entirely answered himself, and sometimes even went so far as to answer his own answer. I wish to draw the attention of the House rather more directly than has been done by recent speeches to the subject before us. If we take the Census of 1861 as our guide, we shall find that every 100 average Irishmen are divided in this manner-seventy-eight will be Roman Catholics, who have no assistance at all towards the support of their religion; twelve will be members of the If the Irish were to have Bishops in the Irish Church, as it is called, who receive same proportion as the English, they should, State assistance towards the support of instead of twelve Bishops, have one-third their religion; nine will be Presbyterians, of a Bishop, or something like that. who receive an endowment or bribe, in People talk of the danger of trusting the order to induce them to acquiesce in the Church in a country like Ireland to volunexistence of the State Church; and 1 tary efforts. Why, Ireland is, par excelper cent will consist of waifs and strays lence, the country of voluntaryism. What made up of other and minor sects. can be a stronger instance of that prinThere is a simple eloquence about these ciple than a country in which 78 per cent figures which goes to my heart when I of the people pay every shilling that is mention them, and the most elaborate raised for their religion? It is not beargument can scarcely add to their force. cause you insult that voluntaryism by They do not, however, by any means state placing side by side with it this pompous the whole case against the Irish Church. and overgrown Establishment that you The 12 per cent who belong to the Estab- alter the real feeling of the community; lished Church are, upon the whole, the and, do what we will, it will remain a richest part of the Irish community, and country of voluntaryism. The question are therefore the best able to maintain an before you is, whether you will consent Establishment of their own, while the 78 to go hand and hand with that feeling, or per cent who belong to the Roman Catholic will strive to overshadow it by the pomp Church, and who receive nothing, form of the Irish Establishment? Then I supthe poorest part of the Irish community, pose that the use of the Establishment and are the least able to maintain a Church must be to make people better. Can anyof their own. It is impossible to recur to one, can any reasonable man, believe that these facts without being reminded of Dives the Irish Establishment is calculated to and Lazarus; only Lazarus was allowed to make anyone better? What good qualities eat of the crumbs which fell from the rich is it to educe? Is it likely to make the man's table, while the Irish Lazarus gets Catholics better when they feel that it has nothing whatever. The case, however, goes been taken from them; if not as a badge still further; for this inequality, instead of of conquest, certainly as a badge of rebeing smoothed over, is greatly exagge- conquest? They must be more than rated by all the external manifestations human if they do not compare with feelthat are possible. The Church of the 12 ings of discontent the poverty and homeper cent is not only endowed, but it is liness of their own worship with the pomp Established. The Queen is its head-its and splendour of the worship of the miBishops sit by rotation in the House of nority. Is it the Protestants whom you exLords-it has Ecclesiastical Courts estab-pect to make better, by accustoming them lished and maintained at the public expense to decide ecclesiastical questions arising among this small body; and it has an Establishment altogether so superfluous and so monstrous as if it was intended to point and give sting to the inequality that already existed. Just look at the difference between the state of things in this country and in Ireland. Look at the

to the selfishness and the disregard of the feelings and rights of their neighbours, which are inseparable from the condition of a dominant minority. Then is it a wise thing that such an Establishment should continue to exist? Is it wise that, after we have one by one struck off the fetters of the Irish Roman Catholics, we should leave these last two or three to gall and

and go on evoking our sympathies as you have over and again attempted to do for a pampered minority-a minority pampered at the expense of a poorer majority, and that we should listen to arguments which appear to ignore the existence of any Irish beyond the pale of the Church? But there are other circumstances, I think, which justify us in the course we have adopted. We have got a new Government, and a new Government that do not come to us in the guise of a Conservative Government, but as a truly Liberal Government. Now, the Chief Secretary made this observation in his speech with regard to the Protestant Church. He dealt with two subjects, one was that of education and the other was the Church. Now, this is what he said, and this is what is given us, the Liberal party, as a truly Liberal doctrine with regard to Ireland

"The Question must be dealt with in a very different spirit from that which advocates entire abolition."-[3 Hansard, cxc. 1393.] He continued

"Confiscation is the worst proposal that can be made, either as regards the Church or the land."

jingle, so as continually to remind those | think that after what was done last year, whom we wish to conciliate of the suffer- in the cause of equality, you can have ings they formerly endured? Is it wise, recourse to your old stock arguments, by a constant reference to the date of that Church's birth, to recall to the recollection of the Irish Roman Catholics a period when those without the pale were regarded by the Protestants as creatures scarcely human, and when the Church was imposed upon them, without the slightest regard to their wishes, their feelings, their traditions, or their devotion? I can scarcely imagine any course more imprudent, if we really desire to conciliate Ireland, than to stand, as the right hon. and gallant General (General Peel) recommends us to do, doggedly by this Establishment. We may rely upon this, that, by whatever means we may attempt to conciliate the Irish Roman Catholics, it is a conditio sine qua non to our success that we should fully acknowledge that they are our equals in political status, a thing which they never can feel while this Establishment is maintained. The proportion of Protestants and Episcopalians to the Roman Catholics in Ireland is pretty much the same as if with twoand-a-half millions of Catholics, twoand-a-half millions of Englishmen were Roman Catholics, and that the Pope, or some foreign Power which we could not-[Ibid. 1394.] resist, forced upon us an Establishment surrounded with every circumstance of pomp and power for the benefit of those people, and that the Protestants were left to provide for their own religion. should say that nothing but main force should induce us to bear it, and if we submitted to any other means we should deserve and receive the contempt of the world. This being the state of the case with regard to the Irish Church, we are asked with an air of triumph why this side of the House has moved in this matter now? The question should rather be, why have we not moved long ago? I have never entertained a doubt on this subject, and never shall. There have been those, however, who have led this party who have thought differently. But the times have changed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) deplores the changes that are coming. But what is this change? The shadow that has fallen over you in this matter is created by the fire you kindled last year. ["Oh, oh!"] Do you suppose that you can meddle with the institutions of the country without its producing its natural effects? Do you

We

I am not canvassing the justice of the noble Lord's statement. I merely wish to show you what the manifesto of the Government was on the Irish Church Question. Then he says

"The despoiled, if confiscation were agreed on, would feel much more sorely than those to whose position they were brought; and I am sure that the statesman who proposed to give peace to Ire

land at the expense of the Irish Church, would create few additional friends of British rule, and would not fail to alienate a large and influential party to whom we are bound by every tie that is sacred."-[p. 1394.]

I do not deny that he spoke in that respect the language which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been accustomed to hear and cheer on this subject, language that goes home to their feelings, and I am not now arguing against the justice of what be says. But what I maintain is, that in this language and in this speech hon. Members on this side will not recognize what they have been accustomed to regard as truly Liberal sentiments. And when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government appeals to us to support his Government on the ground that it is truly Liberal, and when we are furnished with this as a specimen, we are challenged to