The Irish Church from the point of view of one of its layman

\

■■^.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*:* : ".