Irish church question : speech delivered in the House of Commons on March 19, 1869

^iM

? •»• rS»V'y< ■ V'"'- . ' -. i' 'i

'BR
[796
B21i

BALL

IRISH CHURCH QUESTION

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

lEISH CHURCH QUESTION.

SPEECH

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON MARCH 19, 1869,

RIGHT HON. JOHN T. BALL, LL.D.

Pffmkr for t^e Itnihrsifg of ^ttbltit.

{CORRECTED.)

WITH AN APPENDIX.

HonUoiT,
RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE;

TEINITT STREET,

eCamtiri^igc.
Dublin: HODGES, FOSTER, & Co.
1869.

UIGH STEEET,

©xfortr.

Price One SJiilling.

Ex Libris
C. K. OGDEN

IRISH CHURCH QUESTION.

SPEECH

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON MARCH 19, 1869,

BY THE

EIGHT H0:N. JOHN T. BALL, LL.D.

P^fmkr for t^c Itni&trsitg oi ^itblin.

(CURHJiCTED.)

WITH AN APPENDIX.

HonKon,
EIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE ;

HIGH STllEET, I TRINITY STREET,

©ifort. I CCambritjgc.
Dublin: HODGES, POSTER, & Co.
18C9.

SPEECH,

Mr. Speaker,

There are in Ireland three great religious
denominations — the Protestant Episcopalian, the
Eoman Catholic, and the Presbyterian. These
three denominations are so pre-eminent, not only
in comparison with others, but intrinsically in
themselves, in numbers, in intellectual cultivation,
in social power and influence, as to induce the
Dean of Westminster to view them as three
Churches co-extensive with three nations, English
Scotch and Irish in their origin, inhabiting the
same country.

Of these three Churches one only, the Protestant
Episcopalian Church, possesses separate property
derived from public sources. The Presbyterian
Church derives an income from an annual grant
out of the revenues of the Imperial Treasury.
The Roman Catholic Clmrch has no income of any
kind from property derived from public sources
or from any contribution by the Imperial Govern-
ment; but it does receive some pecuniary as-

A 2

19<:35-2D

4 SPEECH.

sistance bestowed by tlie State towards the in-
struction and education of its Clergy.

Sir, I do not agree \nth the right hon. gentleman
at the head of the Government, when he says that
the grants to the Presbyterian Church and to the
Roman Catholic College of Maynooth are connected
with and designed to aid the maintenance of the
Established Church in Ireland. I cannot accept
his description of them as buttresses of that Church.
Such expressions may have either of two meanings.
They may mean that this is the only rational ground
upon which a statesman could support these grants,
or that historically, as a matter of fact, this was the
ground upon which statesmen have given and sup-
ported them. I take issue in reference to both
meanings ; I controvert them both. I say that the
grants to Maynooth and to the Presbyterian Church
were made, not for this object, but in order, in the
case of the former, to improve the education of the
Roman Catholic Clergy ; in the case of the latter to
improve the social condition of the Presbyterian
Clergy ; by these means in both to elevate the
standard of religious instruction ; and I say, further,
that no reason such as that which has been assigned
by the right hon. gentleman, was given by the states-
men who originally proposed or since increased these
grants.

Sir, the annual payment to the Presbyterians
popularly known as the Pegium Donum, owes its
origin to King WilHam III., who originally j&xed it
as a charge on the Customs of Belfast. That
monarch was not animated in the shghtest degree
by the motive of raising up a protection for the

SPEECH. 5

Protestant Episcopalian Churcli. He had, indeed,
no special leaning to Episcopacy, and abandoned it
witli little reluctance in Scotland. He gave the
grant, first, because in the contest between himself
and James, the Presbyterians had adhered to him ;
and secondly, because educated on the Continent,
and not much versed in our theological divisions, he
had little preference for one system of Protes-
tantism rather than another, and thought it was the
duty of the nation to be on terms of alliance with all.
The grant has been increased since the Union, and
brought to its present amount by gradual accessions :
but the interest of the Established Church was
neither the real motive for the increase nor put
forward as the reason.

The grant to the College of Maynooth was
made by the Irish Parliament about five years
before the Union. What grounds were assigned
for the grant ? The Irish Roman Catholic Clergy
had up to that time ;been principally educated
abroad. Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, and the
Government of that day, feared that if this
continued, they would during their education be
exposed to the influence of Hepublican principles
then prevalent on the Continent. To avert this,
and provide the means of their education at home,
the College of Maynooth was founded. "Well, if such
was its origin, what, let us inquire, were the motives
for its increase ? In 1813 the grant was increased,
and what reasons were assigned for so doing ? Cer-
tainly no such reason as the necessity for protecting
the Established Church. Tlie grant was described
as a legacy bequeathed by the Irish Parliament along

6 SPEECH.

with the Union: just as in 1812 Mr. Perceval ex-
plained his view to be that Great Britain was bound
to it with the Union, adding that as the Irish Par-
liament had given the grant it was the duty of the
Imperial Parliament to continue it. I now come to
1845, the last time when the question was before
the House. On that occasion the abstract prin-
ciples on which the Maynooth Grant ought to be
maintained were developed, not only by that great
statesman, Sir Hobert Peel, who brought forward
the measure, but also by the right lion, gentleman
who is now at the head of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment. Sir Robert Peel laid down precisely the
same principles which I have just remarked ought
to animate the House in dealing with these grants ;
viz. that they should be given in a large and gene-
rous spirit of confidence, for the improvement of
the education of the Roman Catholic Clergy and
the elevation of their social position. The right
lion, gentleman the present Prime Minister himself
took a prominent part on that occasion, and sup-
ported an increase of the pre\4ous annual allowance.
He resigned office rather than, as a Minister of
the Crown, bring forward the bill, in order that he
might act in a more free and unfettered manner
than he could have done if he had remained in office.
I have read with great care the speech which the
right hon. gentleman delivered on that occasion,
and it appears to me to indicate a conviction in the
right hon. gentleman's mind that the passing of
that measure would be attended mtli another great
result, and that it would be impossible to bring
forward again in the parliament of England a mere

SPEECH. 7

religious objection to the endowment of the Roman
Catholic Church.

Sir, I take leave to add to the summary which
I have given of the origin of the Regium Donum and
Maynooth Grant, a word upon the mode in which
the Established Church in Ireland derives its
separate property. The right of the Protestant
EjDiscopal Church to the tithe and land in Ireland
arises from, and is founded upon, an Act of Par-
liament. It is a vulgar error to suppose that an Act
was passed in direct words, saying in effect that we
transfer from a religious body certain property —
such religious body known as the Roman Catholic
Church — to another religious body known as the
Protestant Episcopal Church. That is not the
frame of the Act — the second of Elizabeth — to
which I refer. In effect it may have done this ;
but the mode of proceeding was by providing
that the holders of benefices should conform to
the Liturgy of the Prayer Book of the Church of
England, and by obliging all lay persons to attend
church every Sunday, when the service of the
Church of England was performed. The result
has been that the obligation of conforming to the
Liturgy has existed from that hour to the present.
The incumbents of benefices must necessarily be
members of the Church of England, holding the
same doctrine as that Church.

A word, sir, also, on the amount of the property
of the Established Church in Ireland. Takino- it
from all sources it amounts to between 600,000/.
and 700,000/. a year. The right lion, gentleman
at the head of the Government seemed in liis

8 SPEECH.

statement to imply tliat tlie Churcli Commissioners
had underrated it wlien tliey estimated it at
616,000Z. But tlie mode in which they arrived
at that sum was by subtracting from the tithe
rent-charge the expenses of collection and the actual
poor-rate which in 1866 was, according to the laws
in force in Ireland, deducted by the landlords of
Ireland from the incumbents. In the same report
of the Commissioners you will find on the face of
it that if you take the income without the deduc-
tion, estimating it, if I may so express it, as it
comes from the soil, and include lands in actual pos-
session of the incumbents, their estimate amounts to
about 700,000Z. a year. This income provides re-
ligious ministration for nearly 700,000 members in
communion with the Establishment, spread over an
area of about twenty millions of acres, and also
maintains the fabrics of the churches, and supplies
every requisite of divine service.

Sir, the Bill of Her Majesty's Government de-
prives the Protestant Episcopal Churcli of this
property, terminates the grant for the Presbyterian
Clergy, and v*dthdraws all pecuniary assistance from
the College of Maynooth. It affirms, in unqualified
terms, as the principle of your ecclesiastical ar-
rangements in Ireland, that no religious system
shall receive any endowment whatever from public
sources ; that each and all shall henceforth depend
and subsist exclusively upon voluntary contributions.

Before proceeding to consider the wisdom of
this policy, I must express dissatisfaction with the
way in which one part of the Bill has been intro-
duced to the notice of hon. members — I mean that

SPEECH. y

part of it which relates to the preservation of vested
Hfe interests. I do not mean to contend that the
Government have in so many words said, " We are
acting with great generosity in deahng with these
interests as we propose to do," bnt I do say
that they have not, as expHcitly as they ought,
acknowledged that in preserving vested life interests
they were doing nothing more than a simple act of
justice. I challenge any lion, gentleman to adduce
one sentence from any jurist or from any historian
or statesman of authority relating to life interests,
such as those with which this bill deals, that does not
speak of them as being as sacred and as inviolable
as the fee-simple which any individual proprietor in
this House possesses. And while challenging a
contrary authority, I shall cite in support of what
I affirm, one whose writings are eminently charac-
terized by a philosophic and expanded spirit, —
Mackintosh, — who, when discussing the propriety
of the conduct of Henry YIII. with respect to the
monasteries, and under what circumstances property
such as theirs might be dealt with, laid down that
" the sacredness of the life estates is an essential
condition of such a measure." It is, I s^j, a pre-
liminary without which, except on pain of violating
the first and plainest duty of a just ruler, you cannot
move.

I divest, then, the discussion on which I am enter-
ing of all further consideration of the life interests
of existing incumbents. I concede to you not the
slightest acknowledgment of generosity on the
ground of any provisions made for those wlio hold
them, whether that be by strict legal proprietary

10 SPEECH.

ownership, or, as in the case of the Presbyterian
ministers and the professors and officers at May-
nooth, upon a reasonable expectation of continuance
by ParHamentary action — and I assert that your bill
errs in the principle which it adopts, and fails in the
adjustments of existing relations requisite for the
introduction of that principle.

Sir, the principle involved in this bill is the prin-
ciple of voluntaryism ; by which I mean that the
State declares it has no connexion with any Church
or other religious organization, either in the way of
control or encouragement; that no endowment or
pecuniary assistance derived from public sources
shall remain with any Church or religious organi-
zation; that each and all must be self-governed
and self-maintained.

Sir, it appears to me that the question which the
House must at the end of this debate answer, is not
merely whether the question of the Irish Church
demands to be dealt with by express legislation, but
whether in dealing with it we are prepared to introduce
the principle of voluntaryism as the guide for our eccle-
siastical arrans^ements. True the bill is confined to
Ireland, and its advocates limit their observations to
Ireland; but can the consequences of the adoption
of the principle of the bill be confined to Ireland ?
Consider the motives which induce you to review
your ecclesiastical arrangements in that country ;
compare the position of your own Church Establish-
ment and of the Scotch Church Establishment mth
the Irish Establishment. You allege as the motive
for interfering in Ireland that a large majority of the
population dissent from and are discontented with

SPEECH. 11

tlie existence of tlie Established Cliurcli, that its
social position and endowed wealth are both objects
of jealousy to their sensitive pride. It appears to
me that it is not merely because there is a majority
— if the majority were reckoned by thousands you
would not act — it is because the dissenting portion
of the community amounts to a large number — to
more than four millions. If that be considered a
sufficient justification for such a measure as the pre-
sent, let me ask how can we avoid reviewing our
ecclesiastical establishments in Scotland and in
England ? What is the position of Scotland in this
respect ? We have an endowed Church there and a
Free Church, nearly equal in numbers — in addition
we have another Church of Presbyterians severed
from both, and lastly a dissenting Church of Episco-
palians. I am not aware there is more content in all
the dissenting Churches of Scotland with the en-
dowments of the Kirk, than there is amongst the
Roman Catholic and dissenting bodies in Ireland in
regard to the endowments of the Established
Church. Look, then, at Wales. There the dis-
senters greatly preponderate. If so, why does not
the reason on which you justify tliis legislation in
regard to Ireland equally apply to Wales ? Lastly,
come to the endowed Church in England. The
Establishment, no doubt, represents a majority; but
the minority of Nonconformists is very large in
number and very powerful in action. Its members
seem to me animated by a stronger feeling of an-
tagonism, and to manifest that antagonism by much
more active measures against the Church, than the
Roman .Catholics in Ireland. Dealing with a mino-

1 2 SPEECH.

rity not very mucli inferior in numbers to the majo-
rity, how are you to answer its demand of respect
for conscientious scruples, and removal of social
inequalities connected with religion, if you concede
these as your motives of action ? Indeed, for myself,
I cannot understand how the principle of religious
equality is at all aJBTected by comparative numbers ;
or if it be a right, on what ground a denomination
of one million or one hundred thousand is not as
much entitled to it as one of four millions.

Sir, it is the nature of a principle of action capable
of universal application, when once adopted, to pro-
pagate itself and grow and expand progressively.
There is also a tendency in legislation to persevere
in any direction once approved. Place any portion
of the kingdom under any peculiar system, it will
generally be found that this portion will desire the
extended introduction of what has been imposed upon
itself. I fear, therefore, that if this Bill shall pass,
little support will be given from Scotland and less
from Ireland to Establishments any where. In-
deed, I see already in Ulster indications that those
whom you are now despoiling of what they believe
their rights, will endeavour to bring others into the
same position in which they find themselves placed.
Do not, then, imagine that you can confine 3'our
views to Ireland. Every where this is a period of
transition, and the future must depend upon the
principles you now adopt, and in which your ex-
ample will inevitably educate the public mind.

Sir, at various times various plans have been put
forward in reference to our ecclesiastical arransfe-
ments in Ireland, but until the resolutions of last

SPEECH. Id

year in no instance was the voluntary system sug-
gested. In 1800 Mr. Pitt introduced into the Act
of Union a declaration that the Protestant Epis-
copal Church of Ireland was to continue one in
doctrine, discipline, and government with the Church
of England. Mr. Pitt, however, proposed to ac-
company this declaration with other measures. One
was Roman Catholic emancipation, and the other was
the endowment of the Roman Catholic Clergy and
the elevation of their social status. Policy similar to
Mr. Pitt's was advocated by Lord Francis Egerton in
1825, when supported by a large number, including
some of the most eminent members, the noble lord
induced this House, by a considerable majority, to
declare that the State ought to make some contribu-
tion towards the maintenance of the religious teachers
of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Again in 1845
Sir R. Peel came forward in reference to the College
of Maynooth, confirming, supporting, and by the
weight of his great authority endeavouring to fix
on the mind of the public principles in harmony
with the policy originated by Mr. Pitt. And not
only has no measure adopting the voluntary system
ever until last year been proposed to Parliament, but
until then this policy could not adduce in its support
the name of any one worthy to be called a states-
man, with the brilliant exception, I admit, of the
President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright), or
cite the name of a single great writer as its advo-
cate. And when the right hon. gentleman at the
head of the Government comes forward and an-
nounces this novel policy, we are led to inquire when
he himself first gave his adhesion to it as the

14 SPEECH.

true mode of adjusting our ecclesiastical arrange-
ments. Sir, tlie right hon. gentleman in liis Auto-
biography, a work characterized by all the eminence,
and let me freely say the peculiarities of his genius,
has given us a thread to guide us through the
labyrinth of his political movements, and referred to
his conduct in 1845 on the Maynooth Grant as the
crisis of his political opinions, and to his speech on
that occasion as an exposition of a change in them.
Now having read that speech carefully, I think it
points in the direction of endowment of the Roman
Catholic Church, and not of the voluntary system.
If that was not so, what was meant by telling the
House, " I do not say that this grant virtually decides
upon the payment of the Roman Catholic priests of
Ireland by the State ; but I do not deny that it dis-
poses of the religious objections to such a project"?
Sir, I have said that the voluntary system has
no great name but that of the right honourable
gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to
support it, along with the members of the Govern-
ment who have since followed him in upholding this
policy. It is equally remarkable that there is not a
single European nation that has adopted it. Europe
is at the head of the civilization of the world. It
contains great varieties of government, of religion ;
it contains Protestant States, Roman Catholic States,
free States, despotic States ; but in not one have you
the voluntary system established or recognized. Now
when a totally new line of policy is proposed for
adoption, it is no immaterial fact that all the weight
of statesmanlike authority and the practice of all
the most civilized Governments are against it.

SPEECH. 15

Sir, tlie objections to the voluntary system have
been so often stated, that I shall sum them up
briefly. The voluntary system fails in securing either
universality or permanence of religious ministration ;
and inevitably leads to a deterioration in the quality
of the instruction given by that ministration. It
fails, I say, to secure universality of spiritual care ;
for, as every one knows, each teacher under that
system confines his attention to his own congregation,
and consequently the mass of ignorance, and vice,
and irreligion, which belongs to none, must remain
neglected and unnoticed. It fails to secure perma-
nence, because in periods of religious coldness and
depression the voluntary system, which depends for
its success upon the fervour of its supporters, grows
with them cold, apathetic, and inefficient. The more
man needs, the less he seeks, the rehgious teacher.
Missions are supported not by those who receive but
those who send them. Voluntaryism too deteriorates
the quality of the instruction given, because it makes
the teacher dependent on those whom he instructs,
and obliged by the exigency of his position to reduce
his tone of thought to their level, rather than to
raise theirs to his. Able as the ministers whom it
produces often are, very few of them are charac-
terized either by independence of spirit or elevation
of thought.

If the voluntary system is objectionable on these
abstract grounds, it is peculiarly objectionable when
you propose to apply it to an old country. We are
all creatures of habit. Every man is influenced by
the circumstances of the country in which he is
born, the system under which he lives, the character

16 SPEECH.

of the social life about him. The inhabitants of the
old European kingdoms are not brought up accus-
tomed to meet the demands of ministers who give
religious instruction in return for voluntary contri-
butions. They have no organization for such a pur-
pose ; their habits are not trained to it. These general
difficulties in the way of a successful working of the
system apply to Ireland in common with other coun-
tries. There are some peculiar to itself. What is
the acknowledged tendency of the voluntary system ?
What do its advocates claim as a merit ? That it
increases religious fervour. Why that is another
way of saying that it magnifies theological distinc-
tions, that it increases denominational differences,
that it makes every sect an aggressor against its
neighbouring sect, upon the subject of religion. To
my mind the amount of theological strife and con-
troversy which already exists in Ireland is among,
not its advantages, but its misfortunes. The Govern-
ment are about to intensify it. I agree with Arch-
bishop Whately, when he said, " introduce the
voluntary system in Ireland, and you will have two
great religious camps, with clerical sentinels pacing
to and fro between them to prevent their followers
straying from either to the other." Again, there is
a second reason why the voluntary system is pecu-
liarly unsuitable for Ireland. One of its calamities
is an irremediable calamity ; I refer to absenteeism.
From that country is withdrawn the social influence
of many large landed proprietors, and their incomes
are expended by them elsewhere. Good landlords
these absentee proprietors are ; admirable managers
of their own estates ; but by no means equally ready

SPEECH. 17

to contribute to objects of general bounty and benevo-
lence. Tliis absenteeism, I say, pre-eminently unfits
Ireland for the introduction of the voluntary system.
At present the tithe rent-charge operates as a sort
of indirect tax upon the absentees, and by providing
for a resident clergyman, in some degree, affords
compensation to the country. You take that away.
It will go to increase the wealth of the absentees ;
and in vain will you call upon them for an equivalent
of voluntary contribution for the purposes of a re-
ligious instruction which they personally obtain else-
where. Terminate the Establishment, and you lose the
stipend of a resident gentleman in every parish ; you
lose the power of forcing the absentees through him
to make some return to the soil, from which they
extract so much, and for which they do so little.

Sir, we have been told in this debate of the
success of the voluntary system in the Colonies.
But is it certain that there is in any colony a
purely voluntary system successful ? In Canada,
for example, the Church at this moment possesses
very considerable endowments. First, the capi-
talization of the life estates of the clergy, under
the colonial statute (from which the idea of the
present policy was borrowed), realized, owing to
peculiar local circumstances, a considerable property,
not for the individuals, but the whole clergy. This
property is now funded, and, owing to the high rate
of interest in Canada, produces a considerable income.
Again, in another particular, which has been by
many overlooked, the Canadian Church is not
altogether dependent on the voluntary system.
The Clergy Reserves Act was not the only Act

18 SPEECH.

in Canada dealing with the Cliurcli. An Act of
George III. enabled tlie Crown to empower the
Governor to found rectories and endow them
with land and property quite apart from the Clergy
Reserves. These rectories, or the property belong-
ing to them, were never taken fi^om the Church. At
the date of Lord Durham's report there were fifty-
seven such rectories, the entire number of clergy
at present in Canada being about four hundred ;
how many more of these rectories were after-
wards created I do not know. The property of
these rectories has turned out valuable. Then
other circumstances also contributed to the success
of this plan in Canada. Previous to the passing of
the measure, there had been meetings for some years
in anticipation of it. No one, indeed, who had read
Lord Durham's report, which was issued long before
the Act secularizing the Reserves passed, could fail
to see that at some period or other the Clergy
Reserves would be dealt with. In anticipation, there-
fore, synods and meetings were held, by means of
which voluntary contributions had been raised and
accumulated for the benefit of the Church. From
these various causes, the Canadian Church at this
moment is not in the position to which you seek to
reduce the Irish Church — namely, a Church depen-
dent solely on the voluntary system. Then as to the
colony of Victoria, I find in the Act regulating the
Civil Service of that colony that 50,000/. a year
forms a fund for public worship. Last year the
Colonial Office made a return to this House of the
incomes of the colonial bishops, and it appears that
the Bishop of Melbourne is paid £1000/. a year out

SPEECH. 19

of this Public Worship Fund. The same return
shows that other AustraUan bishops receive an
income from similar public sources. Therefore the
Australian is not a system of entire and pure volun-
taryism; and, if it were, I am not prepared, after
having made inquiries of persons who have resided
there, to point to the state of religion and the
state of the ministers of religion in that colony, as
an example for any country to follow. I admit that
the United States of America afford an example of
a perfectly voluntary system ; but what is the con-
dition of religion under it ? I refer to Mr. Hepworth
Dixon's account of the social condition of the
country to answer that question. (Dissent from the
Ministerial benches.) Well, if Mr. Dixon be rejected
as an authority, refer me to any of weight which
views the religious condition of that country as
satisfactory. But it may be said why refer to
foreign countries when there is an example of a
voluntary system at home ? The Roman Catholic
Church is wholly maintained by voluntary con-
tributions, without the slightest assistance from
public sources. Living in habits of intimacy with
Roman Catholics in Ireland, I shall take the
liberty of speaking with perfect freedom on this
question. No man who knows me will imagine
that in what I say I, mean any disrespect to Roman
Catholics or to the ministers of the Roman Catholic
Church. And accordingly, using the liberty I
have claimed, I say that some matters con-
nected with that Church are not satisfactory,
and originate, in my opinion, in its state of de-
pendence upon the voluntary system. Exemplary

B 2

20 SPEECH.

as are the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland,
and zealous in the discharge of their duty, yet it
is true that they are taken from a class of society
to which I consider that the supply of religious
instructors ought not to be confined. The religious
teachers of a nation should represent every class ;
they should be on intimate and equal terms with
every class. But among the parochial Roman
Catholic Clergy of Ireland there are few of birth,
or station, or high education. In the monastic
orders, indeed, I have known several of high birth
and station, and some possessing considerable pro-
perty. Now what is the reason of this ? I go
abroad, and take the case of North Germany. I
find there, among the Roman Cathohc Clergy, many
persons of family and education, and it is the same
in other Continental countries. Then how are we
to account for the different state of things in
Ireland ? Sir, the reason is obvious, persons of
refined habits and culture reluctantly accept a
position which compels them to exact small and
minute payments from humble persons. In every
Church I believe this feeling prevails. In every
Church I believe that the class of persons entering
the ministry will deteriorate the moment they are
forced to exchange the independence of endowment
for subsistence on bounty, and in order to extract that
bounty, must descend to a subserviency of thought
and opinion, often even to arts and practices, which
an eminent French writer has not hesitated to cha-
racterize as a system of ecclesiastical mendicancy.

Voluntaryism then, I repeat, has nothing to
recommend it any where, is peculiarly unsuited

SPEECH. 21

to Ireland, and if introduced as the principle of
ecclesiastical arrangement there, will spread its in-
fluence against all your other religious establish-
ments. And it is, I own, this last consideration,
this danger to the Church in England, which I
believe imminent, that in my judgment makes the
question now before the House of enormous magni-
tude, and the measure which has been proposed
by the Government, the most important in its conse-
quences of any that since the Union have been sub-
mitted to the Imperial Parliament.

Sir, I am of the number of those who attribute to
the incorporation of religious influence with civil
government, which is known as the union of Church
and State, in no small degree the glory and the
greatness of England. This it is which has infused
into the public service the feeling that power is a
trust, the exercise of power a duty, and that in
respect of both there arises a responsibility to
the great Author and Founder of society. • I need
not remind the House how tliis subject has been
treated, and, like every other subject which he
touched, exhausted by my great countryman, Burke,
— how he has pictured the Commonwealth and
all the offices within it thus consecrated by a sacred
dedication, and likened the English Constitution to
the Temple at Jerusalem, described by antiquity
as at once a citadel and a shrine, the fortress
of national power and the abode of national
religion. Nor was it with unequal step that the
right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister
followed in the same direction, nor with less glowing
language has ho in treatises which will long outlive

22 SPEECH.

the ephemeral breath of the Hps, pictured the effect of
this union of Church and State upon your social con-
dition. I refer to them not in any spirit of reproach.
He is unable longer to realize the vision of his youth.
Beautiful but still a phantom, the utmost he can
give the parting illusion is the homage of his
respect. And therefore, restraining the rudeness of
his followers, he exclaimed in the debates of last
Session,

" You do it wrong, being so majestical,
To offer it tlie sIioav of violence!"

Sir, in some such spirit, with some such thoughts,
the Roman general of old entered that same august
Temple, which furnished the magnificent image
I have just cited to illustrate the union of the
religious and civil element in Government, and, in
the language of the ancient historian, beheld all
void — " nubem et inania arcana." Unseen by him
the Divinity within; unrecognized that awful pre-
sence. ' Was it therefore the less real ?

Sir, if we are to have an alliance of religion with
the supreme governing authority, it is plain that the
Protestant Episcopal Church affords the only means.
Both Roman Catholics and Presbyterians repudiate
the Royal Supremacy; and I must add that I do
not understand with what reason those who forbid
their own Churches to enter into alliance with
the State — who do not endure that the patronage
of their benefices should be at all distributed by the
Crown, that their internal government should be
regulated by Parliamentary interference, — I say I do
not understand how they complain because the Pro-
testant Episcopal Church, which does allow, and

SPEECH. 23

not only consistently with, but as part of its tenets
and system adopts State control, is united witli tlie
State. This seems to me a matter independent of
tlie relative numbers of the religious bodies — a
matter respecting which the State, if it is to have a
State religion at all, has no choice; for, I repeat,
there is no Church or creed other than the Protes-
tant Episcopal Church with which the State can
have relations of government and patronage.

Still less, sir, do I understand how the mainte-
nance of an Established Church is inconsistent with a
liberal and generous policy to other creeds and
Churches. On the contrary, no Church can afford to
entertain enlightened and enlarged views in the same
degree as an Established. Every other is involved in a
struggle for the retention or acquisition of followers.
Every other has to draw a sharp and clearly- defined
line of demarcation to separate its territories from
those of others. And if we come to the conduct
and opinions of the advocates of Establishments,
I ask when have sentiments more enlarged and more
generous towards those who dissent from us been
uttered than by that great advocate of Establish-
ments whom I have already cited, Burke, whose
whole writings are a protest against religious intole-
rance of any kind ; and who, I need not remind the
House, has declared that, in subordination to the
legal Establishments as they stand, the three
religions prevalent in England, Ireland, and Scot-
land, should be all countenanced and protected ?

Sir, I now come to consider the Bill which we are
called upon to read a second time. No man can
deny that it leads to an enoi^mous change — a change

24 SPEECH.

wliich must affect tlie whole social condition of
Ireland; whicli (to confine attention for the present
to one element of that condition) utterly alters
the position of the members, both ecclesiastical and
lay, of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Well, if
that be so, in what spirit should such a change be
effected? Earl Russell has answered that question.
" When " — says that distinguished statesman in his
letter to the Secretary for Ireland — " when a great
establishment like the Church is to be disendowed,
there are many considerations which enforce care,
forbearance, and tenderness." Is that the spu-it in
which the pro\4sions of this bill have been con-
ceived? Let us see the amount still left with
the Church. AYliat has been done for her to
mitigate or soften the doom which you inflict?
I put aside the preservation of life interests. In
dealing with them you have done nothing but
what rigid duty demanded, and even that duty,
at least in the case of the curates, you have dis-
charged harshly. But what have you given the
institution, the ftitm^e clergy and laity who are
to compose it ? The churches ! Yes, and 3"ou will
find by a return of the Ecclesiastical Commission-
ers, printed in the Appendix of the Church Com-
mission Report, that within no great number
of years upwards of 600,0007. of private money
have been expended on those churches, irrespective
of the grants of the Commissioners, and irrespective
of the restoration of St. Patrick's Cathedral ; and if
you add' that confessedly those churches are un-
marketable for any purj^oses whatever, we can
estimate the extent of 4he bountv and beneficence

SPEECH.

25

displayed in this gift. The glebe-liouses! How are
they dealt with ? I cei^tainly last year understood
the Prime Minister to promise them. In a speech
characterized by great ability and enlarged views
which the right lion, gentleman the President of the
Board of Trade made at Birmingham there is a decla-
ration tending exactly in the same direction as that
in which I understood the right hon. gentleman at
the head of the Government to go, viz. that as an act
of generosity these houses and their curtilages were
to be given. But how do you now proceed to deal
with them? A house, as every one knows, lasts only
a certain period, requires to be perpetually renewed
or rebuilt. What is the result? The charges on the
glebe-houses in Ireland are found on examination to
be — on the bishops' houses, 32,594/. ; on the digni-
taries' houses, 600/.; on the glebe-houses of the
beneficed clergy, 198,781/.; the total charge being
232,335/. Pay that, and you shall have the houses.
And what am I to pay that for ? The Church Com-
missioners were unable to ascertain separately the
value of the houses and curtilages, and for this
reason, they were obliged to take the valuation in
whatever form it existed in the poor-law documents
and receipts; occasionally the Poor-law Commis-
sioners value the house and garden, occasionally
they value the house, garden, and demesne ; at other
times they value the entire farm, the house and
garden, altogether. We therefore could not sepa-
rate them. Now what is the entire value of all
houses, curtilages, demesnes, and farms that are
in the hands of ecclesiastics of tlie Established
C'hurch in Ireland ? TUc poor-law valuation of

26 SPEECH.

the whole is about 50,000/. gross, from wliicli, if
we deduct the poor-rate, the county cess, and
other charges, there remains 32,000/. a year.
The right hon. gentleman does not propose to give
us this 32,000/. a year for the 232,335/. No such
thing. He proposes merely to give us the house
and what he terms the curtilage around it. I have
no doubt whatever that what he proposes to give us
for that sum, could be bought in the market for the
same amount. Where is the generosity in giving
that for which you take an equivalent? Well, but
there is a third matter put forward as an instance of
the large spirit that characterizes this measure, and
. on which the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for
Ireland dwelt vdth emphasis last night. " We leave
3'ou," say the Prime Minister and the Secretary
for Ireland, " the private endowments. See how
generous that is. You remember that Henry YIII.,
founder as he was of the Reformation, did not
do that. He made no distinction whatever between
the endowments that came from private and those
that came fi^om public sources. We, not following
in the footsteps of Henry, are willing to leave you the
private endowments." But how are they left? Why
the most rigid legal test is apphed to them, and they
must be dealt with according to the strict rules of
the Court of Chancery. And how do you fm^ther
quahfy, restrain, and abridge the gift ? You
refuse to include in it private endowments prior to
1660. What is the reason for the assignment of that
date ? I must say it is entirely a new discovery
to me, and I may be supposed to have some know-
ledge on the subject of the relation of the Church

SPEECH. 2/

of Ireland to the doctrines and discipline of tlie
English Church, but to me it is entirely novel that
the Church of Ireland first became in harmony and
sympathy and union with the Church of England on
the accession of Charles II. The right hon. gentle-
man says, that previous to that time the Ai^ticles in
Ireland differed from those in England. It is per-
fectly true that in 1615, in the reign of James I.,
Ussher, who was then Professor of Divinity in Dublin
College, drew up articles containing the doctrine of
predestination more strongly and explicitly expressed
than in the English Articles. Archbishop Ussher
always asserted that those Articles did not differ
from the English Articles ; that they merely
stated more plainly the doctrine of the English
Church. If by that he meant that he stated
doctrines reconcilable with the English Articles he
was right. But if he meant that the English Church
allowed no other, he was wrong : because the English
Articles were drawn with the design of embracing
as well the opinions of Calvin and Augustine as the
opinions of the opposite school of theology. But it
is not true that you could not then, or cannot now,
be a member of the Church of England and hold
every Article that Ussher held. But, putting aside
their theology, what are the facts about these
Articles historically? When Strafford came to
Ireland he opened a correspondence with Arch-
bishop Laud about them. The result of that
correspondence with Laud, whose views were
directly opposed to those of Ussher, was that Straf-
ford ol)jectcd to the Articles, and in 1634, mainly by
the influence of Archbisliop, then Bishop, Bramhall,

28 SPEECH.

a canon was passed declaring tliat tlie Articles of
the Cliurcli of England were tlie Articles of the
Church of Ireland, and from that day to the Sub-
scription Act of 1865, not the Thu^ty-nine Articles,
but the canon of 1634 was subscribed by every
person ordained to Irish orders. Why is 1660 to be
adopted as the date, whilst 1634, even if you proceed
according to the result of this theological inquiry, is
in point of history and of fact the date of the
adoption of the precise form of the English Articles?
But let me ask, why should such an inquiry be made
at all? Where mil it lead you? By the 13th of
Elizabeth, as has been pointed out by the Dean of
Westminster, it is provided in England that clergy-
men not episcopally ordained shall be admitted to
benefices in the English Church on subscribing not
the entire but a portion of the Articles, and. prior to
the reign of Charles II. Presbyterians held by virtue of
this statute benefices in the Chm^ch of England. Are
you prepared to adopt the principle that the Church
of England exists only from the reign of Charles II.?

" Quam temere iu nosmet legem sancimus iniquam."

But, sir, I am not disposed, no matter what the date
fixed, to allow that the gift of private endowments
is any thing on our part demanding an acknowledg-
ment. There is not the shghtest doubt that there
have been vast private endowments in Ireland ; but
how are they to be proved ? Where are the deeds ?
There is no register of deeds in Ireland before the
reign of Queen Anne. The records of the ecclesiastical
registries are ill-kept and seldom preserved. How,
theuj are you to enter into an inquiry on this subject?

SPEECH. 29

You have no means but by statements of cotempo-
raries or historians, of which the account of Bram-
hall's munificence by Jeremy Taylor in his funeral
sermon affords an illustrative example. Yet by the
provisions of this bill all claims to private endow-
ments are to be put to the strictest legal proof. I
endeavoured in the Church Commission to ascertain
as far as I could what private endowments there
were capable of being proved by deeds in Ireland,
and what is the result ? In table thirty-three of the
Appendix to the Commissioners' Report you mil find
the annual income from private endowments. It
amounts to 6340Z. These are recent endowments
only, under the acts of George lY., William lY., and
Yictoria. In table thirty-four you will find the gifts
of several bishops. But with these exceptions we
were totally unable to obtain legal proof — that is,
proof by deed — of private endowments.

Consider now the provisions applying to the Laity,
as distinguished from those in reference to the Church
of which they are a constituent portion. You propose
that they shall henceforth support their Clergy ; that
they shall immediately find 232,000Z. to purchase for
them their glebes and houses of residence ; that they
shall keep the fabrics of the churches in repair, and
find church requisites, demands which together now
cost about 60,000/. a year; and, while imposing
these new burdens, you demand that the land-owners
shall forthwith redeem within a specified period the
tithe rent-charge. Under such circumstances, surely
liberality to those subjected to such new liabilities
might have been expected. So far from being liberal,
you are not even just. The landlord in Ireland, on

30 SPEECH.

paying the tithe rent-charge, is entitled to deduct
from the clergyman the frill poundage of the poor-
rate. I have ascertained the amount of this poundage
for the year 1866, and out of the gross amount of
the tithe rent-charge paid in that year to the incum-
bents, how much was deducted for poor-rate ? Those
ignorant of Irish taxation will hear with surprise
19,000/. The gross rent-charge from which this
was deducted is 367,000/. So that the landlords
have been accustomed to have a proportion of nearly
one-twentieth of the poor-rate paid for them by the
clergy. But when you come to deal with this matter
in the Bill you ignore this circumstance altogether,
and you charge them upon the whole gross amount
of rent-charo'e without the slisrhtest deduction for
poor-rate. Now mark. If you were to attempt to
sell this property in the open market to me or any
one else, I would buy it at so much less, and with a
deduction of one-twentieth part of the price. Then
again, the arrangements for lending money to the
land-owners press severely on this generation. They
must pay back principal as weU as interest, in order
to hand down an unincumbered estate to the future ;
while the relief and assistance to the county rates,
from the ultimate destination of the surplus of the
Church property, must necessarily be remote, and
can never benefit those on whom at once fall the
immediate demands of this period of transition. If
a benefit was to be conferred upon the land, it would
have been better to give it at once, and let the pre-
sent landlords, who must found a new provision for
their Church, receive the pecuniary advantage which
would assist them to do so.

SPEECH. 31

I now come to tlie scheme for capitalizing tlie life
estates, on which the right honourable gentleman relies
to create and maintain a new ecclesiastical organi-
zation. The plan is that you give, or rather ask the
Clergy to give, their life estates for the capitalized
value of their incomes, which is to be handed over
to the central representative Church body. But you
do not furnish the Church body with any pecuniary
guarantee from the State — you do not give them an
independent fund at the back of the capitalized value
to make the security perfect — you calculate the
amount with mathematical accuracy and by the rigid
rules of an actuary or notary. If your calculation is
correct, the life interests of the Clergy will exactly ex-
haust the fund ; if it should turn out to be incorrect —
and let me tell you that the Clergy are not remark-
able for the brevity of their existence — if that should
happen, the whole capitalized value would be gone,
and the longest livers of the Clergy would be left
without the slightest means for their support. The
whole of this might have been ob\dated had you
placed at the back of this fund a large and sub-
stantial sum by way of guarantee for the permanence
of the interests and for the security of the Church
Body in its engagements.

Sir, I do not enter into the clauses relating to the
future constitution and self-government of the
Church, or the clauses in reference to the poAvers
enabling future endowments from private sources,
all of which appear to me not sufficiently affirming
and enabling, because I understood the right lion,
gentleman at the head of the Government, and the
right hon. Secretary for Ireland, whose courtesy and

32 SPEECH.

fairness in addressing the House last night I desire,
on the part of the Church, to acknowledge — to have
invited suggestions in committee in reference to
these portions of the measure. But one matter con-
nected with this part of the subject I cannot leave
unnoticed. I ask in what position do you place the
Sovereign by this scheme ? Observe, you do not
repeal the Acts of Henry and Elizabeth, and the
whole code asserting the Royal Supremacy. In the
language of those Acts Her Majesty continues and is
the supreme head on earth of the whole Church of
Ireland; enjoys the title, and the whole state,
authority, and jurisdiction of that title. But you
retain nothing except the title and the nominal
pre-eminence, for all power is terminated. You pro-
claim, indeed, her authority, but withdraw the
subjects of it, and " place a barren sceptre in her
hand." Yes, there is one power you do allow
her, the power of recognizing and incorporating
the Church body, if you can come to an agree-
ment with that body. That and that alone is
preserved.

Sir, I now ask what will be the effects of this bill
upon the social and rehgious state and condition of
the people of Ireland ? I desire to look at this
question impartially, and to answer it fairly. So
looking, so answering, I feel bound to say that I
feel grave doubts whether the new Protestant
Episcopal Church of Ireland will be successfully
organized. I doubt, unless the provisions of the
Bill be greatly altered, whether that Church will
be adequately endowed. I also doubt whether the
Presbyterian Church will be adequately endowed

SPEECH. 33

and sustained on the voluntary system, and for
this reason, that even as that Church is now
circumstanced, and receiving a large income from
an annual Parliamentary grant, they have made
repeated demands for increased assistance from
the State. Lastly, I doubt whether the Eoyal
College of Maynooth will be continued in the pecu-
niary position in which it ought to be. And
why do I doubt ? The sum which the right
hon. gentleman estimates for Maynooth is about
400,000/. The interest of that in the funds will be
12,000/. Up to 1845 the sum voted for Maynooth
was 9000/. What was the condition of Maynooth in
1845 ? In that year Sir Robert Peel read a petition
signed by twenty-two Roman Catholic bishops, con-
taining the following statements : — First, that the
professors were inadequately paid; second, that
there was a debt on the college of 4600/. ; third, that
they were obliged to send away their students for a
considerable portion of the year, as they were unable
to maintain them ; fourthly, that they were obliged
to send out the students only half-educated, to enter
on the work of the priesthood; and, fifthly, that
there was an insufiicient supply of clergymen for the
Roman Catholic Church. You had then Maynooth
under the voluntary system assisted with 9000/. a
year from Government. What will take place now
under the voluntary system, with a greatly increased
population, an increased demand for ministers, and a
higher standard of education, and but 12,000/. a year
from public sources ? Why, you are at this moment
obliged to admit that Maynooth, with its present
endowment of 26,000/. a year, is in debt to the

c

'64i SPEECH.

Board of Works. I mil go further. From all I
hear, I believe that the standard of education in
Maynooth requires to be improved and elevated,
and that an increased, not a diminished endowment
is what the circumstances of that college demand.

I say, therefore, that your scheme, your new
policy, is a policy that will fail in the instance of
every one of the religious bodies to which it is ap-
plied. I say it is singularly ungenerous to every
system, and every creed ; and when I say this, I am
reminded of a test which has been more than once
suggested for philosophical principles. Do they
breathe of what is elevating, of what is generous, of
what is libera], or are they restricted, harsh, and
severe ? I propose this test to you as still more un-
erringly applicable to political measures; and I
pronounce of the Bill — nil geuerosum, nil niagnificum
sajnt — nothing is constructed, nothing is raised,
nothing is benefited; all is proscribed, despoiled,
degraded.

Sir, if this be so, if this be a just description of the
present measure, was not the right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)
justified in asserting that the inevitable result must
be universal discontent ? The Clergy of every de-
nomination will be discontented, because the sources
of emolument have been taken from them. The
laity will be discontented, because new and addi-
tional burdens are imposed upon them. Increased
religious differences will spread. Increased bitterness
of feeling in respect of them w411 spread. I know a
little of theology, and there is one maxim held by
every ecclesiastic, no matter what his Church, and

SPEECH. 35

that is, that the withdrawal of property once con-
secrated to rehgious uses for secular purposes or
persons is utterly unjustifiable. I am not aware of
an exception ; from the day when Archbishop "VYhit-
gift told Queen Elizabeth that the recipients of eccle-
siastical property were the eagles in the fable who
carried home a prize with a burning coal within it
to consume their nests, to the last pastoral in which
Pope Pius denounces the sacrilegious conduct of the
Governments of the Continent in spoliating Church
property. But in truth are these views peculiar to
ecclesiastics ? Not at all. Let any man examine the
discussion by Sir James Mackintosh in his history
as to the conduct of Henry the Eighth towards the
monasteries, and consider the views of that philo-
sophic wi'iter, and he will see how difl&ctilt it is to
reconcile with any theory of the rights of property
the appropriation by the State of what has been
once dedicated to the maintenance of religious ser-
vices. Even Henry in his confiscations paid homage
to principles which he found fixed in the public
mind, and on the face of every one of his statutes
represents that the monasteries had voluntarily sur-
rendered their houses and lands. Nay, so conscious
are the framers of the present bill of the force of this
objection to it, that they select their distribution of
the surplus with a view to mitigate it : charity and
the relief of suffering and affliction having in them-
selves somewhat of a religious character.

Sir, I repeat that there will be universal discon-
tent. True, the Roman Catholic Clergy for the
moment arc appeased — and Avhy ? not for benefits to
tliemselves, but because their rival is dethroned.

c 2

36 SPEECH.

And do you imagine tliat you can found permanent
gratitude and friendship on sucli feelings ? No ;
not twelve months will elapse before you learn that
they attribute to your respect for Scotch and Eng-
lish Nonconformist opinion the fall of the Establish-
ment, but to your enmity to their Church the secular
destination of its property when it had fallen.

Sir, the care of lunatics, the maintenance and
reformation of juvenile thieves and misdoers, the
relief of persons afflicted with unavoidable suffering
— all these are undoubtedly excellent objects, but
there is one evil consequence which follows large
endowments of this character not raised by taxation,
and that is, that the demand increases with the sup-
ply ; and as we have now two great reformatories
for male and four great reformatories for female
juvenile offenders, presided over by Roman Catholic
ecclesiastics and religious ladies, I believe that in
the future you will have these institutions fourfold
multiplied and increased. So as to all the other
charitable objects. They will increase in number, in
extent, in expense. The county rates will remain
as high and as oppressive as ever.

Sir, I believe that this measure will give a great
shock to the feelings of the community in respect of
property. The reverence for its sacred inviolability
which every wise statesman fosters as an instrument
of government, is rudely touched. I am aware that
distinctions are drawn between private property and
property public in its object audits' sources. I know
that Sh' James Mackintosh is of opinion that when
the State changes its religion, there being no rever-
sion reserved by the donor expectant on that con-

SPEECH. 37

tingency, tlie State may confer the old endowments
on tlie new creed. I know that Earl Eussell, follow-
ing Hallam, says that the individual has an heir who
cannot without injustice be defrauded ; but corpora-
tions have no heir, and the succession may be inter-
cepted. I doubt that any one in this House when
he hears these distinctions, and they are all that
the ablest thinkers have produced, is quite satisfied
with them. But what if you are satisfied ? AYliat
if all this be so ? Has the Irish farmer or peasant
read Mackintosh, Earl Russell, or Hallam ? No — ■
and if he had, your theories are for him immeasu-
rably too subtle. The facts suffice him. The Pro-
testant Church acquired its property by the Act of
Elizabeth, by the grants of James and Charles ; the
Protestant landlord acquired his by the Act of Settle-
ment, by the patents of the same James and the
same Charles. A breath made both, and a breath
can unmake both.

Sir, it is for these reasons I oppose this bill; .no
message of peace, conciliation, agreement of classes
and creeds ; rather the source and fountain of new
discontent, dissatisfaction, disunion ; the beginning
and the precedent of extended social change. But,
while I so oppose it, I desire to disclaim any want of
sympathy with my Roman Catholic and Presbyterian
brethren. I disclaim any, even the slightest, dis-
respect to their systems of religion. I believe the
maintenance of an Established Church consistent
with the most liberal appreciation of their claims.
I derive assurance for that belief when I find it shared
])y every great statesman of the past. Yes ; ours is
no new policy, born of the exigency of the moment.

o8 SPEECH.

The marvellous wisdom of Burke, the presiding and
commanding genius of Pitt, the vast political ex-
perience and sagacity of Peel, have alike sanctioned
it. Supported by their authority, feeling confident
that the principles by them transmitted are as just
as they are expedient, we defend the institutions
which they upheld, and refuse to abandon the most
sacred and venerable of them all in the hour of its
danger and its need.

APPENDIX.

I.

The net annual produce and value of the entire property of
the Established Church in Ireland, including the houses of
residence and the lands in the occupation of ecclesiastical
persons, is stated in amended tables annexed to the Report of
the Established Church (Ireland) Commissioners (Appendix,
page 249), to be as follows : — ■

1. From all sources, except houses of residence and lands in

the occupation of ecclesiastical persons .... £584,688

2. Annual value of houses of residence and lands in the occu-

pation of ecclesiastical persons ..... 32,152

£616,840

Item 1 in this calculation is ascertained by deducting-,
from the gross amount of tithe rent-charge payable by all the
tithe payers, the poundage which the law allows the tithe
payer to deduct from the ecclesiastical incumbent, and hi. per
cent, for the expense of collection; and by deducting from
the rents of lands received by ecclesiastical persons the
deduction for poor-rates which the law allows every tenant
to make from his landlord, and by also allowing bl. per cent, as
receiver's fees for collection. A tithe payer is allowed in
Ireland to deduct from every pound which he pays the clergy-
man the full 2:)oundage of the poor-rate struck. Thus if tlie
rate happens to be 5.^. in the pound, he may deduct 5*'. out of
every pound he is paying. A tenant deducts from his land-
lord not more than half the rate. The ffross amount of tithe

40

APPENDIX I.

rent-charge payable to ecclesiastical owners (including the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners) appears to be about 404,637^.
a year; from which, in the year 1866, the deduction by the
tithe payers in respect of poor-rates, came to about 21,025(?.
The gross rental of all lands belonging to the same owners,
which are let to tenants, is about in round numbers 220,000^.
a year; the deductions for poor-rate, so far as reported, were
above 4000/. a year. The income from other sources — such
as, government stock arising from investments by the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners of the price received from the sale of
perpetuities to the tenants of Church lands, grants from private
bounty of government stock, or annuities charged on lands, and
such annual payments as the lay impropriators are bound to pay
for the discharge of spiritual duties in the impropriate parishes
• — amount to about 15,530/. a year. The value of the houses
of residence, and demesnes, and glebes, in the hands of ecclesi-
astical incumbents (including Bishops) is, according to the
Tenement valuation for Ireland (a valuation by public autho-
rity for purposes of local taxation), about 50,237/. a year;
the poor-rate and other local assessments paid for these was in
1866 about 18,086/., leaving the net value 32,151/., which is,
however, subject to building charges secured by mortgages of
the benefices, or other securities on them, of 232,335/. The
proportion of this value which belongs to parochial incumbents
is, gross, 45,226/. ; net, 28,143/. : and the proportion of build-
ing charge payable in respect of this is 198,781/.^

The revenues of the Church are received by (1) the Bishops ;
(2) Cathedral Dignitaries; (3) Cathedral Corporations; (4)
Beneficed Clergy; (5) Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There
are two Archbishoprics, ten suffragan Bishoprics, 1518
benefices with incumbents, including in this term perpetual
curacies, thirty corporations of Deans and Chapters, twelve
minor Cathedral Corporations, thirty-two Deans and thirty-
three Archdeacons. Charging the ecclesiastical persons with
the value of their glebes, demesnes, and houses of residence,
the annual net revenues enjoyed by these different classes of
ecclesiastical owners may be stated as follows : —

' See tables annexed to the Church Commissioners' Report, i., ii., iii.,
iv., v., vii., and Schedule xi., p. 601, and in the Appendix to it, Table xl.,
and Return U, p. 134.

APPENDIX I.

41

Archbishoprics and Bishoprics ......

Beneficed Tncumhents, after allowing for actual payments in
1866 to Curates, and making an allowance for the rent of
a house, when there is no glebe-house ....

Corporate property of capitular bodies .....

Income received by Ecclesiastical Commissioners .

£58,000

367,279

19,546

113,662

Besides the benefices, there are ninety parishes suspended
under the provisions of the Church Temporalities' Acts; the
emoluments of which are part of the income of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, who provide by payment of curates
or neighbouring clergymen for their spiritual care; and
sixty-four parishes impropriate without vicar or endowed
curate.

The entire number of members of the Established Church,
according to the Census of 1861, was 693,357 ; and the entire
area of Ireland, with which the parochial system is co-exten-
sive, comprises 20,701,346 acres.

Of the benefices with incumbents there are 300 under
100/. a year net, 420 have 100/. and not 200/., 355 have 200/.
and not 300/. a year, and the remainder, 440, are above that
amount, only nineteen exceeding 900/. a year, and none
exceeding 1100/. a year.

The same benefices classified according to Church poj)ula-
tion ascertained by the Census of 1861 are as follows : —

Upwards of
KiOO.

500 and
not 1000.

200 and
under 500.

100 and
under 200.

40 and
under 100.

20 and
under 40.

Under 20.

181.

217.

340.

251.

288.

110.

91.

It is to be observed that this statement of the Church
population is given by the benefices with parishes or districts
annexed, and not by parishes. The number of parishes is
according to the Ordnance Survey, 2428; whereas the number
of benefices is 1518. The former represent the original eccle-
siastical divisions of the country, and are now mere geogra-
phical distinctions. The latter are of course the real existing
ecclesiasti(;al divisions, under the parochial system of the
Established Church, and it is these, and not the old parishes,
which should be considered when estimating the extent of
work and care allotted to each individual incumbent. In

42 APPENDIX 11.

the system of the Roman Catholic Church as now constituted,
the number of parochial divisions adopted bears a proportion
to the original number of parishes even less than in the
Established Church ; the number being, according" to Thomas
Directory for 1868, about 1070. But the niimber of curates
in the Roman Catholic Church is greater than in the Esta-
blished. The difference in the two systems of Ecclesiastical
arrangement may be attributed, partly to the Roman Catholic
Church being obliged by its dependence on voluntary con-
tributions, in order to obtain sufficient sujiport for its parish
priests, to enlarge the areas from which they respectively
derive it, and partly to the difference in character of the two
religions; the Protestant fostering a spirit of independence,
and a desire for freedom from control, which display them-
selves in the subdivision of the country into a number of
small independent benefices ; the Roman Catholic a spirit of
submission and obedience, which renders its Clergy not reluc-
tant to accept the more subordinate position of curates.

II.

So little, prior to the Resolutions of last year, had any indi-
cation appeared in favour of the Voluntary system from the
leaders of the Whig party, that Earl Russell and Earl Grey
{)nag\s pares quam similes) — who, by long services, public and
parliamentary influence, intimate acquaintance with all the
traditions of policy adopted by the party, are justly entitled to
be considered its Chiefs — both, so late as the sj)riug of 1868,
express opinions unfavourable to it.

Earl Russell, on February 3, 1868, in his first letter to Mr.
Chichester Fortescue, says, " The destruction of the Protestant
Church in Ireland, the withdrawal of the grant to IMaynooth
and of the Regium Donum to the Presbyterians of the North,
together with a refusal of all subsidies by the State towards
the building of Roman Catholic churches, and furnishing
glebes and incomes to the Catholic Clergy, would be a misfor-

APPENDIX II. 43

tune for Ireland. It would manifestly check civilization and
arrest the progress of society in the rural parts of Ireland "
(p. m).

Earl Grey on March 26th, 1868, in his letter to Mr.
Bright, says, —

" There are a very large number of persons in tliis country, of whom I
acknowledge myself to be one, who consider it of infinite importance to
the highest welfiire of a nation that by some means or other a large
fixed income, not merely depending on the voluntary contributions of the
passing hour, should be available for the religious instruction of the
people. I regard it as a palpable and dangerous fallacy to affirm that
those who require religious instruction and consolation ought to pay for
it, and that the support of the ministers of religion ought to be left to bo
provided for by the voluntary contributions of their flocks."

The elaborate treatise on the Irish Church question of Sir
George Cornewall Lewis (another Chief of the Whig party)
is also opposed to the Voluntary system. He is particularly
successful in distinguishing between objections to Volun-
taryism founded on its not furnishing a sufficient supply of
religious ministration, and those which are founded on its
furnishing a supply inferior in quality. The former he does
not adopt : " Our objection," he says, " to the Voluntary
system is not that it does not provide sufficient religion,
but that it provides a dad religion V He then, to establish
this proposition, enters on a line of reasoning based both on
the facts of history and the tendencies of human nature, the
result of which may be summed up in a sentence, viz. that
Voluntaryism tends to foster in Roman Catholic countries
superstition, in Protestant countries fanaticism, in both
priestcraft.

Lord Brougham, also, another great name among Liberal
leaders, so late as 1861, in his Essay on the British Con-
stitution sums up the question of an establishment in its
favour, and gives as his decision, "That upon the whole
there result greater mischiefs from having no establishment
at all, and that the balance is sensibly in favour of such an
institution."

44 APPENDIX III.

III.

The only portion of Church property secularized in Canada
were tlie " Clerg-y Reserves.''' These Reserves were not the
exclusive property of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The
Act 31 Geo. III. c. 31, which set apart for relig-ious uses
one-seventh of all waste lands disposed of by the Crown,
gave them to the " Protestant Clerg-y ;" and the word " Pro-
testanf was ultimately held to include all denominations
of Protestants. There were in Canada two other descriptions
of ecclesiastical property, one belonging" to the Protestant
Episcopal Church and the other to the Roman Catholic Church,
and neither were interfered with. The former was property
which had been annexed to certain rectories created by Sir
John Colborne under statutable powers enabling the Crown
to authorize the Governor to constitute in every township or
parish thereafter formed one or more rectory or parsonage,
according to the Establishment of the Church of England.
Lord Durham, in his Report, states that fifty-seven' had been
created ; and these and their emoluments were left with the
Church. The latter is property which the Roman Catholic
Church in Lower Canada (principally consisting of French
settlers) retains. The Articles of the capitulation of Montreal
had stipulated for the free exercise of " the Catholic Apostolic
Roman Religion/^ the treaty of Paris, 1763, had also guaran-
teed the French Canadians the liberty of " the Catholic Reli-
gion/'' and either as a consequence supposed to be involved in
this concession, or from policy, as Mr. Croker [Quarterly
Review, No. 151, p. 261) seems to think, the Act 14 Geo. III.
c. 83, gave the Roman Catholic clergy their accustomed dues
and rights with respect to such persons as professed that
religion.

The secularization of the Reserves was effected by a local
Act (Dec. IS, 1854), which, after preserving all life interests,
gave the proceeds of the Reserves, when sold, to the munici-

^ Sir Francis Plincks, in a tract on Canada publislied recently, says only
forty-four of the fifty-seven were perfectly completed, p. 13.

APPENDIX III. 45

palities. It contained a clause winch enabled the " Governor-
General^ with consent of the parties and bodies severally in-
terested, to commute with said parties the stipend to which
each was entitled for life, for the value thereof/^

The Bishops and Clergy (with one exception) all commuted,
and the capitalized value was paid over in each diocese to an
incorporated Church Society; which, in return, guaranteed to
the Clergy their full stipends during their lives and while
serving in the diocese where they were resident, when effecting
the commutation. In a paper read by Mr. Gilson, formerly
an Archdeacon in the Canadian Church, before the Church
Congress in Dublin (October, 1868), it is stated that the
whole amount thus received by all the diocesan incorporated
Church Societies was 275,851(?. British citrrency.

This sum has been preserved as a fund for the Church ; and
its income applied towards maintaining the Clergy without
infringing upon the capital. But several circumstances com-
bined to enable this result to be obtained. (1) Money bears a
very high rate of interest in Canada. The Clergy Reserves'
Act itself values it at Gl. per cent. (2) The rectories of Sir
John Colborne Avere not touched. (3) Voluntary contributions
and gifts had, previous to, and in expectation of the seculariza-
tion of the Reserves, been collected. And, lastly, the Keserves,
while in the hands of the Clergy, had not realized their proper
value ; the Clergy, not having the requisite capital and skill
to reclaim and improve them, and being unable to find tenants
for them who had such resources, as of course it was more pro-
fitable to obtain a grant in fee of the neighbouring waste
from the Government than to rent the Reserves for a termi-
nable tenure.

In the colony of Victoria the Constitution Act, 19 Vic. (1855),
provided a sum of 1] 2,750^. a year for the Civil List, of which
50,000i?. is thereby given as a Public Worship Fund. Accord-
ing to a return of the Colonial Office to the House of Commons,
presented May 12th, 18G8, the Bishop of Melbourne receives
1000/. a year from this fund. The Bishop of Sydney derives
IbOOl. a year from a Public "Worship Fund granted by the
local Constitution Act, 18 & 19 Vic. c. 54, and 500/. a year
from glebe-lands, secured by Act of the Colonial Legislature
to the Bishop and his successors for ever. The Bishops of

46 APPENDIX IV.

Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay receive, the first 4000/. a year,
the other two each 3000/. a year, and the Bishop of Ceylon
2000/. a year; all from the colonial revenues. The Clergy to
the number of thirty- two senior and forty- five junior chaplains
in the diocese of Calcutta, of nineteen senior and twenty-one
junior chaplains in the diocese of Madras, and of fourteen
senior and fourteen junior chaplains in the diocese of Bombay,
receive stipends from the colonial revenues.

In others of the colonies the Protestant Episcopal Church
is maintained partly by endowments from private bounty,
partly by pew-rents, and partly by voluntary annual sub-
scriptions; but in none of these upon an extensive scale.

lY.

The statement (at page 19) in reference to the religious
condition of the United States has been since controverted.
I add, therefore, some additional remarks.

By the official census of 1860, it appears that the entire
population was 31,443,321 ; that the niimber of churches
was 54,009, capable of containing 18,974,576 persons, and
averaging, as the official report states, one to every 584 indi-
viduals '. But as Mr. Jennings * in his able work remarks,
" something more than the means for the outward observance
of religion is needed to show the full working of the volun-
tary principle.^'' The result of this further test will be seen
by some extracts from his treatise. " In the older towns,'''' he

^ See statistics of the United States in 1860, compiled from the original
returns, and being the final exhibit of the eighth census, under the direc-
tion of the Secretary of the Interior. Washington Government Printing
Office. 1866.

"' Eighty years of Republican Government in the United States, by
Louis J. Jennings. London. John Murray, Albemarle-street. 1868.
There seems no reason for supposing that Mr. Jennings, from theological
bias, has coloured his statements. On the contrary, he appears to be
not favourable to the union of Church and State : and at the close of
his chapter on the Voluntary principle in religion, controverts Lord
Brougham's objections to it, and sums up, " The Voluntary sj'stem in
America works well for the people, but ill, in many cases, for tlie teacher."

APPENDIX IV. 47

says, "every denomination is rich enough to maintain its
ministers in comfortable circumstances ; but in scantily-popu-
lated rural districts, as in new settlements, religion starves^'
(p. 198).
Again, at p. 195 lie says, —

'"Ministers of the gospel,' said Cotton Mather, 'would have a poor
time of it, if they must rely on a free contribution of the people for
their maintenance.' And they have ' a poor time of it,' as a rule,
except in large cities or rich parishes. Very many ministers of the
Baptist persuasion receive no salaries at all, and earn a living how
they can. The average salary of ministers of all denominations is esti-
mated to be ahovit 400 dollars a year. The average in the Episcopal
Church is 350 dollars. The Episcopal Bishop of New York ^ is said to he
the highest paid religious functionary in the country, and he receives 6000
dollars a year. 'No men amongst us,' says Dr. Belcher, 'work harder,
no professional men are so poorly paid for their work. Financially they
rank upon an average below school teachers.' Sometimes a popular
preacher in a large town Avill draw so great a throng of listeners, that it
is Avorth while to let the pews by auction, and thus a considerable
income is secured. But such cases are rare, and the Clergy in nine cases
out often are badly off. The consequence is that the reservoir of ministers
of the gospel is the poorer class of artizans, and even in flourishing cities
men of the rudest education are sometimes found in charge of large
congregations."

Mr. Jennings refers in corroboration of his statements to
Baird^s Religion in America and Belcher^s Religious Denomi-
nations in the United States (Philadelphia, 1854).

With respect to the moral and intellectual standard of
religious teaching ]\Ir. Jennings says, —

" Perhaps in no country in the world is the pulpit used for hustings' pur-
poses so systematically with the general encouragement of public ap-
proval as in America. The Almighty is constantly exhorted to compass
tlie return of the popular candidate, and the misery and discomfiture of
his rival. The morning sermon in some churches is a diffuse essay upon
the events of the day, in which the Divine approval is announced of
certain political opinions. New England preachers address their hearers,
in a time of excitement, as if from the stump. The Chaplain in Congress,
during 1865-67, prayed daily against the President, ' that he might be
liunibled and cast down,' and that his own i)arty might be covered with

* In the late debate Sir Roundell Palmer showed that the Episcopal
Church at New York retains a large landed eiulownient, from a grant of
George III.

48 APPENDIX V.

great glory. The best known preacher in America gains his notoriety
solely by the freedom with which he discusses on Sunday morning from a
text of Scripture the acts of public men, and the turn affairs are likely to
take. There is probably no good reason why it should not be so ; but
there is certainly no reason why the fact should be denied. Religion will
always influence the course of human affairs, and in America it will
interfere in politics all the more energetically, because it is not in any
way dependent upon the State, but is free to speak openly and without
fear of losing its allowance. The preaclier accommodates himself to the
taste and wishes of his congregation, and if they demand from him
matter which would be more suitable in the columns of the Sunday news-
paper, they will have the article, or turn him out and elect another man
willing to supply it."

V.

The Free Church iu Scotland has been cited by Mr. Bright
as an instance of the triumphant success of the vohmtary
princi2:)le. To say nothing- of the peculiar circumstances of
that secession, and the difference pointed out by Sir Rouudell
Palmer between a religious body voluntarily^ and with all the
zeal which accompanies an act prompted by religious con-
viction retiring, and one against its will deprived of its
property and position — is it certain that this instance is
clearly decisive in favour of Voluntaryism ? If any man
pre-eminently deserves to be designated the head and moving
source of this secession ; if any man more than another was
instrumental in whatever success it has attained — that man
was Dr. Chalmers, and what does he say ?

" I can afford to say no more than that my hopes of an extended
Christianity from the efforts of Voluntaryism alone have not been bright-
ened by my experience since the disruption. We had better not say too
much on the pretensions or the powers of Voluntaryism, till we have
made some progress in reclaiming the wastes of ignorance, and ii'religion,
and profligacy, which so overspread our land ; or till we see whether the
congregational selfishness which so predominates every where, can be pre-
vailed on to make larger sacrifices for the Christian good of our general
population ^"

^ See Life by Dr. Hanna, vol. iv., p. 488.

APPENDIX VII. 49

VI.

According' to the statements of his biographer, Bishop
Doyle, one of the most distinguished men who have ever
taken orders in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, may
be cited in support of the opinions expressed (at page 20)
as to the effect of the Voluntary system upon the Roman
Catholic Church.

" In Lis ' Essay on the Catholic Claims,' Dr. Doyle alludes to the motives
which induced him to prefer the cloister to the mission : ' Indeed as a
clergyman,' he writes, ' I feel sensibly the evils which arise fi"om a kind
of eleemosynary support ; it was one of the motives which disposed me,
at an early period, to prefer a collegiate to a missionary life ; and to the
present hour it is one which deeply weighs upon my mind ; it is one of
the many misfortunes of my native land, which often cause me in silence
and solitude to wish I were banished from her shores, and restored to that
exile in which I spent my youth ! ' " — Fitz-Patrich's Life of Bishop Doyle,
vol. i. 12.

Again, in the same work there appears an incidental
illustration of the operation of the Voluntary system in
limiting the supply of Clergy, and so lessening the leisure of
each for mental cultivation.

" He (Bishop Doyle) was averse to theatrical elocution, and, except on
rare occasions, to elaborate compositions ; for in a country circumstanced
as Ireland — where the priest, supported by the voluntary system, depends
for subsistence on the beneficence of his flock — he saw the number of the
priests shoukl of necessity be limited, and if the priest spent a large por-
tion of his time in the composition of his sermons, he could not discharge
the other various and onerous duties which devolved upon him." — Life,
vol. i. 61.

VII.

The policy of concurrent endowment is indicated in one of
Mr. Pittas speeches (31 Jan. 1799) : in which, after observing
that after the Union many of the objections to the participa-
tion by the Roman Catholics of the privileges granted to

D

50 APPENDIX VII.

members of the established religion would be removed, he
proceeds,

" How far, in addition to this great and leading consideration, it may
be also wise and practicable to accompany the measure by some mode of
relieving the lower orders from the pressure of tithes, which in many in-
stances operate as a great practical evil, or to make, under proper regu-
lations, and without breaking in on the security of the present Protestant
establishment, an effectual provision for the Catholic Clergy, it is not now
necessarj' to discuss. It is sufficient to say, that these and all other sub-
ordinate points connected with the same subject, are more likely to be
permanently and satisfactorily settled by an united legislature than by
any local ari'angements."

The secret history of the period has now appeared, and
there is no doubt that private communications going" much
beyond these cautious public declarations and amounting
to engagements for endowment were given by the Irish
government with the sanction of Mr. Pitt. The late Knight
of Kerry, in his letter to Sir Eobert Peel in 1845, says,

" I hold in mj' hands a confidential letter from Lord Castlereagh, dated
22nd June, 1802, recognizing the pledges given at the Union to the
Roman Catholics of Ireland, for which they gave valuable consideration
in their support of that measure, and fui'ther instructing me to endeavour
to reconcile the heads of their hierarchy to a delay in the performance of
the engagements made to them by Mr. Pitt's ministry for the endowment
of their Church."

Lord Castlereagh, in a speech in the House of Commons
(20 May, 1810), says,

" Upon the ecclesiastical part of the aiTangement, Lord Castlereagh was
authorized in the year 1799 to communicate with the Roman Catholic
Clergy. It was distinctly understood that the consideration of the politi-
cal claims of the Catholics must remain for the consideration of the Im-
perial Parliament ; but the expediency of making some provision for their
Clergy was so generally recognized, even by those who were averse to con-
cessions of a political nature, that a communication was officially opened
with the hea.ds of their Clergy upon this subject."

The origin of this policy of an establishment with concur-
rent endowment of other religious sy.stems, is generally
attributed to Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh, but in tnith
it had previously been not indistinctly suggested by Mr.
Burke. To cite one of several passages to this effect in his

APPENDIX VI J. 51

writing's, he says in his letter to William Smith (afterwards
Baron Smith),

" My humble and decided opmion is, that all the three religious, preva-
lent more or less in various parts of these islands, ought all, in subordina-
tion to the legal estahlishments, as they stand in the several conntries, to
be all countenanced, protected, and cherished ; and that in Ireland particu-
larly the Roman Catholic religion should be upheld in high respect and
veneration, and should be, in its place, provided with all the means of
making it a blessing to the people who profess it ; that it ought to be
cherished as a good (though not as the most preferable good, if a choice
was now to be made), and not tolerated as an inevitable evil."

The (Quarterly Review (vol. exxvi., p. 559), asserts
that this policy, thus inaugurated, has been ever since
either openly advocated or secretly approved by every states-
man of eminence. It certainly has had the open support
of Lord Castlereag-h, Lord Sidmouth, Mr, Canning-, and Mr.
Croker ; it is indicated, if not fully developed, in the speeches
of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone on the Maynooth
question in 1845; again in a speech of the Earl of Mayo
in the debates on the state of L'eland in 1868, and still more
recently in a speech of Sir John Pakington. The views of
Sir George Cornewall Lewis, of Earl Russell, and of Earl
Grey, adopt the principles of concurrent endowment, but
propose means to carry them out, which neither Mr. Pitt
nor Mr. Bui-ke ever contemplated; these three authorities
being prepared for that purpose to interfere with the property
of the Established Church.

Among those who have advocated the policy of Mr. Pitt,
I am not aware of any speaker or writer who has expressed
himself so strongly as a prelate of the Irish Church, Arch-
bishop Whately.

" The Archbishop (says Mr. Senior) has been reading my journal. The
picture of the priests, he sai(^s melancholy, but, I fear, faithful. And we,
the English people, are answerable for much of their perversion. When
Lord Granville was congratulated on the approach of Catholic Emancipa-
tion— a measure which he had always supported — he refused to rejoice in
it. ' You are not going to pay the priests,' he said, ' and therefore you
will do more harm than good by giving them mouth-pieces in Parliament.'
A priest solely dependent on his flock is, in fact, retained Ijy them to give
the sanction of religion to the conduct, whatever it be, which the majority
choose to adopt."

D 2

52 APPENDIX VII.

" The great merit of Mrs. Stowe's ' Dred ' is the clearness with which
this is exemplified in the Slave States. What can he more unchristian
than slavery ? nnless, indeed, it be assassination. And yet a whole Clergy
of different denominations, agreeing in nothing hut that they are main-
tained on the Voluntary system, combine to support slavery ! " — Senior's
Journals in Ireland, vol. ii., p. 129.

Again at page 293, vol. ii., of Mr. Senior^s Journal, oceiirs
the following remarkable conversation between an Italian
gentleman who is designated by the letter C, ]\Ir. Senior,
and the Archbishop.

" ' Ireland,' said Mr. C, ' has lost the sympathy of Italy. We thought
that the Irish were, like ourselves, an oppressed nation, struggling for
freedom. We now find that they are quarrelling with England, not for
the purpose of freeing the people, but of enslaving them ; for the
pui-pose of planting the foot of the Priest still more firmly on the necks of
his flock, the foot of the Bishop stiU more firmly on the neck of the Priest,
and the foot of the Pope stiU more firmly on the neck of the Bishop. We
find that they would sacrifice to abject Ulti'amontanism eveiy thing that
gives dignity or strength to human nature.

" ' I deplore,' I said, ' the Ultramontanism of the Priests as much as they
do ; but both the extent of their influence, and the evil purpose for which
they employ it, are mainly our fault. By depri\ang the Eoman Catholic
Church in Ireland of its endowment, by throwing the priests on the people
for their support, by forcing them to earn a livelihood by means of
squabbling for fees, and by means of enflaming the passions, and aggi*a-
vating the prejudices, of their flocks, we have excluded aU gentlemen from the
priesthood ; we have given them a detestable moral and political education;
we have enabled the Pope to destroy all the old liberties of the Irish
Eoman Catholic Church ; we have made the priests the slaves of the Pope,
and the dependents of the peasant.'

" ' But,' said Mr. C, ' they have refused an endowment.'

" ' It was never offered to them,' said the Archbishop.

" ' They were asked,' said Mr. C, ' if they would take one, and thej-
said "No!"'

" ' Of course they did,' said the Ai'chbishop. ' If I were to go into a
ball-room and say, " Let every young lady who wishes for a husband hold
up her hand," how many hands would be heli up ?

" ' Give them an endowment ; vest in Commissioners a portion of the
National Debt, to be apportioned among the parish priests ; let each priest
know the dividend to which he is entitled, and Jioio he is to draw for it,
and pi'otect it in its enjoyment from the arbitrary tyranny of his bishop;
and you will find him no more bound \iy his former refusal, than one of
my young ladies would feel that not holding up her hand had bound her
to celibacy.

" ' To do this,' he continued, ' would be not merely an act of policy, but

APPENDIX VIII. 53

of bare justice. It would be paying Roman Catholic priests with Eoman
Catholic money. The taxes are a portion of each man's income, which the
State takes from him, in order to render to him certain services which it
can perform for him better than he can do for himself. Among these, one
of the most important is the maintenance of religion and of religious
education. This service the State does not render to the Roman Catholics,
and so far it defrauds them ! ' "

In the "Essays on the Irish Chnrch/'' Mr. Byrne (the Dean
of Cloufert), in a paper characterized by a high degree of
philosophic thought^ has advocated concurrent endowment.
He observes that establishment by no means implies exclusive
endowment ; and so far from this, it may, in order to make
the system complete, require to be supplemented by the
endowment of other religious systems ; and that the support
of these several systems in this manner can impose no greater
pecuniary burden upon the country than the support of the
same by the voluntary system.

It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the weight of
opinion in favour of this policy, it has only upon one occasion
been submitted to Parliament in the form of a definite
proposal. This was in 1825, when Lord Francis Egerton,
then Gower (afterwards Lord Ellesmere) , moved in the House
of Commons a resolution " that it was expedient provision
should be made by law towards the maintenance of the secular
Roman Catholic Clergy exercising religious functions in
Ireland.^^ The division was 205 for, 162 against; givino-
a majority of 43 for the resolution.

yiii.

The first proposal for the College of Maynooth was made
by Burke to Mr. Pitt. The College was, in its original
constitution, open to lay students; and it is singular that
an opposition to the scheme came from Roman Catholics,
who objected to the exclusion of Protestants — " such exclusion
(as is stated in a petition to the Irish Parliament numerously
signed by Roman Catholics) tending to prevent that harmony,
union, and friendly intercourse through life which might

54 APPENDIX X.

be thus early cemented between the youth of different reli-
g-ious persuasions, the happy effects of which had been felt by
the permission of having- the Catholic youth educated in the
University of Dublin',"

IX.

The entire passage in Mr. Gladstone's speech to which
allusion is made at page 14 is as follows : —

" Failing then, Sir, to discover any principle so grounded, both in the
convictions and in the constitution of the country, as to warrant the
legislatm-e in pursuing a course of exchision with reference to the Irish
Roman Catholics, and in pursuing it by the rejection of this Bill (the Bill
for increasing the Grant to Maynooth), I must next proceed to avow my
impression that the boon, to which I for one have thus agreed, is a very
great boon. I think it important, most of all important, with regard to
the principles which it involves. I am very far indeed from saying that it
virtually decides upon the payment of the Eoman Catholic priests of
Ireland by the State ; but I do not deny that it disposes of the religious
objections to such a project." — Hansard, Lxxix. 548.

X.

The statement, that after the fate of the Irish Church is
decided, the religious Establishments in England and Scot-
land cannot escape parliamentary examination and revision
for any long period, does not rest on mere speculation or
reasoning ; it is openly avowed by the advocates for the over-
throw of the Irish Establishment.

Dr. Andrews, the Vice-President of the Queen's College,
Belfast, in a pamphlet which forms one of the ablest con-
tributions on the Liberal side to the examination of the
question, says, —

' Irish Parliamentary Debates, xv. 21, and (Quarterly Mevieic, Ixxvi.
267.

APPENDIX X. 55

" To declare that the fall of the Irish branch will not affect the stability
of the Church of England is manifestly absurd. The arguments adduced
in support of this paradoxical assertion will carry weight with none
except those who ai'e willing to be deceived. We are told it is a most
serious grievance that one man in Ireland should have his clerical bill
paid by the public ; another a part of his bill ; while six other men have
to pay their own. It is no grievance whatever, we are assured, and
nobody complains of it, that five men in England are so lucky as to have
their bills paid, while three others are left to shift for themselves. But
there are stratagems in political as well as in actual warfare ; and to lull
the defenders of an ancient stronghold into false security by pacific assu-
rances is the usual precursor of an intended attack."

Mr. Goldwin Smith in like manner has asserted that " in
Ireland the great question of Church and State will probably
be first raised with effect, and receive its most rational solu-
tion ^' (Irish History, p. 197).

Earl Russell also has expressed his opinion that the intro-
duction of the voluntary principle in Ireland will lead to
similar action in respect of the English Establishment : —

" With respect to the voluntary principle, I think that it is liable to
insuperable objections. I do not think, in the fii'st place, that it would
pi'omote the great object of establishing peace and harmony between
various classes and denominations of joeople. Although the successors of
the Protestant Clergy would lose their stipends by law, I do not think
they would lose their zeal for the Protestant religion any more than is the
case now with the Catholic Clergy. I believe, on the contrary, that the
Clergy of the two denominations would contend more fiercely than they
do now ; and that is one main reason why I object to the voluntary prin-
ciple. Also, I see no little danger in the proposition lately made by the
honourable member for Montrose. If the voluntary principle were
adopted in regard to Ireland, I do not see how we could long refuse an
inquiry into the number of Dissenters in the United Kingdom, and
the utility of the Church Establishment altogether." — Hansard, 3 Ser.
Lxxii. 718.

Mr. Buckle, in his History/ of Civilization in England,
vol. i., p. 385, note, appears to think that the fall of the
English Establishment is not remote.

" According to a paper found in one of the chests of William III., the
proportion in England of Conformists to Non-conformists was as 22| to 1.
Eighty-four years after the death of William the Dissenters instead of
comprising only a twenty-third, were estimated at one-fourth of the whole
community. (Bishop Watson's Life, vol. i., p. 246.) Since this the move-
ment has been uninterrupted ; and the returns recently published by

66 APPENDIX XII.

Government disclose the startling fact, that on Sunday, March 31, 1851,
the members of the Church of England who attended morning service
only exceeded by one-half the Independents, Baptists, and Methodists,
■who attended at theii- own places of worship. If this rate of decline con-
tinues, it will be impossible for the Church of England to survive another
centui-y the attacks of her enemies."

XI.

The allusion by Burke in Ids " Letter to a Noble Lord/^
which is referred to at page 21^ is to the description in Tacitus^
" Templum in modum arcis." The historical incident referred
to at page 22 is in the same writer.

" Romanorum primus Cn. Pompeius Judseos domnit ; tem-
plumque jure victorise ingressus est. Inde vulgatum nulla
intus Deum effigie, vacuam sedem et inania arcana ^."

XII.

The reasoning of Earl Russell and Hallam to which allusion
is madcj is contained in the following passages.

Earl Russell,, in the preface to a publication of his speech
moving for an Irish Church Commission, June 24, 1867, after
adverting to the proposition of Lord Derbj, that the Irish
Church has as much right to its property as the Duke of
Bedford to Covent Garden and Woburn Abbey, proceeds, —

"If this objection is meant to place the right of the present Archbishop
of Dublin during his life, and that of the present Duke of Bedford during
his life, to property formerly held by the Roman Catholic Church on the
same footing, I fully admit the right. But who are the heirs .? The heir
of the Duke of Bedford is known to the law, and will succeed as of course.
The heir of the Bishops and Clergy of the Church in Ireland is the State.
If the State chooses to dispose of the property in a different manner from
its present appropriation, it has a fuU right to do so. If the State main-
tains the present appropriation, the heir of the Archbishop of Dublin is
the man who, after a careful education, has embraced the clerical profes-

« Tac. Hist. V. 9.

APPENDIX XII. 57

sion, and has so distinguished himself by his morals, his orthodoxy, and
his learning, as to attract the preference of the First Lord of the Treasury,
and obtain the favour of the Crown. But every man in Ireland — nay,
every man in England and Scotland — may, upon these terms, look forward
to be the heir of the Ai'chbishop of Dublin. In other words, the nation
at large are the heii's of the present holders of Church property in
Ireland."

The reasoning of Hallam is as follows : —

" I cannot, until some broad principle is made more obvious than it
ever has yet been, do such violence to all common notions on this subject
as to attach an equal inviolability to private and corporate property. The
law of hereditary succession, as ancient and universal as that of property
itself — the law of testamentary disposition, the complement of the former,
so long established in most countries as to seem a national right — have
invested the individual possessor of the soil with such a fictitious immor-
tality, such anticipated enjoyment, as it were, of futurity, that his per-
petual ownership could not be limited to his own existence, without what
he would justly feel as a real deprivation of property. Nor are the expec-
tations of childi'en or other heirs less real possessions, which it is a hard-
ship, if not even absolute wrong, to defeat. But in estates held, as we
call it, in mortmain, there is no intercommunity, no natural privity of
interest, between the present possessor and those who may succeed him ;
and as the former cannot have any pretext for complaint, if his own right
being preserved, the Legislature should alter the course of transmission
after his decease, so neither is any hardship sustained by them, unless
their succession has been already designated or rendered probable."

Without here entering- into the question how far this line
of reasoning aifords satisfactory grounds on which to rest the
abstract right of the State to deal with corporate or quasi-
corporate property, whether lay or ecclesiastical, it may be
observed in reference to the present measure, that it is very
difficult to distinguish the claim of the Irish curates, perpetual
and stipendiary, from the claim of Earl Russell's expectant
heir of the individual. It is true no one curate has a right
to expect any particular Bishopric or preferment. But surely
the whole body of the 500 curates now in orders in the Irish
Church, a large proportion of whom are young men, have a sj^es
successionis to all its Bishoprics and emoluments ; nay, more,
a certainty of succession incapable of being defeated under the
ecclesiastical system upon the faith of whose continuance
they, after an expensive education, selected their profession
and have discharged its arduous duties, except by a large

58 APPENDIX XII.

enough number of others hereafter entering upon the same
profession to fill all those offices and being preferred before
them. And most unquestionably their case is distinctly
within the qualification of Mr. Hallam^ excepting from his
principle the cases of those whose succession to property of
the corporate character has been already designated or rendered
probable.

In connexion with the views of Earl Russell and Mr.
Hallam, those of Sir James Mackintosh in reference to the
same subject deserve attention and comparison. After stating
that all the property of the monasteries and other religious
houses was vested in the king. Sir James Mackintosh pro-
ceeds,—

" It may be a fit moment to pause here, in order calmly and shortly to
review some of the weighty questions which were involved in this measure.
There is no need of animadverting upon the means by which it was
eiFected, though we must agree to the affirmation of a great man, ' that an
end which has no means but such as are bad, is a bad end.' But the
general question may be best considered, keeping out of view any of
those attendant misdeeds which excite a very honest indignation, but
which disturb the operation of the judgment. Property is legal posses-
sion. Whoever exercises a certain power over any outward thing in a
manner which, by the laws of the country, entitles him to an exclusive
enjoyment of it, is deemed a proprietor. But property which is generally
deemed to be the incentive to industry, the guardian of order, the
preserver of internal quiet, the channel of friendly intercourse between
men and nations, and in a higher point of view, as aiFording leisure for
the pursuit of knowledge, means for the exercise of generosity, occasions
for the returns of gratitude ; as being one of the ties which join succeed-
ing generations, strengthening domestic discipline, and keeping up the
affections of kindred ; above all, because it is the principle to which all
men adapt theu- plans of life, and on the faith of whose permanency
every human action is performed ; is an institution of so high and tran-
scendent a nature, that every government which does not protect it, nay,
that does not rigorously punish its infraction, must be guilty of a viola-
tion of the first duties of just rulers. The common feelings of human
nature have applied to it the epithets of sacred and inviolable. Property
varies in the extent of the powers which it confers according to the
various laws of different States. Its duration, its descent, its acquisition,
its alienation, depend solely upon these laws. But all laws consider what
is held or transmitted agreeably to their rules as alike possessing the
character of inviolable sacredness.

" The Clergy, though for brevity sometimes called a corporation, were
rather an order in the State composed of many corporations. Theu' share

APPENDIX XII. 59

of tlie national wealtli was immense, consisting of land devised by pious
men, and of a tenth part of the produce of the soil set apart by the
customary law of Europe, for the support of the parochial clergy. Each
clergyman had only in this case an estate for life, to which, during its
continuance, the essential attribute of inviolable possession was as firmly
annexed by law as if it had been perpetual. The corporate body was
supposed to endure till it was abolished in some of the forms previously
and specially provided for by law.

" For one case, however, of considerable perplexity, there was neither
law nor precedent to light the way. Whenever the supreme power
deemed itself bound to change the Established Church, or even materially
to alter the distribution of its revenues, a question necessarily arose con-
cerning the moral boundaries of legislative authority in such cases. It
was not indeed about a legal boundary, for no specific limit can be assigned
to its right of exacting obedience within the national territory. The question
was what governments could do morally and righteously, what it is right
for them to do, and what they would be enjoined to do by a just superior,
if such a personage could be found among their fellow-men .'' At first it
may seem that the lands should be restored to the heirs of the original
grantor ; but no provisions for such a reversion was made in the grant.
No expectation of its occurrence was entei'tained by their descendants, no
habit or plan of life had been formed on the probability of it. The grantors
or founders had left their property to certain bodies under the guardian
power of the commonwealth, without the reserve of any remainder to
those who, after the lapse of centui'ies, might prove themselves to be their
representatives. It appeared therefore meet and righteous, that in this
new case, after the expiration of the estates for life the property granted
for a purpose no longer deemed good or the best should be applied by the
legislature to other purposes which they considered as better. But the
sacredness of the life estates is an essential condition of the justice of
such measures. No man thinks an annuity for life less inviolable during
his life than a portion of land granted to him and his heirs for ever.
That estate might, indeed, be forfeited by a misperformance of duty ; but
perfect good faith is in such a case more indispensable than in most others.
Fraud can convey no title ; false pretences justify no acts. There were
gross abuses in the monasteries, but it was not for their offences that the
monastic communities fell. The most commendable api^lication of their
revenues, would have been to purposes as like those for which they were
granted as the changes in religious opinion would allow. These were
religious instruction and learned education. Some faint efforts were made
to apply part in the foundation of new bishoprics ; but this was only to
cover the profusion with which the produce of rapine was lavished on
courtiers and noblemen, to purchase their support of the confiscations,
and to ensure their zeal, and that of their descendants, against the resto-
ration of popery '."

' History of England, ii. 218.

60 APPENDIX XIII.

From the principles expounded in this discussion the present
Irish Church Bill derives little support. It confiscates eccle-
siastical property, and withdraws parliamentary grants to
which lengthened continuance had given somewhat of the
stability and certainty of the revenues of property, not for
any abuses or offences of the persons or institutions ejftfcjtled
to them ; and it apjjlies the proceeds of the former to relieve
the county rates, from the expense of lunatic asylums and
reformatories for juvenile offenders, a purpose which differs
little in its nature from conferring them '^'^on courtiers and
noblemen,'''' and saves the amount of the latter to the general
taxation of the country — " covering the profusion with which
the first is lavished^" and the selfish parsimony by which the
latter is saved, with ^^a faint effort^" to do something for
charity by allowing an insignificant proportion to go in pro-
viding nurses for the sick, and homes for the dumb.

XIII.

The observation at page 31 that the clauses relating to the
formation of a New Church are not sufficiently enabling —
clause 19 of the Bill merely removing legislative prohibitions
on the meeting of Synods — will be best illustrated by a com-
parison with the provisions for these purposes in the laws of
some of the Colonies. In Canada, by 19 & 20 Vic. ch. 121,
the Bishops, Clergy, and laity may meet in their several
dioceses and frame constitutions and make regulations for
enforcing discipline ; and frame a constitution and regulations
for the general management and good government of the
Church. In Victoria, by the statute 18 Vic, No. 45, any
Bishop may convene an assembly of the licensed Clergy and
laity of his diocese, and every regulation of such assembly
relating to Church affairs as defined, is made binding on the
members of the Church in the diocese, the Clergy and laity
voting separately.

In one particular, the legislation in these two Colonies
differs materially. In Canada there is no provision preserving

APPENDIX XIII. 61

either patronage or ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Crown.
In Victoria it is provided that no regulation should affect any
right of appeal to her Majesty in Council^ or to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury _, or the Metropolitan of the Province
without their consent previously obtained; nor unless con-
firmed by a subsequent order of the Archbishop of Canterlnuy;
and also that no regulation should be valid which would alter
or be at variance with the authorized standards of faith and
doctrine of the United Church of England and Ireland, or
alter the subscriptions and declarations required for the con-
secration of Bishops or ordination of the Clergy. It is also
provided that neither the right of appointing Bishops, nor
any other prerogative of her Majesty (save the advowson of
Victoria), were to be affected.

What statute law effected for Victoria, has been attained in
Canada by the Provincial Synod passing- resolutions, which
adopted the Canon of Scripture set forth by the Church of
England, the Book of Common Prayer, and Thirty-nine
Articles, and Church government by Bishops, Priests and
Deacons ; and declared that the Queen is rightfully possessed
of the chief government and supremacy over all persons
within her dominions, whether ecclesiastical or civil.

In connexion with the same subject, the legislation of the
State of New York is deserving of attention. By the 35th
article of the Constitution of 1777, all such parts of the
Common Law and Statutes as might be construed to establish
or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their
ministers, were repealed ; but no grants of lands or charters
made by the authority of the King or his predecessors were to
be affected. By an Act passed 6th April, 1781, after reciting
that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
without discrimination or preference had been ordained, and
that many charitable persons were prevented from contributing
to the support of religion for want of proper persons to take
charge of their pious donations, and that many estates pur-
chased and given to the support of religious societies, rest in
private hands, to the great insecurity of the societies for
whose benefit they were purchased or given, and that it was
the duty of all free and virtuous governments to encourage

62 APPENDIX XIII.

virtue and religion, and to enable every relig-ious denomina-
tion for the decent and honourable support of Divine worship,
it is provided that all religious denominations in the State
might appoint trustees, who should be a body corporate for
the purpose of taking care of the temporalities of their respec-
tive congregations. In 1795, an Act specially for the Pro-
testant Episcopal Church was passed, which after reciting that
the Act of 1784 exposed this Church to difficulties, provides
in effect that each vestry constituted as thereby defined, should
form a body corporate. These Acts have been followed by
various other Acts both of a general character as to all religious
denominations, and of a special character as to particular de-
nominations. In these, limitations are imposed on the amount
of property which may be held for the benefit of religion. The
last Act relating to the Protestant Episcopal Church bears
date 9th May, 1868, and pro\'ides that not less than six male
persons of full age, belonging to any Church or Congregation
in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church, not
already incorporated, may meet at any time at the usual place
of public worship of such Church or congregation, for the
purpose of incorporating themselves. It defines the qualifica-
tion to vote, viz. belonging to the congregation and baptism
or confirmation in the Church Episcopal, or receiving the
communion, or purchase, or ownership, or hire of a pew in the
Church, or contribution to its support for twelve months ; and
empowers the majority to determine the name or title of the
Church or congregation; to provide for the annual election of
two Churchwardens and not less than four, nor more than
eight Vestrymen, who with the Rector (if there be one) are to
form a vestry, and be trustees of such Church or congregation,
and they and their successors are to be a corporation by the
title chosen. Other statutes meet the special cases of other
religious bodies with similar or analogous provisions. The
proceedings of the meetings to incorporate are in all cases to
be certified under the hands and seals of the persons appointed
by the respective Acts, to the clerk of the county in which
the Church, &c., is situate, and by him to be recorded.

LONDON :

GILBEET AND EIVINGTON, PEINTEES,

ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

Los Angeles

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

3 1 \^^^

jf^N

Form L9-Series4939

BIBLE READINGS for FAMILY PRAYER. By the Rev.
W. H. RIDLEY, M.A., Rector of Hambleden.
Old Testament — Genesis and Exodus.
New Testament — St. Luke and St. John.
Crown 8vo, each, 2s.

SICKNESS ; ITS TRIALS AND BLESSINGS. Fine Edition.
Small 8vo, y. dd. Also a Cheap Edition, is. 6d. ; or, in Paper Wrapper, ij'.

CATECHESIS ; or, Christian Instruction preparatory to Con-
firmation and First Communion. By CHARLES WORDSWORTH,
D.C.L., Bishop of St. Andrew's. New and Cheaper Edition. Small
8vo, 2S.

DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY on the GOSPEL according
to S. MATTHEW. Translated from the French of Quesnel. Crown
Svo, "iS. dd.

L 009 492 792 8

■I;;