conquered country, and that it was a great thing for a "conquered" country to obtain any relaxation in their oppressions and burthens ["No, no!"]. He was glad to hear those noes, as they, at least, showed that some members of the House were not impressed with the feeling he had deprecated, yet, however the case might now be, the conduct pursued towards Ireland hitherto had been unhappily such as but too well to warrant such an opinion as he had expressed. As to the infliction of the English Established Church on a Roman Catholic population, he would ask, what would the English have thought if James 2nd victorious in Ireland, had come over to England and attempted to set a Roman Catholic clergyman over every English parish? What would the English have thought of this-or, rather, what would they have done? Would they have suffered such an infliction? No. Why, then, should they wish to inflict upon the Irish nation an insult and an oppression which they would not have endured themselves? He had hoped and expected that Ministers would have come forward and laid down the principle that the Roman Catholic clergy were entitled to assistance and support, not as a boon but as a right; but as they had not done so, he should feel it his conscientious duty to himself and his constituents to support the Motion of the hon. member for St. Alban's.

Mr. Ellice observed, that a more conclusive argument against that which had been urged by the hon. Member opposite could not be found than that which was contained in the speech of his hon. friend behind him, who boldly recommended the diversion of the revenues of the Irish Church in order to raise an ascendancy of a Catholic clergy. ["No, no!"] He begged his hon. friend's pardon if he had misunderstood him, but he understood him to say, that he could not vote with his Majesty's Government, unless the Catholic clergy were provided for out of the revenues of the Church of Ireland. ["No," from Mr. Browne.] He begged pardon if he were wrong, but he thought that his hon. friend had said so. How ever, if his hon. friend had said so, he must say, that it would form a very strong argument for opposing the Motion of the hon. member for St. Alban's. Ireland indeed, and he fully admitted it, had its full measure of suffering, and the Church

was no inconsiderable item in the catalogue of her grievances. From its abuses and its oppressions, much misery had come upon that ill-fated country; but the time to put a stop to those oppressions, to remove those abuses, had arrived, and he hoped that a full and free inquiry, with a view to the revision and complete redress of her wrongs, would afford her that rest which she so much needed. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had taken much interest in the affairs of that country, and he remembered that some time ago, in seconding a Motion made by the hon. member for Middlesex, he had said, that not a county in England would have endured for a day the kind of treatment which two Irish counties had experienced for six months, during which period upwards of 12,000 tithe processes were served in those counties. Since he made that statement, it was true that they had been giving gradual relief to Ireland, but it was impossible that the present state of the Church could be upheld. He had at the same time stated, that the course he proposed was necessary for the maintenance and strengthening of the Church itself. He adhered to those opinions, and any measures which he should support must, therefore, unite the two objects of upholding the Church and affording redress to the Irish people. He might have been desirous to concur with his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) in the views he had taken, but for the difficulties which he foresaw in maintaining the Church at all without some conciliation to Ireland, and without which he felt they must give up all hope of her internal tranquillity. Having, therefore, taken his determination to stand upon the principles which had been so clearly and forcibly stated by his noble friend that night, he was compelled, however painful to himself, to separate himself from his former colleagues who took a different view. The appropriation of the revenues of the Church of Ireland would be such as would give peace, repose, and tranquillity to distracted Ireland. He would not have consented to the issuing of a Commission to conceal his own opinions, and he felt bound to state, that his honest intention was, and he spoke as a Member of the Government, to act upon the Report which that Commission might forward. But when the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, talked of a difference of opinion still existing between his noble friend

and some other parties in the Government upon that most important question, namely, whether Parliament had or had not the right of appropriating the property of the Church to whatever purpose it might deem desirable, he thought it necessary to declare that there was no such difference, in order that it might go forth to the country that the Government were completely united upon that question. If this, then, were the case, he did feel himself entitled to make a very strong appeal to the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, and ask him, whether he thought it expedient to press it upon the House? He would put it to the hon. Gentleman whether, after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, he did not see a danger that might arise from an appeal to the Protestant feeling of this country? Let him assure his hon. friend that those who had witnessed the course of previous events in this country, and who knew what the state, and strength, and depth of that Protestant feeling was; he would assure his hon. friend that they who knew this must have some little feeling of apprehension for the result of any division amongst the friends of liberal principles on subjects of this description. He threw that out for the hon. Gentleman's consideration, for he believed that they had the same object in view. If the cry which he heard from the opposite side meant that he had for his object the full and complete reformation of the Irish Church he avowed it. He had joined the Government upon those principles, but if it were meant to imply that he had views tending to the destruction of the Church, then he denied it. He had equally in view the support of the Church and the pacification of Ireland. It was upon these principles that he stood where he was, and this policy alone he was convinced could give them the least chance of eradicating that state of things which had so long and so unhappily existed in that distracted country.

Mr. Browne explained, that he did not mean to say what had been attributed to him, but as he was pressed on the subject, he must say, he thought half the revenues of the Irish Church ought to be appropriated to the Catholic priesthood.

Mr. Lefroy regretted the course pursued by the Government, and that while professing their attachment to principles of conservation in Church questions they

were all the time acting upon a spoliative principle, and exposing the Church to its application in all time to come. He felt that they were now come to times when every man must make his choice whether the country was to have the Constitution and an established religion, or an infidel republic upon the principles of Tom Paine. All men must come to that choice, and he regretted to see a Government in this country, while professing an attachment to the former, adopting a course of policy having a direct tendency to bring about the establishment of the latter. The hon. Member who brought forward the subject, had stated the gross revenue of the Church at 937,4561. Now he had examined the items composing the total revenue, and he undertook to prove that they did not exceed 521,4317. He would undertake to make that out to the satisfaction of the House. The first statement of the hon. Member he should notice was that of the Bishops' revenues, which he gave at one hundred and twenty odd thousands. He admitted, that this had been the revenue of the Bishoprics; but the hon. Gentleman in stating that had forgotten to deduct the cancelled bishoprics, which amounted to 50,7301. Then in the revenues of the dean and chapter, he had omitted to give them the credit they so justly took for the sum of 21,4007. which they devoted to the repairs of cathedrals. The hon. member for St. Alban's had, perhaps not intentionally, exaggerated the revenues of the Church of Ireland by nearly one-half. The true amount of those revenues did not exceed 615,0007., of which sum about 449,0002. was appropriated to the benefices of the clergy, which were 1,456 in number, giving an average revenue to each of about 3087. per annum. He made this statement fearlessly, and was prepared to stand pledged to its truth. If any hon. Member disputed it, let him stand up in a manly and decorous manner to do so. He would state further, that 678 of the above livings did not exceed 3001., and that many of them went as low as 301. If it were to be contended that the revenues of not a few livings were redundant, and that some parishes were considerably overpaid, he would assert, in reply, that there were as many which were underpaid. If it were proposed to appoint a Commission only to inquire into the extent and revenues of the different parishes he would

not object to it; but he regretted to find that his Majesty's Government had mixed up with that proposition the principle of population-a principle destructive to the Church Establishment in Ireland. It was impossible to have a satisfactory result upon a matter of this kind from a purely lay Commission. When the hon. member for Middlesex brought forward a similar Motion in the year 1825, Mr. Canning opposed it by declaring that it would be a "most barefaced infraction of the Act of Union," and desired the Clerk of the House to read the fifth clause of that Act in support of that declaration. One word in conclusion in reference to the Protestant population of Ireland. The hon. member for St. Alban's had stated them at only 600,000; but he (Mr. Lefroy) would appeal to documents before the House, documents furnished by evidence upon oath, to show that that was not half the real amount of the adherents of the Established Church in Ireland.

Mr. Ward rose to reply:-The noble Lord, he observed, had said, that he (Mr. Ward) had brought forward no fact or adduced no argument that night which should induce the House to agree to his Motion; but in saying so the noble Lord would seem to forget that his facts and arguments had been all brought forward upon a former occasion, and that it was not for him to trouble the House by repeating them, his case having been already made out. As to the general accuracy of these facts, there could be no prouder confirmation of it than that they had not been impugned by any one of the three right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken that evening, and who were so intimately acquainted with the affairs of Ireland. He alluded to the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, the late right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, and the right hon. Gentle man opposite (Mr. Rice). The only person who had assailed the correctness of his statements was the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. He had accused him (Mr. Ward) of gross exaggeration. He, however, had rested his statement upon documents accessible to everybody he had rested it upon a statement made by the noble Lord, and confirmed by Returns made to that House. This was with respect to two-thirds of the parishes; and for the 272 parishes of which there was no Return he had added one-fourth; and for 85,000 Irish acres

of glebe land, which were equal to 130,000 English acres, he had allowed 30s. an acre. Upon these grounds he had made his calculation. He had yet to learn that he had been guilty of any inaccuracy. He much regretted, that the noble Lord had not seen fit to combine the issuing of his Commission with some positive assertion of the principle he was anxious to have adopted by the House. He was sorry to cause a division between the friends of liberal principles, or anything wearing the appearance of a division; but as the principle which he had advocated had been so very strongly controverted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), he felt that he would be hardly justified before the House and the country in not pressing the question to a vote. His only regret was, that the question could not come fairly before the House. Many hon. Members, he was aware, who were friendly to his proposition, did not yet, in consequence of the Commission which had been issued, feel it right to vote against the Motion for the previous question. He found fault with no one less pledged than he himself was; he blamed nobody; he lamented only the course which Government had thought proper to pursue.

The House divided on the Question that Mr. Ward's Motion be put-Ayes 120; Noes 396: Majority 276.

List of the AYES.

Adams, E. H. Aglionby, H. A. Attwood, T. Barnard, E. G. Barry, G. S. Beauclerk, Major Bellew, R. M. Bewes, T. Bish, T. Blake, J. Blamire, W. Brotherton, J. Browne, D. Bulwer, H. L. Buckingham, J. S. Bulwer, E. L. Butler, Hon. Colonel Callaghan, D. Chapman, M. L. Clay, W. Cobbett, W. Collier, J. Curteis, Captain Crompton, J. S. Curteis, II. B.