said, that representing as he did a constituency which had a considerable interest in shipping, he was anxious that before the adjournment of the House the neutral trade of this country should not be left in its then unsatisfactory position. From Earl Russell's statement in another place, it almost appeared as though Federal cruisers had a right to seize, without limit, neu

would no doubt, bear him out in his assertion that the report probably emanated from a gentleman who had not been present at the meeting at all. He did not look upon the meeting as in any way a confidential one, nor did he suppose that gentlemen present were precluded from mentioning what transpired. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman did not make the very capital speech attributed to him; but the sub-tral vessels running to Matamoras and to stance of it was contained in a printed Nassau. Yet the noble Earl had laid it paper, which was furnished to those who down in a most able despatch to the Federal attended the meeting, and which contained Government, that though that Government the heads of the proposed Bill. He believed had undoubtedly the belligerent rights in that the speech emanated from an hon. Mem-respect to neutral vessels, the indiscrimiber who was not present, but who derived nate use of that right would become an his information from an hon. Member who intolerable evil. By the last mail from was. He could not see that any imputation America it appeared that the Government rested upon any hon. Gentleman for what of Washington had opened the question in had taken place. respect of the cargo of the Peterhoff. Now, Judge Story held distinctly that the question of cargo was not to be considered with regard to neutral trade, but that it was a question of destination; and he further stated that there could be no question of contraband of war between two neutral countries. If that position was international law, he thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to adhere to it. The Federal Government would, he believed, be prepared to concede to their

MR. BUTT said, that what was attributed to the right hon. Baronet as a speech was in reality a printed circular, which was placed in the hands of the Members attending the meeting, and he thought the whole affair had been treated in too grave a man

ner.

COLONEL DICKSON said, that with reference to the case of the miller who had been refused an arms licence, he wished to say that he had voted for the introduction of the Arms Bill, and under the circum-just demands if they held their own; but if stances of the country thought that such a measure was necessary; but he did hope that the right hon. Gentlemen would take care to prevent the exercise of any undue authority by those who carried out the Act. Generally speaking, the stipendiary magis. trates of Ireland acted with much discretion, but he protested against their taking upon themselves to refuse permission to carry arms to a man who could by no possibility make a bad use of them, and who had been actually recommended to carry arms by a local magistrate.

they abandoned the ground which they were justified in taking on this question, that Government would make new encroachments. It would be necessary to take a stand at last, and he thought that the Government ought to take that stand, and ought to insist that the Washington Cabinet should adhere to the principles which Mr. Seward laid down in answer to Admiral Milne last year. As matters stood, they were surrendering the trade with Mexico and the West India Islands to the New York merchants and to those of France. Motion agreed to.

House at rising to adjourn till Thursday 28th May.

MR. BAGWELL said, that a refusal to allow a person to have arms in his possession was entirely subversive of the liberty of the subject. He thought it must have originated in a mistake, and he hoped that it would not go forth to the public that this RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND). monstrous doctrine came from the Irish Executive-namely, that a respectable man was not to have arms for his defence because he lived in a proclaimed district. UNITED STATES-FEDERAL INTERFER ENCE WITH NEUTRAL TRADE.

SELECT COMMITTEE MOVed for.

MR. DILLWYN said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire how far the present distribution of endowments for religious purposes throughout Ireland may be so amended as most to conduce to the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects; to search the Journals of this House LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST for any Resolutions passed since the Acts

OBSERVATIONS.

the will of the people; but the Established Church of Ireland was altogether in a very different position, and a very able writer, Mr. Goldwin Smith, had stated that " the hold of the Irish Church Establishment, on the affections of the Irish people, was a garrison of 20,000 men." That was perfectly true; and as the power of the country was wielded through the House of Commons, it behoved the House to see whether that power was wielded for the advantage of the whole nation, and in a manner justified by the national exigencies, and whether the Irish Church Establishment had answered the desired end. He liked to shelter himself behind the opinions of statesmen and eminent men, and therefore he would quote a short extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, whom he did not then see in his place. Speaking of the Irish people in 1844, the right hon. Gentleman said

of the 39 & 40 Geo. III., c. 67, having reference to the application of any surplus revenue arising from Ecclesiastical Endowments in Ireland; and to report how far such Resolution or Resolutions appear to have been subsequently carried into effect. He thought the time had come when a great change should be made in the ar rangements with regard to the temporalities of the Irish Church, and further that the liberal party especially were pledged to the advancement of that question. He was perfectly aware that any measure which was likely to settle permanently, or even materially advance the great question involved in his Motion, must emanate from the Government. A matter of such magnitude and importance could not be taken up with any hope of success by a private Member; and in order to have a fair chance of success, it must be taken up and urged forward with all the power of the Government. As that was the case, and as the present Go"That dense population, in extreme distress, vernment was supposed to represent the inhabited an island where there was an Established Liberal party, it had long been a matter of Church which was not their Church; and a terrisurprise that the Government had so long torial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving popuneglected to take the question up. Year lation, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien after year he had hoped that some mention Church, and, in addition, the weakest Executive of the subject would have been made in the in the world. That was the Irish question. Well, Speech from the Throne, and year after year then, what would hon. Gentlemen say if they were he had been disappointed. It had been al- reading of a country in that position? They would say at once, The remedy is revolution.' lowed to sleep, like Reform and many other But the Irish could not have a revolution; and questions, which once formed the watch- why? Because Ireland was connected with anwords of the Liberal party. Under these other and a more powerful country. Then what circumstances, he thought it was the duty was the consequence? The connection with England thus became the cause of the present state of of Parliament to take up the matter as Ireland. If the connection with England preit was a question which in some respects vented a revolution, and a revolution were the only stood in an exceptional position to others. remedy, England logically was in the odious posi The question of Reform was one which tion of being the cause of all the misery in Irethe Government had abandoned, as he land." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 1016.] thought unwisely, although he admitted Consequently, the House of Commons was that the country had shown great in- especially bound to protect the Irish from difference on the subject. Peace. Re- the injustice alleged to be committed form, and Retrenchment were questions against them. The force used in mainwhich had been in turn abandoned by taining the Irish Church Establishment the Government; but it must be must be re- could only be justified by political necessity membered that it was in the power of or success. Believing that the Irish Church, the country at any time to interfere, and far from being a political necessity, was a force the Government to carry out their cause of great weakness to this country, pledges with regard to these questions. and that so far from being a successful instiBut that was not the case with the Irish tution it had proved a signal failure, he Church; for there was no doubt what- felt he should not be doing his duty as a ever, that if the question was put to the Member of that House if he sat there Irish people, whether or not the tem- and allowed the question to slumber any poralities of the Irish Church should be longer. But he had another and less impormaintained on their present footing, the tant motive, which was that he was ashamresponse would be that they were not con-ed to call himself a Member of the Liberal tent with their present state. The insti- party, to sit year after year upon those tutions in other parts of the United King- benches and see the question quietly dom were maintained in accordance with shelved. During the nine years he had

had the honour of having a seat in that | in the same way-no other part of the EmHouse, the subject had only once been pire in which the religion of the people, a brought before their attention. He referred point upon which most countries were so to the Motion brought forward with great susceptible, was treated as it was in Ire ability by his hon. Friend Mr. Miall, in land. They took the revenues arising from 1856. Why was that party named Liberal, the soil of Ireland, and applied them to if it allowed such things? It would deserve the teaching of a religion which the mathe reproach of being a party of promises jority of the people believed to be a most rather than of performances if it continued dangerous heresy. In Canada, in India, to do so. He was resolved, that so far as they would not dream of doing anything of he could, the stigma should not apply to the kind. No part of the three kingdoms him; and therefore he determined to call was more firmly united to the Crown than the attention of the House to the question, Scotland; but so long as England endeaalthough he should have been glad to have voured to force upon the Scotch, not an seen it taken up by a Member of greater alien religion, but a religion differing only standing and ability than himself. in form from their own, they stubbornly resisted; and he believed, that if that endeavour had been persevered in, the union with Scotland could not have been maintained. The maintenance of the Church Establishment in Ireland prevented that union of the different classes of Irishmen which was necessary for social progress. In England the whole body of the people united in support of law and order; and he believed, that if an attack were made upon the liberties of the people, Tories would unite with Whigs in defence of those liberties. But it was impossible to expect a similar union amongst the various classes in Ireland so long as that source of discord, the Church Establishment, existed. He would lay before the House one instance of the operation of the system. In the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette of the 15th of February 1863, he found a letter, in which the writer stated

He felt one difficulty in dealing with the subject-namely, that the facts and arguments were so well known, that if he were to go into them fully, he should be told he was only proving truisms; and if he did not do so, he might be told he had not proved his case. However, he only asked for inquiry. One thing, at all events, was plain, that the result of the rule of this country in Ireland had not been attended with satisfactory results. In 1823, Lord Brougham said

"Matters in Ireland could not rest as they are for ever. One day or other the time must come that the House will have to give account of its stewardship of the country. England, possessing Ireland, is in the possession of that which ought to be her security in peace, and her sinew in war, and yet in war what has Ireland been but strength to her enemies-what in peace but an eternal source of revolt and rebellion?" [2 Hansard, lx. 1276.]

Lord John Russell, speaking on the May- that he did not object to any man on acnooth question, said—

"We cannot help being struck with the fact that there has been no time in the history of Ireland since this country obtained a footing and dominion there, in which there was not some dreadful contest-something amounting to a civil war—and a state of the law that encouraged the people to consider themselves rather as victims of tyranny than as the subjects of a just Govern

ment."

He (Mr. Dillwyn) appealed to recent facts,
as illustrating these observations. Scarcely
a year passed without witnessing disorder,
turbulence, and disturbance of various
kinds in Ireland. Hon. Members often
ascribed the unsatisfactory state of things
in Ireland to the turbulence of the Irish
people; but if they were not the quietest
people under the sun, they would not have
put up so long with the gross injustice to
which they had been subjected, inasmuch
as they were treated in an entirely excep-
tional manner.
There was no other part
of the British dominions which was treated

count of his religion, whether he was an
infidel, a Socinian, or a Roman Catholic;
but he thought a Protestant landlord ought
to have Protestant tenants, and a Protes-
tant employer ought to have Protestant
That was an illustration of the
servants.
unhappy spirit which the antagonism of the
two churches produced in Ireland. In Eng-
land ministers of religion of all denomina-
tions were the best allies of the Government
in the preservation of order, and they were
prominent in every movement for the pro-
motion of the education and prosperity of
the people. But that was not the case in
Ireland, because there the Catholic priest
felt himself aggrieved by the maintenance
of the Church Establishment, and could not
be expected to be an ally of the Government
in the preservation of order. In support of
his assertion that the evils of Ireland were
mainly due to the Established Church,
he might refer to the opinions of some
of the occupants of the Treasury Bench.

The President of the Indian Board (Sir The Government of Sir Robert Peel reCharles Wood), in March 1835, asked where signed in consequence of those Resolutions, the House would find in any country a rich which had been adopted during the disChurch with a small congregation contain- cussion on his Tithe Bill. Sir Robert Peel ing a minority of the population. The was turned out by noble Lords and right right hon. Baronet then asked why the hon. Gentlemen who occupied seats in the Legislature did not strike at the root of Cabinet at present. The Government the evil, and determine to make a different which succeeded Sir Robert Peel's brought appropriation of the revenues of the Irish in a Bill to give effect to those ResoluChurch? In 1845 the President of the tions. It was thrown out in the House Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson) said of Lords; but they held on to office. that Parliament might do what it would Nevertheless, the subject had been mootfor Ireland, but so long as the Irish Churched once or twice since; but those noble remained it would be a badge of conquest and degradation. There must be religious equality in that country." He did not however rest his case upon either his own opinion or the isolated opinions of statesmen, however prominent, but the course which the House of Commons pursued on the subject; and the Resolutions it had passed, showed it had been felt by statesmen in general that the Established Church had been at the root of the mischief in Ireland. At the beginning of the present century Mr. Pitt, being anxious for the Union, determined to carry Catholic emancipation. He failed, and resigned office. After thirty years the emancipation was carried by the Duke of Wellington, who saw the necessity of making the conciliation that Mr. Pitt had urged, although up to that time he had strenuously opposed it. The next step was that by which some of the Irish bishoprics were cut down and church rates were done away with in Ireland. Those were beneficial measures, but they did not meet the great question at issue, which he took to be the re-distribution of the funds set apart for ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland, for the benefit and use of the great masses of the people of that country. In 1835 the appropriation clauses were brought forward. Two Resolutions were adopted by the House. The one declared that the House should resolve itself into a Committee

"For the purpose of considering the expediency of applying any surplus revenue of the Church of Ireland which may not be required for the spiritual wants of the members of that Church to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the community."

That Resolution was acted on in Committee, and the House subsequently passed a further Resolution, which declared

"That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing Resolution."

Lords and right hon. Gentlemen seemed to have abandoned a principle on which they themselves turned out a Government. About the year 1845 Sir Robert Peel, having again come into office, directed his attention to the state of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland. He did not attempt to deal with them as he had endeavoured to do before; but feeling that something should be done to conciliate the Roman Catholics, he brought forward the Maynooth Grant in its present form; but that measure did not, in his opinion, meet the case; and this was shown by the result, as he would appeal to the House whether it had not failed to give satisfaction to any party, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, and whether, looking at the debates and divisions upon it, any hon. Members believed it could be considered either a satisfactory or final settlement of the question.

He (Mr. Dillwyn) would candidly avow to the House that in advocating inquiry he did so in the expectation it would lead to a great change-that it would lead to a re-distribution of the revenues of the Church in Ireland which would be more in accordance with what was required by the existing wants of the people. When the subject had been brought forward by others, it was said, by way of objection, that by the 5th article of the Act of Union they were bound to preserve the Church of Ireland as a portion of the United Church of England and Ireland. That article provided that the Church of England and Ireland should thenceforth be one United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the United Church of England and Ireland should be in force for ever. But it said nothing about the temporalities. Moreover, Parliament had over and over again dealt with the temporalities of the Church both in England and Ireland, and there was a Bill at that very time before Parliament introduced by a Bishop, with regard to Wales, which would have that

He

The

effect. He contended, therefore, that no I noticed the burning animosity displayed by breach of the 5th article of the Act of Irish emigrants against this country. Union was involved in such a re-distribution of the temporalities of the Church of Ireland as he wished to see brought about. The Church of Ireland was not placed by the Act of Union in a different position from that of the Church of England. No one disputed that Parliament might, and had dealt how it pleased with the Church of England, and it certainly had an equal right to deal with the Establishment in Ireland. If he wanted an argument to show that they had the power for which he contended, he might quote a speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, in answer to a Motion brought forward by Mr. Miall in 1856, said Parliament was competent to deal with the Church of England and Ireland, but they must deal with them not in order to destroy them, but to render them more perfect in their operation. But the object of the Church was for the benefit of the whole people, and it did not carry that object out. If the Irish question were again to be settled, he did not believe that Parliament would re-establish the Irish Church on its present basis. Many hon. Members on the other side of the House had admitted as much to him, though they pleaded that it worked well, on the whole, and had done some good. The whole Liberal party, including the Members of the Government and some Gentlemen on the other side, admitted that the Establishment was an injustice, an anomaly, and altogether an objectionable institution. The question was, could its maintenance be justified? The only ground of justification for it was that it was either a political necessity, a source of national strength, or that it promoted harmony and true religion. As to its being a political necessity, it was well known that the Government, since they had been slipping away from the principles which apparently they had put forward to gain the support of Irish Members, had been gradually losing their support, until there was not a single Irish representative on the Treasury Bench. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: The Attorney General for Ireland. -An hon. MEMBER: Where is he?] Instead of its being a source of national strength, it was a source of national weakness. They had to keep in Ireland, for the maintenance of that Church, an army of 21,000 men, exclusive of 12,450 constabulary. All foreign nations, when they had a quarrel with them, pointed to Ireland as their weak point. France did .it, and America too, and every one had

had little doubt, that if Ireland were invaded, a great portion of the people would rally round the invader, instead of, as they doubtless would in this country, rallying round the Government. Instead of producing harmony, the Irish Church prevented union, and destroyed all chance of peace and good will. It might be said that the Church in Ireland must be maintained to teach religion in that country. If it claimed to be an infallible Church, like the Catholic Church, he could understand that argument; but coming from the Protestant Church he could not understand it. Established Church in Ireland could only be looked upon as a Missionary Church; it had tried its mission for some hundreds of years, and they knew with what success. They knew that it had succeeded in gaining over to the Church only a small proportion of the whole population of the country. It appeared from the religious census that there were in the province of Armagh, in 1834, 557,315 members of the Established Church, and in 1861 there were in that province 455,353 members of the Established Church. In the province of Dublin there were, in 1834, 295,845 members of the Established Church, and in 1861 there were in that province only 236,519 members of the Established Church, showing that so far from there being an increase there was a very great falling-off. The revenues of the Church in Ireland in 1834 amounted to 18s. 7d. per head; in 1861 the revenues amounted to 178. 7d. per head, some reduction having taken place in consequence of the Tithe Act. They were told that the decrease in the population accounted for the decrease in the number of members of the Established Church, but that was not borne out by the facts; because the decrease being less where the Church was strongest, it might fairly be assumed that the greatest decrease was not among members of the Church, but among members of the Roman Catholic religion. Since 1841 the decrease of popu lation in Munster had been 882,603, the Church numbering 80,860; in Leinster 516,319, the Church numbering 180,508; in Connaught 548,000, the Church numbering only 40,296; and in Ulster 472,118, the Church numbering 379,773. In speaking of the numbers of Church population, it must be remembered, that even the number, small as it was, was maintained not by the temporalities of the Church alone, but also by extraneous aid. Con