64 sequence of famine, emigration, and other causes the Protestants may appear less numerous. And then the hon. Gentleman said he would show a diminution of 200,000. But there was no Census in 1834, and therefore the House may reasonably ask how the numbers for 1834 are obtained. The numbers have been taken from the Report of the Commissioners on Public Instruction in Ireland; but how did they arrive at the numbers? A decennial Census had been taken in 1831, and they said, "We will take the rate of increase in the population from 1821 to 1831, and apply it to the time between 1831 and 1834." And in that way they got a Protestant diminution of 200,000. That reminds me of an anecdote about the late Dr. Cooke Taylor, who went over to Ireland with Lord Clarendon. A gentleman being asked who Dr. Cooke Taylor was said, "He is statistician to the Castle." A country gentle man asked, What is a statistician?" Oh," replied his friend, "it is a man who is hired to invent facts for the Whigs." The decennial period from 1831 to 1841 showed altogether an increase of only 231,184, but the wiseacre who made the calculation gave the increase of the three years, from 1831 to 1834, as 209,574, being about 140,000 on the wrong side. But how was the supposed diminution to be accounted for? The Census of 1831 was not accurate, because the enumerators were taken from the mass of the people, and, as an official gentleman informed me, a great mistake was committed, because they were paid according to the numbers returned. So that if an enumerator wanted to put a couple of pounds in his pocket, he had only to return a few thousand more than he ought. But before 1841 the mistake was discovered, and in that year the Government got rid of those enumerators, and took the constabulary, and certain assistants approved of by the constabulary authorities, to perform the duty; and at the last census even those assistants were got rid of, and none but those who were under the immediate control of the State were employed. Then the hon. Gentleman deducted the Wesleyans. What right has he to do that. When the Wesleyans take the sacrament, they take it in the Church. Under the last Census the Wesleyan Methodists, a most respectable body of men, than whom none are better affected to the Church, amounted to 47,000. Then there were 27,000 other Protestants, sturdy fellows perhaps, who refused to say to VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] what body they belonged; they, too, are taken away, and the numbers of the Established Church diminished still more. The hon. Gentleman also deducts the Independents, the Baptists, and the Quakers. But what right has he to take away the half a million members of the Church of Scotland also? Do those Presbyterians ask him to do so? Do the Synod of Ulster ask to have it done? In the North of Ireland half the family may be Presbyterian and half Protestant. By what authority, then, are the Presbyterians separated from the members of the Established Church? The hon. Gentleman also forgot another part of the argument. He stated the diminution of population from emigration, and that diminution has no doubt been wonderful. It appears that from the year 1825 to 1844 no less than 1,250,000 emigrants left Ireland, 1,000,000 of whom went to America. Since that period to the present the numbers who have emigrated from Ireland are about 1,500,000. The curious question then arises, what is the religion of those people in the countries to which they emigrate. The heads of the Roman Catholic Church sent a respectable gentleman, a Mr. Mullen, to America to see what became of the Catholic emigrants when they got out there. He reported that the number of Catholic emigrants in America was 3,970,000, not less than 1,990,000 of whom were lost to the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics left a country in which the Scriptures were freely inculcated, and it is certainly most astonishing that so large a number when they reach America come over to the Protestant form of religion. hear!] [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE Hear, The hon. Member means, that if Ireland were Americanized, she would become Protestant. It is assumed that Irishmen are discontented and quarrelsome; but I am satisfied with Ireland as it is, and I believe that Irishmen are much less discontented and less quarrelsome than people generally in this country imagine. Crime is not by any means so common in Ireland as it is sometimes represented to be, and it is forty years since there has been an execution in Dublin. At all events, do not let hon. Members opposite impute that the Church is not perfectly successful whenever it has taken root and had the opportunity of perfecting its mission. Before the Emancipation Act was passed there was an inquiry before Committees of the Lords and Commons on the question 3 T whether it would be perfectly safe, in respect of the Established Church, to grant emancipation. The right hon. Richard A. Blake-himself a Roman Catholic-who went to Ireland as a friend of the Marquess of Wellesley, and received the appointment of Chief Remembrancer, was examined before a Committee in 1825. Mr. Blake told the Committee that he should not wish to see any settlement of the Catholic question effected, in which the rights of the Established Church were not preserved. Mr. Blake made the above statement before a Committee of the House of Commons. He said before the House of Lords' Com mittee "I should not be favourable to any settlement which went to disturb the Protestant Establishment; I considered it a main link in the connection between Great Britain and Ireland, and with that connection I was satisfied the interests of Ireland were essentially identified." Mr. Blake added, that he did not think"the Protestant Church of Ireland could be disturbed without danger to the general securities we possess for liberty, property, and orderwithout danger to all the blessings we derive from being under a lawful Government and a free Con stitution." sure of the Roman Catholics. Tone replied that the priests would join when the expedition was seen to be successful. "But what about the heads of the Catholic Church?" he was asked. Tone replied that he did not like the then head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, because he had ordered the priests not to give the sacraments to persons whom the English thought traitors. Carnot then, in reply to Tone's questions, told him that General Bonaparte was in Rome, and had caught the Pope. Tone thereupon urged Carnot to write a despatch to Bonaparte, directing him to make the Pope send an edict to his legate in Ireland to join the French the very day they landed; and added that the expedition would then be successful at once. If these great revolutionists could calculate on a foreign Power being turned to the subversion of the British Empire, can the House wonder that the great wits and far-seeing statesmen of Elizabeth's reign discovered the importance of connecting the State in Ireland with a Church in whose loyalty they could place the most implicit reliance? Upon all these grounds-upon the history of the country, the history of the ChurchOf all the statesmen who have argued the upon the state of Ireland-upon the conquestion of the Irish Church, the late Sir dition of the Church, never so satisfactory, James Graham was the most impartial. I rest my defence of the Established Church He traced the settlement of the Church to of Ireland. But I will add, because I do the settlement of property, and he uni- not wish to conceal it, that it is mainly to formly contended that it would be impos- be defended because it is connected with sible to overthrow the one without endan- the Reformation. Let that event never be gering the rights of the other. By what forgotten by Protestants. It burst the right or title can the descendants of a fetters that enchained the human mind. clever engineer, named Sir William Petty, It taught people to think, and shook the claim their property, compared with the powers of darkness and of evil; from that claims of the late Primate, who received moment the Church of Ireland has held up £15,000 a year, but which has been re- the lamp of truth. It may have been duced one-half? [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE : obscured, but it has never been quenched. No; £9,000.] The late Primate dis- The light now shines with steady lustre, posed of that sum so well, that I, for one, and will grow brighter and brighter every regret that it was not £20,000. But if day, until, I trust, it will at last illuminate the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) meddles our island. with the property of the Church, what chance will the absentee landlord have of getting his rents? There are great political reasons why the Church of Ireland should be connected with the State in England, and I will give the House a fact from history. When Wolfe Tone planned the subversion of the English Government in Ireland, he went to Paris, and persuaded Carnot and the great revolutionists there to give him the armament that was to be commanded by Hoche, and which, if it had landed, would have marched all over Ireland. Carnot asked Wolfe Tone if he was MR. BERNAL OSBORNE moved the adjournment of the debate. MR. DILLWYN said, he wished to ask the Government for an assurance that they would give a night after the recess for the discussion of that important question. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, the hon. Gentleman would find no difficulty in fixing a day. MR. MONSELL said, that after that intimation from the noble Lord the only course would be for his hon. Friend to introduce the question upon the first day of Committee of Supply. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MR. BERNAL OSBORNE said, he should have no objection to that course at all, and gave notice that upon going into Committee of Supply he should move a Resolution on the Irish Church. MR. SPEAKER asked whether the hon. Gentleman would name any day. MR. BERNAL OSBORNE named the 28th instant. Debate adjourned till Thursday 28th May. CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. On Motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, Bill to amend the Procedure in the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 138.] VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to extend and make compulsory the practice of Vaccination in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR. Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 139.] HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, May 21, 1863. MINUTES.-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act Continuance (No. 112). Second Reading Savings Banks Monies (No. 97). Committee-Stock Certificates to Bearer (No.100); Customs and Inland Revenue (No.101). Report-Stock Certificates to Bearer (No. 100); Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 101). Their Lordships met; and having gone through the business on the Paper, House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday the 1st of June next, a quarter before Five o'clock. Thursday, May 28, 1863. MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN-Right Hon. SUPPLY-Resolution (May 18) reported. WAYS AND MEANS-considered in Committee. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Royal Naval Reserve [Bill 142]; Passengers Act Amend ment * [Bill 143]. Second Reading-Execution of Decrees* [Bill 125]. Select Committee-Harwich Harbour [Bill 101], referred to a Select Committee *; Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [Bill 85], referred to a Select Committee*. Committee-Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [Bill 106]; District Parochial Churches (Ireland) [Bill 122]; Admiralty Courts (Ireland) [Bill 45]. Report-Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [Bill 106]; District Parochial Churches (Ireland) [Bill 122]; Admiralty Courts (Irelaud) [Bill 141]. * PROSECUTION OF REV. PATRICK LAVELLE.-QUESTION. MR. HENNESSY rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the threatened Government prosecution, commenced more than twelve months ago, against the Rev. Patrick Lavelle, would be further proceeded with? MR. O'HAGAN, in reply, said, the prosecution in question was instituted under these circumstances :-Informations had been laid against the Rev. Mr. Lavelle, charging him with participation in a riot. The local Magistrates differed as to the taking of the informations, and they were taken by one of the resident Magistrates. They came before him (Mr. O'Hagan) in in the usual way, and a bill was found by the grand jury against the Rev. Mr. Lavelle and his brother; but before the trial came on, the brother of the Rev. Mr. Lavelle-the person principally charged in the indictment for riot-died under very painful and melancholy circumstances. He was killed by a fall from his horse. Immediately after that, representations were made to the local authorities that it would tend to the advancement of good feeling and kindly spirit in the neighbourhood if circumstances, he had thought himself jusproceedings were stopped. Under these tified in directing the prosecution to be stopped, and no further proceedings would be taken in it. THE PATRIOTIC FUND. QUESTION. Joseph George Churchward, for the conveyance of Mails between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend, from the 1st day of April 1863, to the 20th day of June 1863, but no part of which sum is to be applicable or applied in or towards making any payment in respect of the period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863, to the said Mr. Joseph George Churchward, or to any person claiming through or under him by virtue of a certain Contract, bearing date the 26th day of April 1859, made between the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Admiralty (for and on behalf of Her George Churchward of the second part, or in or Majesty) of the first part, and the said Joseph towards the satisfaction of any claim whatsoever of the said Joseph George Churchward, by virtue of that Contract, so far as relates to any period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863." Resolution read 2o. MR. J. A. SMITH said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Patriotic Fund, and the causes of the resignation of the majority of the members of the Ladies' Committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, appointed in January 1862; also to notice the admission of the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, that a girl of sixteen years of age had been flogged in that establishment; and further, that the conduct of the officials who had committed this act was condoned by the Executive Committee; and to inquire what steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices. As he understood the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) wished to make some observations on this subject, which he could not do that night, according to the forms of the House, he (Mr. J. A. Smith) would repeat the Question on Mon-ply are usually Votes giving a sum of day, on going into Committee of Supply? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, the statement of the hon. Member for Chichester, which, coming as it did ten days after notice, he had now heard with great surprise and regret, induced him (Sir J. Pakington) to ask the hon. Member a question. Hav. ing himself had the honour of being a Member of the Royal Commission on the Patriotic Fund, and also a Member of the Executive Committee, he that morning attended a meeting of the Committee. That Committee felt that the hon. Gentleman had so shaped his Question as to convey an insinuation against the Royal Commission and the Executive Committee. They therefore wished to meet those insinuated charges as soon as possible, and he (Sir John Pakington) asked the hon. Member whether he would bring forward his Question not later than Monday next, in order that explanations might be given on the subject. MR. J. A. SMITH said, he would put the Question as early as the forms of the House would permit. SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES- Resolution (May 18) reported, MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I rise, according to notice, to call attention to the unusual form of the Report, founded on a Vote taken in Committee of Supply, which the Clerk has just read at the table. If you look at the Report, you will find that it is in an entirely unusal and novel form. The Votes in Committee of Sup money to the Crown for a certain specified to on granting and to decide on the amount Previous Question, or by a Resolution you will grant to the Crown for the service affecting the principle or expediency of the of the year with respect to any particular Vote. Those two Resolutions were proVote. I assert boldly, and you, Sir, will posed with others. I was a Member of the correct me if I am wrong in my assertion, Committee; and although the two Resothat during the last century there has lutions were moved a first time for the been no form of proceeding similar to that purpose of being recorded upon the records adopted in the Committee of Supply before of our proceedings, the Committee would the recess. I believe that not a single not entertain them a second time. Other instance can be brought forward of that discussions were raised; but the importform, or anything like, it having been ance of those two Resolutions is this-that adopted. Nay more, according to the it was distinctly raised for the first time best research I have been able to give the whether it was expedient to alter Votes matter, and according to the best research in Supply, with the view of taking the which others more competent than myself opinion of Committees of Supply upon the have given to it, the form of Vote has policy of the Vote, or the expediency of always been strictly limited, as it ought to passing it. The Select Committee would be, to the grant of a sum of money. If not, and did not, entertain it. But what that be so, it becomes a serious question, the Committee did for the convenience of what consequences will flow from an altera- the House was in strict conformity with tion in the form deliberately adopted and the rule that proceedings in Committee of sanctioned by usage; and, being sanction- Supply should be limited to the amount of ed by usage, more important than if con- money to be granted to the Crown. You tained in a written Resolution. I do not will find in the little book originated by state that there is any written Resolution; the late Speaker four Orders in reference but more than by written Resolution, it is to Supply, and those Orders were emboestablished by the usage of Parliament, died in Resolutions of the House on the which gives vitality to all our proceedings, 9th of February 1858, the year after the and which usage, if uninterrupted, is to Committee sat. Those Resolutions were my mind more important and more forcible all drawn up according to recommendations than any written Resolution. There has made by the Select Committee, and the been one alteration in recent years with alteration which they made was simply reference to the form in which Votes in this :-The House will remember that Committee of Supply are taken. Those when you took a Vote in Supply you used Members of the House who were Members to take a Vote upon the aggregate sum; in 1857, will recollect that Sir Denham it was thought inconvenient to take it in Norreys made a Motion to the House upon a that form, because when a Member wished discussion in Committee of Supply, as to the to object to an item, there was no indiform in which the Votes were taken, and cation to Ministers of the Crown what part that matter was referred to a Select Com- of the Vote was objected to. The alteramittee of the House. Members of the House tion was this-any Member might move, whose authority was the greatest upon the not merely the reduction of the aggregate subject were Members of the Committee. amount, but that a particular item should No evidence was taken. Lord Russell not be included in the Vote. Accordingly, was in the chair. The matter was dis- now in Supply you may take a division cussed. Various Resolutions were pro- on any item or the quantum and amount posed, and to some of those Resolutions I of any item; and when you come to the wish to call the attention of the House. end of the items, you can only take a deciSir Denham Norreys, who moved the ap- sion on the Vote itself in the form of that pointment of the Committee, proposed a Vote, or in the form of a reduction of the series of Resolutions which would have sum, without any Amendment. I beg to entirely altered the form of proceedings in impress upon the House the position upon reference to Committees of Supply. Two which I take my stand. I say that the of those Resolutions at the beginning of only mode known to this House of taking the series were in this form :-First, That a Vote in Committee of Supply is on the a general discussion upon the principle proposition made by the Ministers of the or policy of a Vote may be raised on the Crown as to the amount which this House Chairman announcing the purpose of the is prepared to give, or by an Amendment Vote and the amount required; second, to the Vote, limiting the amount which the that such general discussion may be raised Crown has asked for. The terms of my by moving a question analagous to the Motion are to the effect that the form of |