rehemently that Sir J. Wrottesley should persist in his motion. To the taunts to which such factious conduct necessarily exposed him, he answered, that although no man could approve less of the bill than he did, yet the dignity of the House required it to resist any attempt of the Lords to refuse even that little instalment of church reform which it contained. This was no explanation; or, if it meant anything, it meant this, that the House of Lords should be compelled to enact, what he admitted to be, a measure which ought not to pass the legislature, merely becanse, however bad it might be, the Commons had gone so far wrong as to pass it. The motion was pressed to a division, and lost by a majority of 160 to 125. Even its success was not likely to have been attended by any very effective result. The popularity of ministers was rapidly on the wane; the

country had taken little interest in the bill; and government would have found it impossible to excite, against the peers, a popular tempest similar to that which they had roused against them in regard to the reform bill. Colonel Evans, who had ousted Sir John Cam Hobhouse from the representation of Westminster, because the latter had refused to vote for the repeal of the assessed taxes, assured the House, that people out of doors were altogether indifferent about the motion. Mr. Tennyson, who represented one of the metropolitan districts, was of the same opinion, and would not support any propositition which went to destroy the legislative independence of the Peers; but yet he would vote for the motion, because he himself had a motion for the 17th, which he wished should be discussed in a full House.

N the House of Peers, the debate on the second reading of the Irish Church Bill was continued by adjournment on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of July. Earl Grey, in the speech with which he introduced the motion, said, that he scarcely thought the propriety of removing the vestry-cess, a partial and oppressive in itself, and which had led to much of the disturbance prevailing in Ireland, would be disputed. The primate of Ireland, and the clergy of the diocese of Armagh, had admitted, in petitions to that House, the necessity of its abolition. The next object of the bill was, to provide for the augmentation of small livings; and there could be nothing wrong in applying some portion of the revenues of the Church, at present so unequally distributed, to augment the stipends of those who, though performing laborious duties, were living in penury with incomes_hardly sufficient to main tain a decent existence; and no less necessary, and purely ecclesiastical, was the last object of the bill, viz. the building of churches and glebe-houses, and keeping them in proper repair.

The first of the means proposed for gaining these ends, which he

understood was likely to be warmly contested, was, the sale of perpetuities under bishops' leases, which had been characterised as an act of spoliation. But nothing would be taken from the Church on the contrary, all the revenues which it now enjoyed in this respect would be fully secured to them. It was clear that, with the remaining revenues of the Church, the bishops of Ireland would be amply provided for.

The bishops would lose nothing; the Church would gain much. He was aware it had been considered generally, and had been so stated, that bishops' leases were nearly as good as perpetuities. But the difference between the value of one and the other was apparent from a comparison of the state of those lands at the present moment. It was an observation almost proverbial in Ireland, that you might know from the state of cultivation, in merely passing through the country, which were the lands held under bishops' leases, and which were those held in perpetuity. This was a conclusive proof that tenures under bishops' leases were not regarded in the same light as tenures in perpetuity; and the cause was obvious, for no man not holding a freehold

....

in the property would have the same inducement to improve the estate as the individual who might possess the freehold. His Lordship next proceeded to consider the proposed reduction in the number of bishops, and he reminded the House, that the number of bishops in Ireland had never been uniform up to the time of the Union. The number had once been no less than 33, it had afterwards fallen below the number at which they at present stood, and had been altered both in principle and mode. The present number of Irish bishops, however, was 22, and those sees consisted of several unions of dioceses made at different times, under different circumstances, and by different parties. But for an article in the Act of Union, regulating the relative number of Irish bishops to sit in that House, it might be regulated by his Majesty without the interference of the legislature at all. In two instances the union of dioceses had been effected by acts of parliament. The archdiocess of Cashel and the bishopric of Emly were united by an act passed in the 11th year of Elizabeth. Being a private statute, it was not of record, but its title was to be found in Ball's Index to be "an act for uniting the bishopric of Emly with the archbishopric of Cashel, passed in the 11th year of the reign of Elizabeth." The next union of sees was in the case of Meath and Clonmacnoise, which took place in the 11th year of the same reign, also by a statute, the title of which was to be found in Ball's Index. Under the authority of Pope Eugene IV. the dioceses of Down and Connor were united in the year 1441, and that union was sanctioned by Henry VI., VOL. LXXV.

under his letters patent, now of record in the Tower of London. The dioceses of Waterford and Lismore were consolidated in 1316, by Pope Urban V. in the same way; and the sees of Cork and Ross were held together since 1678, in commendam, without being otherwise united. So also in 1660, with the sees of Limerick, Ardfert, and Aghadoe, with Clonfert, and Kilmacduagh, and with Killala and Achonry in 1667. In 1645, the sees of Ardagh and Tuam were held in commendam, and, in 1752, Killaloe and Kilfenora were so held, though never before united. Thus the bishoprics of Ireland could be united and held in commendam precisely in the same way as was proposed in the bill, by the authority of the Crown without the interference of the legisla ture. The number of bishoprics was at present 22, while, in the reign of James I. the number was 18, comprising four archbishops and 14 bishops; and it was worth attention, that many of the unions of sees then existing were the same as were proposed in the present bill. The bill proposed, in the first place, to unite the dioceses of Kilmore and Ardagh, both of which were held together from the year 1603 to 1727, with the exception of a short interval in the years 1693 and 1694. The dioceses of Cork and Cloyne were united from the year 1401 to the year 1553, and the sees of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, were united from the year 1638 to the year 1673. It was proposed by the bill to unite the dioceses of Derry and Raphoe. Now, those dioceses. were held by the same bishop from the year 1605 to the year 1610; and with them was also united the bishopric of Clogher. It was pro[1]

posed in the bill to unite the diocess of Down and Connor with Dromore. Dromore had been for merly annexed to the diocess of Down and Connor from 1606 to 1611, and, subsequently, from 1660 to 1667. It was proposed by the bill to unite the diocess of Waterford and Lismore with Cashel and Emly. These dioceses had been united at two different periods, from the year 1552 to 1589, and from 1592 to 1607. It appeared, then, that of the unions proposed to be established by the bill, five had hitherto existed; and, with that evidence, he would say, that, the expediency of the measure being once proved, the House had a perfect right, without the infraction or contravention of any principle whatever, to pass a mea. sure for the due regulation of the number of bishoprics in Ireland. Now, the expediency or inexpediency of the reduction must depend on this, whether the reduction would injure the due performances of the duties for which bishops were appointed; and this question he contended must be answered in the negative, by a mere comparison of England with Ireland. The population of England was about 12,000,000. He would assume that only two-thirds of that number, 8,000,000, belonged to the established church, although, he believed, they amounted to at least three-fourths. Thus, in England, they had 26 bishops for administering a church with 8,000,000 of members. In Ireland there were 22 bishops, and, according to the last census, taken in 1831, the amount of the whole population of that country was 7,784,536. The total amount of the members of the established church in Ireland could not be fairly stated at more

than 1,000,000 of persons. They had, therefore, in Ireland 22 bishops to superintend the spiritual wants of 1,000,000, while, in England, 26 bishops performed the same duty for a population of not less than 8,000,000. Then let them look at the respective number of benefices in the two countries. The number of benefices in England, under the care of those 26 bishops was 10,000 and odd ; some prelates had stated, and no doubt were correct in the statement, that they were upwards of 11,000. The number of benefices in Ireland, under the charge and superintendence of the 22 bishops, was 1,456: and if from that number those were subtracted to which no cure of souls was attached, the number would be reduced to 1,306. Thus it appeared, that 26 bishops in England were charged with the superintendence of about 11,000 benefices, while 22 bishops in Ireland had, under their charge, only 1,156. What then was the proportion which the duties that devolved upon each bishop in Ireland bore to the amount of duties with which each individual bishop was charged in England? It appeared, from a comparison of the returns, that, while each bishop in England had, on the average, to superintend $70,000 members of the church, and 400 benefices, each bishop in Ireland had only, on an average, 45,500 members of the church, and 66 benefices to attend to. Now, notwithstanding this great disparity, he was sure it would not be said by any one, that the duties which devolved upon bishops were more efficiently discharged in Ireland than in England. Under the, bill, each bishop would have only 83,000 persons, and 121 benefices

to attend to, which, in population, was less than one fourth, and, in benefices scarcely more than a fourth of what was placed under the administration of each bishop in England. It was impossible to maintain, in the face of such facts, that the number of bishops proposed to be retained would be too small for the church of Ireland, or that it was expedient to keep up a number of bishops, the utility of which was not apparent; for, when their utility was not apparent, it was for the interest of the Irish church, that they should be reduced.

The next point was, the imposition of a graduated tax on the incomes of all future incumbents in Ireland, in lieu of the first fruits. That parliament was competent to legislate on such a point was by no means a new principle. He did not mean to say, that he agreed with those who maintained, that all the property of the church was public property, applicable to whatever purposes parliament might select; the question involved in that opinion was not raised by the measure now before the House. The bill, without diverting the revenues of the church to any purposes not ecclesiastical, only applied a portion of them to purposes to which the most devoted friends of the church had always allowed they onght to be applied. At a meeting of the clergy of the diocess of Derry in 1832, a resolution was passed, recommending that the church-cess should be abolished, and provision made for it out of the church funds, including a new valuation of the first fruits. What was this but to propose a tax upon the church Several propositions had been made, from an early period, for establishing a system

of education in Ireland, and since the 10th Henry VIII., every beneficed clergyman in Ireland had sworn, that he would keep, or cause to be kept, a school in the parish, defraying the expense out of his stipend. The statute, however, did not fix any amount of his contribution; and the consequence was, that a contribution of 40s. from each minister towards the maintenance of a school had come to be uniformly considered a sufficient compliance with the obligation. To remedy this, the Government had proposed, in 1787, to levy, for the maintenance of schools throughout the country, a contribution of 40s. on all livings not exceeding 1501, a-year; 31. a-year on all livings between 2001. and 3007., and sixpence in the pound on all livings above 300l. Here was another direct proposition to tax the clergy. In 1812, the commissioners of the Board of Education in Ireland were the late Primate, the Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Killaloe, the Bishop of Ferns, and Mr. Leslie Foster, now one of the Barons of the Irish Exchequer-all of them, it must be admitted, the most unlikely persons possible to propose a violation of the rights of the church; yet they had recommended that the clergy should be rated, towards the support of schools, at two per cent upon their incomes, the amount to be ascertained by the bishops. Here were the acknowledged and devoted friends of the church advocating a tax upon the clergy. The government of 1811 had expressly maintained the principle of requiring the clergy, especially looking at the statute of Henry VIII., to contribute, from their incomes, to purposes of education; and the late