a

conclusion he drew was that the Spiritual but common justice, considering that one Peers, as a body, assented in Parliament Nonconformist minister, at least, the hon. to the statutes 2 Elizabeth. How other- Member for Merthyr, had been returned. wise could those statutes have passed the It was an error to suppose the Bishops House of Lords, notwithstanding the sat as barons only, they sat in the opposition of so many Temporal Peers ? Saxon Wittenagemote and in the ConNo doubt the Act of Union placed both queror's Parliament by virtue of their the Temporaland Spiritual Peers on a dif- ecclesiastical position ; and Sir Erskine ferent footing. The twenty-eight Tem- May was of Opinion that they had alporal Peers were Representative Peers. ways_sat in Parliament by virtue of The Spiritual Peers for the time being their Episcopal dignity. The clause was were four in number. They were now in a direct_attack upon the privileges a better position than the Temporal Peers, of the House of Lords. The House because many of the Temporal Peers could of Commons refused to allow any Bill not expect to sit in Parliament, but the having reference to the election of Spiritual Peers might do so if they hap- its Members to be commenced in the pened to live long enough. The spiritual House of Lords, yet the Commons prePeers formed the first Estate of the sumed to initiate measures for dealing Realm. There were some people who with the seats of Members of the Upper seemed to think that the Sovereign was House. Again, the 62nd clause of the the first Estate of the Realm. This fal- Bill provided that nothing contained in lacy had been well exposed by the his- the Bill should affect the Act of Union, torian Hallam, who showed conclusively except as regards the union of the that the three Estates of the Realm Churches, which was dealt with in the were the clergy, nobility, and common- 5th Article of the Union. But the 13th alty, represented in Parliament by the clause, which the Committee were conLords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and sidering, related to the 4th Article of Commons, and that the Queen ruled the the Union, which provided that four three Estates. Hallam said (Middle Lords Spiritual of Ireland should sit in Ages, cap. viii., p. 106, note 6)

the House of Lords, and that questions “ The source of this error is the inattention to relating to their right to sit should be the primary sense of the word estate (status), decided by the House of Lords. This which means an order or condition into which 4th Article, then, was directly attacked men are classed by the institutions of society. It is only in a secondary, or, rather, an elliptical by the clause under discussion, and was sense, that it can be referred to their representa- not covered by the 62nd clause. With tives in Parliament or national councils. The regard to the precedents for the course Lords Temporal, indeed, of England are identical proposed, there were only two. The first with the estate of the nobility: but the House of was with reference to Scotland. But, Commons is not strictly speaking the estate of the commonalty to which its Members belong, and although the Scotch clergy were not refrom which they are deputed. So the whole body presented by Spiritual Peers, this arof the clergy are, properly speaking, one of the rangement had been agreed to before estates, and are described as such in the older the Union of Scotland with England authorities-21 Ric. II., Rot. Parl., vol. iii. p. 348 --though latterly the Lords Spiritual in Parlia- among the Scotch themselves in Parliament acquired, with less correctness, that appella- ment, and the preservation of the Pres. tion. The Bishops, indeed, may be said to repre- byterian form of Church government sent, constructively, the whole of the clergy, with was a very important part of the Act of whose grievances they are supposed to be best Union between England and Scotland. acquainted, and whose rights it is their peculiar The Irish Parliament, on the contrary, duty to defend.”

stipulated that their Spiritual Peers The object of the clause was to take should continme to form an integral away from the clergy representation in part of the Parliamentary government the House of Lords. Had he known the of the United Kingdom. The anomalous clause would be under discussion this state of things in reference to Scotland evening, he would have put a 'Notice on had struck the right hon. Gentleman the the Paper to ask the Prime Minister present Prime Minister when writing, whether he intended to propose the abo-his treatise on the Union of Church and lition of the penalties the Irish clergy State. He askedwould be subject to if they attempted

• How are we justified in supporting the anoto gain a seat in the House of Commons? maly? The difficulty," he replies, " is great

, Such an alteration in the law would be but the answer appears to me to be this : It bas

become matter of law, and of compact, and good | again the supreme power in the State.
faith by the law as such. To this extent it may Ireland would not like a repetition of the
be said, fieri non debuit, factum valet. As indi-
viduals, those who hold the unity of the body are

precedent he had cited. Ireland had no
bound to endeavour to restore the apostolic sys. pleasant recollections of the Common-
tem in the national estate of religion for Scotland, wealth. She looked back upon it
and for that end to use every fair means of pro- with a shudder as one of the darkest
curing the alteration of the law. But the Act of
Union with Scotland recites an act of the Scottish pages in her dark and gloomy history.
Parliament establishing the Church with its Pres- He concluded by moving the omission
byterian discipline, and requiring of the Sovereign of the words at the end of Clause 13, pro-
an Oath to maintain it, and makes the observance viding that no Archbishop or Bishop of
of this Act a fundamental and essential condition the Irish Church should be summoned
of the Union. Thus it has become part of the to or be qualified to sit in the House of
nation's organic life, and as a part thereof, still
under the same contract, it claims that we shall

Lords. fulfil on its behalf all that belongs to a national

MR. BRUEN said, he rose to ask the Establishment."

Government whether, if the Irish BiThe other precedent was that of 1641–

shops were excluded from the House of a precedent of very unhappy memory. Lords, it was intended to appoint four In the Remonstrance of 1641, the Com- other Peers in their place; and, if so, how mons informed the King that they had it was proposed they should be chosen ? passed a Bill for taking away the votes because, if the places of the Bishops were of the Bishops, and asked His

Majesty not
filled up, it was

clear that the power to assent to it, adding that it was far of Ireland in the House of Peers would from their wish to let loose the golden

be diminished.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE reins of discipline. Yet within ten months the Commons passed a Bill for said, he would not follow the hon. Memthe abolition of Episcopacy, which the ber for Salford (Mr. Charley) into former Lords passed as * a peace-offering !"

controversies about Irish Bishops, being " On the 5th February, 1642, the House satisfied of the fact, patent to all, that wheof Lords passed the Bill for taking away

ther more or less of the Bishops of past the Bishops' votes in Parliament. The days conformedto the Reformed Religion, King hesitated; but a Roman Catholic at all events, the great majority of the Queen persuaded him to assent to the people of Ireland did not accept the ReBill

. On the 6th February, 1649, the formed Religion, but rejected it; otherHouse of Commons resolved without a

wise the House of Commons would not division

have been engaged in passing this Bill.

The proposition that the future Arch“ That the House of Peers is useless and dan, bishops and Bishops of the Protestant gerous and ought to be abolished, and that a Bill be brought in for the purpose.”

Episcopal but voluntary Church of Ire

land should continue to represent the On the 7th February, 1649, the House Church in the Upper House was one of Commons resolved

which he thought few Members of the " That this House doth declare that the office Committee would assent to, because the of a King in this nation is unnecessary and bur- presence of the Bishops in the Upper thensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, House depended upon the connection of and public interest of the people of this nation, the Church with the State. The arguand therefore ought to be abolished.”

ment that, as the Irish clergy could not A Bill was ordered to be brought in for sit in the House of Commons, they ought this purpose by the same Committee to be represented in the Upper House, which was to bring in the Bill for would apply equally to the clergy of the abolishing the House of Lords. The Roman Catholic Church, who were under sequence was suggestive — first, the similar disabilities. As to the privileges Spiritual Peers, then the Temporal Peers, of either House, he assumed that the and then the Throne; and there were Upper House could, if it chose, without persons in the country who, in this re- violating the privilege of the Lower spect, would wish to see history repeat House, introduce a Bill affecting the reitself

. If any one of the essential parts presentation of the people in the latter. of the Constitution was assailed, the en- With respect to the privileges of individutire fabric would be shaken ; and he als, the case might be different; but they should be sorry indeed to see the were dealing, not with individuals, but House of Commons arrogate to itself with a class. The question whether the

Committee-Clause 13.

present Archbishops and Bishops should many very peculiar circumstances that retain their seats in the Upper House would render that extremely inexpedient. was not altogether so obvious as the Supposing one of the Archbishops to die, larger one relating to the future Prelates the other would sit every alternate year, of the Irish Church; but, after much which would be an absurdity; and so as consideration, the Government were of to the Bishops—one Bishop_would be opinion that the reasons which absolutely sitting every fourth year. He trusted, prohibited the presence of the future after the division the other night on the Prelates of the Irish Church from sitting 2nd clause and under the very peculiar in the House of Lords were of great force circumstances of the case the hon. Memand cogency, even as affecting the pre- ber would not press the Motion. sent respected occupants of those seats. MR. CHARLEY said, he must deny It appeared to the Government that, the dictum of the Chief Secretary for from the moment the Protestant Episco- Ireland, that the House of Lords could pal Church in Ireland ceased to be an initiate alterations in the constitution of Establishment and lost all connection the House of Commons; and he might with the State, the presence of even the quote the authority of Lord Brougham existing Prelates of that Church in the in support of that denial. NotwithUpper House would be inconsistent with standing all that had been said, he was the then position of the Church, and still of opinion that his Amendment was hardly consistent with the feelings of a wise one. How otherwise were the those eminent persons themselves. The Irish Prelates to maintain their preceGovernment had been as careful as pos- dence? Plain Dr. Trench, for instance, sible to preserve individual rights and would be nobody at Dublin Castle by privileges, and to provide compensations the side of a Prince of the Roman Cafor losses; but there were necessarily tholic Church like Cardinal Cullen. By changes which did not admit of pecuniary thus lowering the social status of the compensation. This affecting Bishops disestablished Bishops a great advanwas one, and another was that which tage would be given to the Prelates deprived incumbents of parishes of their of the rival Church. Although these legal status. The incumbent of every opinions had not been shaken by any parish would retain as good a pecu- thing which had been said, he would niary position as he now held for the bow to the wishes of the right hon. rest of his life; but he would cease Gentleman the Member for the Unito be a corporation in law and to be versity of Oxford, and withdraw his the parson of the parish; and he would Amendment. necessarily lose a ,tatus for which he MR. BRUEN said, he would beg to could not be compensated. Similarly, ask what the Government intended to the Government were of opinion that the propose to remedy the deficiency in the right of the Archbishops and Bishops of number of Irish representative Peers

, the Irish Church to sit in the Upper occasioned by the withdrawal of the House was one which, on the one hand, class of spiritual Peers ? did not admit of compensation for the MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE loss of it, and the continuance of which, said, he was not able to promise, on the on the other, would be inconsistent with part of the Crown, that there would be the objects and provisions of the Bill . an increased number of Irish Peers

, They, therefore, felt bound to oppose the The present rights, if preserved, would Amendment of the hon. Member.

be of a most equivocal and unsatisfacMR. GATHORNE HARDY said, the tory character. hon. Member for Salford had argued this question with great learning, ability,

Amendment, by leave, withdrason. and research into the history of the

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR Episcopal seats in the House of Lords, IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved to and had shown that, no doubt, both be- add at the end of the clause the words, fore the Union, and since, the Church of “as such." Ireland had been so represented. But, Amendment agreed to. feeling as strongly as he did on the question of disestablishment, he must own it MR. GATHORNE HARDY proposed would be an injudicious course to press to add at the end of the clause the the Motion to a division. There were words

.“ Provided that every present Archbishop, the incumbent he might be bound to Bishop, and Dean of the said Church shall, during employ the curate, but not upon the bis life, enjoy the same title and precedence as if this Act had not passed.

ground of the nature and extent of the

duties, because if he liked he might perHe hoped the right hon. Gentleman at form these duties himself however imthe head of the Government would not perfectly. The curates had incurred object to recognize the precedence of great expenses in their education, and the present heads of the Irish Church ought not to be treated as men whose during their lives.

incomes were to stop at £100 a year. MR. GLADSTONE said, the belief of Nor, on the other hand, ought the the Government was that such was the House to put a penalty upon the incumeffect of the Bill as it stood at present. bents at a time when great claims were He had intended to insert words for the about to be made upon them, and when purpose, but it was thought unnecessary. they would be called upon to contriIf it were thought desirable to make as- bute towards the maintenance of their surance sure in the matter, the Govern- churches, their services, and charities, by ment would not object to the addition of insisting that because they had employed the words proposed.

curates hitherto, they should always Amendment agreed to.

be obliged to employ them, or to pay

them. He therefore proposed this Clause ordered to stand part of the Amendment, in order that a separate Bill.

provision might be made for the perClause 14 (Compensation to ecclesias- enabled to commute with the consent of

manent curates, and that they might be tical persons

'other than curates). the Church Body. He did not propose DR. BALL proposed, in page 5, line that they should be at liberty to com16, to insert after rates and taxes" the mute and then to leave Ireland; but it words "except property and income would be a harsh proceeding against tax."

both incumbents and curates to tie them Amendment agreed to.

so strongly together. He would admit

that the Bill was greatly improved by MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, that the Amendments of the right hon. Genthe relative position of the incumbents tleman, and he thought that by the and curates rendered it advisable, in Amendment he now proposed both the the interests of both, that Amendments incumbent and the curate would be able should be made in this clause. Curates to render better service than hitherto. in the Irish Church had almost a cer- He proposed in page 5, line 25 to leave tainty of obtaining promotion to a out the words benefice; and it would be a most unwise thing if this position were not recognized

“A deduction shall be made under this section by the Government, especially consi- where such curate has been or is serving as a

in respect of the salary of a permanent curate, dering the measures they were taking curate on any day between the first day of with reference to assistant successors to January, one thousand eight hundred and sixtyministers of the Presbyterian Church. nine, and the first day of January, one thousand The curates were left in a hopeless po- eight hundred and seventy-one, both days in

clusive sition by the Bill. Take the case of a man who had been serving eight or ten Amendment proposed, in line 16, after Fears as a curate. He might come un- the word “taxes, to leave out the der the Act to a very slight extent; but words "salaries of permanent curates if he were considered a permanent cu- employed as hereinafter mentioned.' rate his position and that of the incum-|(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.) bent were fixed by the Bill. The in

Question proposed, “That the words cumbent would not be able to remove his curate. He was glad the ground on Clause."

proposed to be left out stand part of the which the incumbent could be compelled by the Bishop to employ the curate had MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE been defined by the Amendment of the said, he was glad to hear from the right right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) that the the Treasury. It might be that on ac- Amendments of his right hon. Friend at the sickness and incapacity of the head of the Government had improved

[Committee-Clause 14.

their plan. Those Amendments, how-pensating vested interests as absolutely ever, only made more clear and distinct necessary—as a matter of course and not the views which the Government from of favour—but here the principle was viothe first entertained. Undoubtedly one lated. The incumbent was wronged that of the most difficult and complicated another great wrong might not be done subjects with which they had to deal to the curate. The Bill set one wrong was the question as to what might be against another, because it was not considered fair and reasonable compen- thought worth while to do justice in sation to the curates of the Irish Church. both cases, and because a larger sum of But he wished the Committee to under- money would have to be taken from the stand that what the right hon. Gentle- general fund if full justice were done. man proposed was really to compensate The vested interest of the incumbent the curates of the Irish Church twice was to have deducted from it a life anover—first by paying the incumbents nuity, not for every kind of curate, but for and then the curates. Those curates a permanent curate”—a term which were divided by the Bill into two classes had been invented, because it was felt —the one called permanent curates, not that there was a class of curates whom anwering to perpetual curates, but those it would be a gross wrong to turn adrift who might be described as in a perma- without any provision except the paltry nent state of employment, from the in- sum of £200. In point of law, however, firmity, age, or absence of the incumbent. there was no incumbent in Ireland whose The Commissioners would take into ac- living was permanently charged with the count the time that the incumbent had salary which he paid his curate. No found it necessary and convenient to doubt, in many cases, a curate now ememploy a curate, and they would be ployed would continue to be employed; able to decide what curates came under but to turn that into a permanent charge the class of permanent curates, and who upon the incumbent was to take away would be charged upon the incumbent legal rights and to create new burdens. and the benefice upon which they had Its practical operation, too, might be served. If it were possible to provide most injurious to the curate and to the the compensation of the curates from Church; it would require the curate to the same funds from which they drew do permanent duty in the same place for their salaries, it was right and equitable the same rector, and he was to have a to do so; and in th emain the fund out of perpetual living at his rector's expense, which they ought to be compensated unless he by his own choice and without was the fund out of which they were at the consent of the incumbent left that present paid — namely, the aggregate particular cure. But were not the Comincomes of the incumbents. There was, mittee aware that it would be absolutely however, another class of curates who necessary for this poor disestablished could not fairly come under the designa- Church, which they were about to call tion of permanent curates, and their po- into existence, to re-arrange the provisition would be determined by the Com- sions for the spiritual services to be missioners by another mode of compen- given to its members. It was impossible sation, with a description of which he that the present parochial arrangements would not trouble the Committee at pre- could be maintained as they were at the sent.

present time in Ireland. Then, MR. LEFROY said, that he would what a position the incumbent would be not press the Amendment of which he placed. Under the new arrangement, had given notice, but would support that it should be desirable for the curate to of the right hon. Gentleman the Mem- serve elsewhere, and if he left by his ber for Oxford University (Mr. Gathorne own choice, without the consent of his Hardy). He thought that no class had incumbent, he would lose his annuity; a greater claim upon consideration, in- but if, on the other hand, the incumbent dulgence, and a fair remuneration than assented to his leaving, he kept his anthe curates of the Irish Church.

nuity, but the incumbent would lose the SIR ROUNDELL PALMER said, benefit of his services, and might at the that the Committee had now arrived same time be obliged, at his own cost

, at a point when it was apparent the to find another curate. When the existBill broke down on lain grounds of ing bond between them was dissolved. justice. The Bill professed to treat com- in what position would they be placed

sce in

if