perty, and that it would be perfectly preposterous to make a rate upon a house to depend upon the religion of the owner." He reviewed the manner in which this question had been dealt with by Mr. Horsman, and complained that the Irish Government had encouraged agitation respecting it, instead of enforcing the payment of the tax, which, if they had been firm, he said, would have been paid. It was only a debt which those who had justly incurred it did not wish to pay.

Mr. Horsman replied to Mr. Napier and Mr. Whiteside, observing that, although he had never denied that this question was one of great difficulty, its difficulty had been increased by them and their colleagues, who, under Lord Derby's Government, had pledged themselves to bring forward a measure upon this subject. This it was that first gave a real parliamentary importance to the agitation against Ministers' Money in Ireland. All the difficulty now attending the question was, he said, the result of the Bill of 1854, which was, in reality, the concoction of the ingenuity of Mr. Napier, whose suggestions had been adopted by Sir J. Young. He explained at some length, and vindicated the course he had taken with reference to this question, and the pledge given by the Government in the last Parliament, which, he contended, was perfectly consistent with the support they gave to this Bill.

Mr. Blake, in supporting the Bill, urged the impossibility of enforcing the tax, which the corporations, he said, would not collect.

Sir F. Thesiger said he had anticipated, when Mr. Horsman rose, that he would have encountered the arguments of Mr. Whiteside, but he had never addressed himself

to those arguments, which remained untouched. He called this a question of property, for Lord Palmerston, in 1854, had distinctly given that character to it; and the Churches of England and Ireland being, by the Act of Union, inseparably bound up together, the question concerned the rights of both. This tax was originally laid upon property, and no proposition had ever been entertained by any Government for the repeal of this tax without a substitute being suggested. This had been admitted by Sir J. Young, whose Act recognised this as a charge upon property, removing all objections to it for the sake of making it a permanent tax. The parties appointed to collect the tax, however, resolved to resist it. The principle of this Bill, if carried out, must extend to other subjects; the consequence of passing it would be to establish the principle that property was no longer to be held sacred and inviolable.

Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald declined to discuss this question upon sectarian grounds, the tax being obnoxious to both Catholic and Protestant—to the clergy as well as the occupiers. He described the difficulty of carrying out the provisions of the Act of 1854. If a judgment was obtained against a corporation, it could not be enforced if the corporation had no property. Was it wise, just, or politic, he asked, to keep up this litigation, when a substitute existed? The funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had doubled, and the annual receipts now amounted to 160,000l.

Lord J. Russell observed that, although he had no doubt as to the vote he should give, he wished shortly to state the grounds of it.

He was not satisfied with the statement that the necessity of this measure arose from the imperfections of the Act of 1854. He concluded that the difficulty of enforcing the Act had arisen from other causes. It appeared to him that the measure could be justified upon one simple ground. The Act of 1833 took away a church revenue amounting to 70,000l. a-year, and charged it upon another fund, on the ground that the church cess was vexatious and oppressive, and kept up hostility to the Established Church; and it appeared to him that this impost of 12,000l. a-year was liable to the same objection, being vexatious and oppressive. The only question, then, was, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had sufficient funds at their disposal to meet this charge, and he was of opinion that they had.

Mr. Walpole reminded Lord J. Russell that the conclusion to which he had come was diametrically opposed to that upon the subject of church rates, and expressed his confidence that the principle of this Bill, if acted upon, would lead into difficulties which Lord John would be the first to lament. He thought, if this Bill passed, that it would furnish a powerful argument to those who wished to repeal the Maynooth grant, and he maintained that, until the trusts attached to the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were satisfied, there would be no surplus applicable to this charge.

Lord Palmerston trusted that the House would consider this question upon its own merits, and not be led to combine it with other measures. All must admit, he said, that this tax was objectionable, and attempts had been made to mitigate its evils. He believed

The Bill had, however, strenuous opposition to encounter, and narrowly escaped rejection in the House of Lords.

Earl Granville, in moving the second reading of the Bill on the 18th of June, briefly explained the grounds which had led the Government to adopt the Bill, and he pointed out the defective nature of the present arrangements, which, as regarded the collection of the money, were almost totally inoperative. It would, doubtless, be contended, he said, that under no circumstances should the Legislature interfere to diminish the property of the Church, but in the present instance the diminution was nominal rather than real, and the revenues at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were sufficient to cover the small deficiency which might arise from the abolition of the impost. He trusted that Lord Derby, if he felt obliged to oppose the second reading of the Bill, would at least have some practical remedy to suggest, in lieu of an Act, the machinery of which was totally inoperative, and only a

fertile source of odium and illwill.

The Earl of Derby unhesitatingly opposed the measure. The only argument brought forward in favour of the abolition of Ministers' Money was that of expediency, which, if deemed a sufficient excuse for such innovations, would have justified the Government at least as well in abrogating the tithe system. It was absurd to call the impost a tax on religious opinions. It was a rate levied on property, and of the existence of which the purchaser was well aware before he bought it. But even on the low ground of expediency, he was prepared to contest the further progress of the Bill, and to show that the fund at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was inadequate to meet this additional burden of 12,000l. per annum, which would be thrown upon it if the measure became a law. The noble Earl then referred to documents and reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to prove how inefficient was the sum which remained in their hands to meet so formidable a drain upon their resources, and that it would, in fact, compel them to abstain from carrying out the very objects which they were constituted to advance. He looked upon the Bill as an open confession on the part of the Government, that they were unequal to carrying out the law, and that, in compliance with an unfair agitation on the part of the taxpayer, they had consented to violate the sacred rights of property. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

The Earl of Harrowby defended the proposed measure. This country had rejoiced at the peaceful state of Ireland. Would it be wise,

.

then, if their Lordships threw out the Bill, to go on as at present, compelling reluctant corporations to pay this impost against their will, and so to excite that feeling of religious animosity which unfortunately had so often disturbed the peace of that country?

The Bishop of Kilmore condemned the Bill as calculated to inflict a great blow upon the interests of the Established Church of Ireland. It was most unjust now to seek to throw the tax upon the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when they were wholly required for the erection and enlargement of churches. Instead of bringing peace to Ireland, he believed it would have a directly contrary effect, inasmuch as one party would regard it as a triumph, and the other as a most grievous wrong.

After a few remarks from the Earl of Cork in support of the Bill, and from Viscount Dungannon, the Earl of Wicklow, and the Earl of Donoughmore, who protested against it as both unnecessary and unjustifiable,

Lord Talbot de Malahide contended in favour of the provisions of the proposed enactment. More would be done for Ministers by relying upon private contribution, than by anything which could be levied in the form of Ministers' Money. He was convinced that the resources of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be found sufficient to bear with ease the payment of the sum now raised under an Act which was odious to so large a class of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland.

The Earl of Ellenborough said, he thought there was some difficulty in coming to a decision upon the matter before their Lordships,

but, viewing the subject as a whole, he could not refrain from expressing his belief that it was desirable that Ministers' Money should be done away with at once and for all. He could not, however, say that he quite agreed with the proposal to levy the amount raised from the tax out of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, so far from having a surplus, were, in fact, almost bankrupt. There was an extensive establishment to administer the Irish Church temporalities, by which great extravagances were committed, and the Government might effect a sufficient saving to replenish the amount of this tax by transferring the management of the temporalities to the Irish Board of Works. In the hope that this proposition would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government, he would vote for the second reading of the Bill.

The Duke of Newcastle was inclined to give his hearty support to the principle of the Bill, and he should vote for its second reading. At the same time he could not refrain from remarking that while. the law existed as it now did, it was the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to enforce it; and, without at all bringing forward any accusation, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would feel that some explanation was due upon that point. Many of their Lordships might object to withdrawing any portion of their funds from the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,

but as a friend to the Established Church in Ireland, as one wishing to see her spiritual influence increase, and because he saw that the abolition of Ministers' Money was likely to strengthen the Church greatly in the affections of the people, he would vote for the secnod reading.

Earl Granville replied, and said that in regard to the suggestion made by the Earl of Ellenborough, though he did not presume to pledge Government on the subject, yet it was a suggestion well worthy of attention, and which, if feasible, might be productive of a great saving and great good.

After a brief conversational discussion, in which Lords Granville, Derby, and Campbell took part, their Lordships divided, when there appeared: