safe, and the credit of the country must | country. I look upon the land tenure of collapse. this country as, on the whole, one of the most beneficial and most successful institutions that has been created out of the feudal system. It is a tenure that, by dispersing over the soil a number of residents deeply interested in it, has secured local government, which is the best safeguard of political liberty; and, on the other hand, it is a tenure which, while it has attained for us these great social and political advantages, has been consistent with making the soil of this country, on the whole, the most productive in the world that is to say, not only in the Old World but in the New World you cannot find a tract of land of equal size with that of the United Kingdom which is so generally and so uniformly productive. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that it is a tenure which, both on account of its social and political advantages, and the great material consequences it has secured to the country, may be truly described as one of the most advantageous. I have not the slightest objection myself to the landed proprietors of the country increasing their wealth and increasing their power, so long as they do it by legitimate "Having made these observations with respect to private and corporate property, I would now ask permission to state the grounds why I am, on the whole, entirely opposed to confiscating the property of corporations, why I view it alike with dislike and suspicion. The reason is that, in the first place, whatever may have been the origin of corporate property- whether the gift of the nation, which was rarely the case, or the donation of individuals, as was generally its source-one thing is clear, that it is, from its use and purpose, essentially popular property-the property of the nation, though not of the state. The second reason why I dislike all confiscation of corporate property is, that I find that no great act of confiscation was ever carried into effect without injurious consequences to the state in which it took place. Either generally speaking-it has led to civil war or established, what in the long run is worse, a chronic disaffection for ages among the subjects of the crown. But if there be any corporate property the confiscation of which I most dislike, it is church property, and for these reasons-means-by the improvement of their estates, church property is to a certain degree an intellectual tenure; in a greater degree, a moral and spiritual tenure. It is the fluctuating patrimony of the great body of the people. It is, I will not say the only, but -even with our most developed civilization-it is the easiest method by which the sons of the middle and even of the working classes can become landed proprietors, and what is more, can become resident landed proprietors, and fulfil all the elevating duties incident to the position. But there is another reason why I am greatly opposed to the confiscation of church property, and that is, because I invariably observe that when church property is confiscated, it is always given to the landed proprietors. "I hope that in this House I shall not be accused of being opposed to the interests of those connected with the land of this or in the fulfilment of those duties which the constitution of their country so generously, but wisely, has assigned to them. We know very well that the landed interest of this country will have their position examined and challenged, as every institution and class in this age will be; yet I believe that, for the reasons I have indicated, they will give a triumphant answer, and issue from that scrutiny with the approbation and sympathy of the great body of their countrymen. But I am sure of this, they cannot, especially in this age and in the circumstances under which we live, take a more short-sighted course to increase their property and their influence than to have any hand in sacrilegious spoliation." Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to consider what would be the probable consequence of the course which Mr. Gladstone recom mended. The government of Ireland was | by being the exponents of this great disnot a strong one; its sanctions were less affection. It is not a wild assumption on valid than those of the government of my part if I were to suppose that with England. It had not the historic basis the cause of the next great Irish discontent which England had. It had not the the land may be in some degree connected; tradition which the English government and what will be the necessary and natural rested upon. It did not depend upon feelings of the three churches on the land that vast accumulation of manners and question? I do not, as some do, I do customs which in England were really not myself contemplate the immediate more powerful than laws and statutes. cessation of all dogmatic differences between The government of Ireland was only the three churches. I am in hopes that comparatively strong from its connection year after year any asperity of this kind with England; and the reason the govern- arising from such a source may be softened; ment of Ireland was a weak government but I think I may venture to say thiswas, that a considerable portion of the that there will be one dogma in which the inhabitants of Ireland were disorderly and three churches will entirely agree, which discontented. He would not investigate will be as unanimously adopted as any the causes, alleged or real, of Irish discon- that may be sanctioned by any impending tent. They were like Martial's Epigrams; oecumenical council; and that dogma will some were just, some unjust; some were be this that the clergy of the three well-founded, some fantastical; some were churches, whether they were disendowed true, some false. But no one denied that in the reign of Queen Elizabeth or in the discontent existed; and no one denied reign of Queen Victoria, have all been that among the causes of Irish discontent equally ill-treated. And where there is was, that a powerful clergy, exercising this general discontent upon the land questheir influence over numerous congrega- tion they will naturally say—'We entirely tions, had no connection with the state. agree with the feeling of the nation, the But what was the policy of Mr. Gladstone? | land question is a question that must be "Ireland is discontented; one of the causes settled.' They will say 'The people have of its discontent is that a church is not lost the great estate which belonged to the connected with the state; I will regenerate church as their trustees, and where it is the country, and I will have three churches neither the clergy who were disendowed in not connected with the state." What must the reign of Elizabeth nor the clergy disenbe the consequences of such a policy? dowed in the reign of Queen Victoria will Would they have a better chance of be able to tell you.' Therefore, I have not encountering Irish discontent when three the slightest doubt myself that the general churches were disconnected with the state discontent prevailing from the city of the than when they had only one? How would Tribes to the capital of the linen manufacit work? "There will be great discontent ture, will find learned, earnest, and eloquent in Ireland," replied Mr. Disraeli, "and when- exponents of the wrongs of the country ever there is great discontent in Ireland, without any reference to differences in the church that is not connected with the religious creed. The land question will state always supplies a body of learned, assume many forms with one purpose. disciplined, and eloquent men who are the The multiplied demand will be irresistible exponents of that discontent. Well, you unless we meet it with an alternative, and will then have discontent in Ireland, and what that alternative is I will notice subyou will have three bodies of learned, sequently. Such, in my mind, are the organized, and eloquent men who will only probable-I will not say immediate-conbe doing their duty to their congregations sequences, but consequences that will occur in the early experience of many men who sit in this House, of the policy of disestablishment in Ireland, as it is advised by the right hon. gentleman the first minister. And such are the prospects which disestablishment affords us of rendering a people contented and a government strong." Nor, continued Mr. Disraeli, would the policy of disendowment be a whit more promising. Mr. Gladstone proposed to deprive the Protestant Church in Ireland of its property. The natural question that immediately arose was-Why? Did anybody claim the property? Nobody claimed it. Did Mr. Gladstone believe that any other church would use the property with more advantage? Certainly not, for he did not propose to give it to any other church. Was the tenure of the property of the church unsatisfactory and feeble? Quite the reverse. On the contary, it was the strongest tenure in the country; and it did not merely depend on the Act of Settlement, as the estates of most gentlemen did, because it had a prescription of three centuries. One was naturally and necessarily anxious to know under those circumstances-when no one asked for the property, when Mr. Gladstone even did not pretend that any other church would carry out the intentions of the founders better than the Protestant Church, and when he did not deny that the tenure of the Protestant Church was a complete and powerful tenure-why he deprived it of its property. That was a natural question to ask, and it was one on which they ought to have a satisfactory answer. According to Mr. Gladstone, the reason why the Protestant Church in Ireland was to be deprived of its property was that the feelings of the Roman Catholics in Ireland were hurt by the Protestants having endowments, although the Roman Catholic Church wished to depend on voluntary contributions, and although they were clearly of opinion that, because the Protestant Church was endowed, that was the reason why the Protestant Church in Ireland was a comparative failure. That, exclaimed Mr. Disraeli, was the most extraordinary reason that had ever yet been adduced by a minister for a great act of confiscation, and it behoved the House well and narrowly to consider it. It was an entirely new principle to take away the property of one corporation because there was another body jealous of that corporation having the property. It was not only a new principle, but a new principle which might be applied to all kinds of property, and for that reason, because it had no peculiar reference to corporate property. It did not touch any of the attributes of corporate property, whether good or evil. Mr. Gladstone, as the representative of the state, which was the great trustee in the matter, confessed that the property of the Protestant Church in Ireland was not greater than its needs. He confessed that the provisions for the management of that property were not only good, but excellent and admirable. Mr. Gladstone did not for a moment pretend that he had any other body in his eye that could carry out the intention of the original founder or donor better than the body whose property he was going to confiscate. It was not in his character as a fiduciary, or with reference to corporate property particularly, that this rule was laid down. It was a new principle that might be applied to private property tomorrow. It was the principle of forfeiture without a pretext. It was a new principle since they had had a settled constitution, and since they came to live under the laws of progressive civilization. Otherwise it was an old principle enough, because it was the principle of tyranny and oppression in the darkest ages. "But now," proceeded Mr. Disraeli, "see in what inscrutable mischief we may be landed if this principle is sanctioned. It cannot be confined to corporate property, because it has no affinity to corporate property. Apply it to private property. We are so used to plundering churches, that He But the moment a corporation is known to be | Irish regeneration, social equality; and let in possession of a large property an hon. all Irish gentlemen, like the Roman Catholic member gives notice of his intention to Church in Ireland, live upon voluntary conbring the subject before the House. The tributions.' And yet this is the great fact is that our eyes are shut to the enor- principle which I am told several hon. mity of the circumstances when they are gentlemen opposite have pledged themtested by objects with which we are daily selves to support, and that without even familiar. Therefore, let us try this prin- being acquainted with it." ciple, which is an open principle, and not peculiar to corporations, and apply it to private property. I will ask the attention of the House to this part of the subject. In Ireland," said Mr. Disraeli, creating much laughter by putting an hypothetical case of the extension of the principle to private property, "there are many estates -many large and many rich estates, and they belong, most of them, to Irish gentlemen. There are also many Irish gentlemen in Ireland, amiable and accomplished men, the most agreeable companions in the world, but who have not large estates, and some of whom have no estates at all. After the announcement by the right hon. gentleman of this startling principle of sheer forfeiture, without the application to the property of any other machinery to carry out the intentions of the founders after the proclamation by the right hon. gentleman of this astounding principle-what will be the natural course of an Irish gentleman in the position I have described? His argument would be this- We find ourselves in an anomalous position. Our breeding is not inferior to that of our habitual companions. Our education is the same. Our pursuits are similar. We meet in the same hunting field. It might be said there was a distinction between corporate and private property, and therefore he might be accused of pressing the case too much in the instance he had given. He did not think so. believed it was not peculiar to corporate property, and that those gentlemen who had private property would do well to consider whether it did not touch their case. he was willing to apply it to corporate property. "I speak," he continued, "in the capital of an ancient nation, remarkable above all the nations of the world for its rich endowments. Charity, in its most gracious, most learned, and most humane form, has established institutions in this country to soften the asperities of existence. There are three great hospitals alone in this city, endowed with estates which would permit them to rank with some of the wealthiest of our peers. Their united revenues alone considerably exceed £100,000. The House knows well these great establishments-St. Bartholomew's, St. Thomas's, and Guy's. But there are other hospitals in the country, where the physicians are not less celebrated, the surgeons not less skilful, the staff not less. devoted, and which give all their energies, We drink the same claret. We thought, learning, and life to mitigate the stand opposite to each other in the same sufferings of humanity. Well, I say, would dance. And our feelings are hurt by some it not, according to the new views and the of our companions having estates of £6,000, new principle, be as painful as the existence or £8,000, or £10,000 a year, with broad of an endowed Protestant church is to the acres and extensive woods. We know well Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, for the spirit of the age, that the sentiment of these eminent physicians and surgeons and selfishness is not to be tolerated. We do their devoted staff to feel that their greatest not ask for the estates of our more fortunate efforts were often unable to accomplish all companions. All we ask is that you will that they desired, and that their position as take their estates away from them, and a voluntary body sometimes entailed upon establish, as one of the great principles of them humiliation. Why should not the minister come forward in a like spirit with of that property; and what good has it that which now seems to inspire all his done them? Is the state of Ireland more policy, and concede to these gentlemen that tranquil and serene, or have they better the painful anomaly should be terminated, preserved the institutions to which they and that St. George's Hospital, Middlesex were devoted, because they for a moment Hospital, University College Hospital, and accepted any share of that plunder? Why, perhaps Westminster Hospital, all depend- we all know that nothing of the kind has ing upon voluntary contributions, should be followed. And what is it that is now proplaced on a footing of equality with those posed? Why, a scheme which, when we great institutions which by their endow- come to investigate it, clearly shows that ments imparted to those connected with them the whole of the tithe-rent charge is to a factitious importance in the profession, be absorbed in the land. The right hon. by the process of depriving these latter of gentleman says that every landowner may their estates? Well, there might, no doubt, buy up the tithe-rent charge on his land, a good deal be said in favour of that view. when his tithe-rent charge will be instantly The minister would have £120,000 a year absorbed in his land; and then if the landto dispose of, and he could in the hand-owner will not buy the tithe-rent charge, somest manner give it to the farmers of the right hon. gentleman makes out a England towards the reduction of the county compulsory account by which the landrates. And I ask you seriously, if you are owner shall seem to buy it. But the result to adopt these principles for Ireland, is it is that the whole of the tithe-rent charge possible that you should not apply them will be immediately absorbed in the land, also to England?" and that there will be a complicated system of pecuniary transactions extending over a period of forty-five years. Five and forty years' engagements of Irish landlords! and that, too, in a country which confiscates church property-in a country where there is a land question looming in the future! Do you not think that the landlords will want justice done to the land? Do you not think they will come forward and say, 'Well, if the land question must be settled, we will take a part in its settlement?' Depend upon it when the great rising occurs when the great demand to which I have referred is made and expounded by the eloquence and learning of the clergy of the three churches-the Irish landlords will wonderfully sympathize with that new Act of Settlement." Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to explain that the scheme of confiscation could not be carried out without the co-operation of the victims. Three temptations were held out to the Irish Protestant clergy to join in the operation. Their vested interests were to be respected; but that went for nothing, since no minister could propose such a measure as the bill before the House without that proviso, which was a mere commonplace of confiscation. Then the glebe-houses of the Irish clergy were to be given to them, but charged with a price, and their life interests were to be capitalized. Yet, asked Mr. Disraeli, what security was there that another measure of confiscation might not follow? And as to the proposal for the extinction of the tithe-rent charge, he predicted that the After having objected to the disposal of end of the whole operation would be that the surplus, and to the proposed mode the property of the church would go of dealing with the Maynooth grant and into the pockets of the landlords. "Well," the Regium Donum, as direct breaches of said Mr. Disraeli, "the landlords of Ireland solemn engagements, Mr. Disraeli thus have had a slice of that property before. concluded:-"Now, sir, this is to be the For thirty years they have had £100,000 remedial policy for Ireland. You have a year. They have probably had £3,000,000 | been disturbed and distracted by a clergy |