^{page 204 note 1} Bennett, W. J. E., Crime and Education: the Duty of the State Therein, London 1846.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} I.e. Board of Education, separation of religious from secular education, model and training schools, government inspection.

^{page 205 note 1} Halévy, Élie, A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century, London 1950, ii. 139–40.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Wellington, , Despatches, Correspondence, and Memoranda, 2nd Series, vi. 402 (to Peel, 1830).Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Op. cit., 244–6 (to Wellington, 1828).

^{page 206 note 3} Hansard, New Series, xiii. 716–17.

^{page 206 note 4} Parliamentary Papers, 1831–2, xxi. Second Report from the Select Committee on Tithes in Ireland.

^{page 207 note 1} P.P., 1823, xvi. Papers Relating to the First Fruit Revenue in Ireland.

^{page 207 note 2} British Museum Add. MS. 40418, fol. 298 ff.

^{page 207 note 3} Hansard, 3rd Series, xix. 924–34.

^{page 208 note 1} P.P., 1831–2, xxii. 99–101. Minutes of Evidence, Lords’ Committee on Tithes in Ireland.

^{page 208 note 2} 3 Geo. IV. cap. 125, for the first time made it possible for any tithe-payer to commute his tithe. 4 Geo. IV. cap. 99, legalised voluntary commutation of tithe.

^{page 208 note 3} This is essentially Lord Wellesley's plan as stated to Lord Liverpool at the time of the Composition Act, 1824.

^{page 208 note 4} See especially, P.P., 1850, xx; 1851, xiii.

^{page 209 note 1} P.P., 1831–2, xxii. Minutes of Evidence, Lords’ Committee.

^{page 209 note 2} Whately also flirted with a different form of alienation—endowing Roman Catholic priests with some of the bishoprics. See Whately, E. Jane, Life and Correspondence of Richard Whately, London 1868, i. 94–9, 112, for letters on Nassau Senior's Irish Pamphlet. He finally saw ‘the alarming precedent involved’ in it.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} P.P., 1831–2, xxi. Minutes of Evidence, Commons’ Committee.

^{page 209 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 209 note 5} By Act of Parliament, as was done by 38 Geo. III. c. 72, for selling quit-rents in Ireland.

^{page 210 note 1} P.P., 1831–2, xxi.

^{page 210 note 2} ‘A Bill to alter and amend the Laws relating to the Temporalities of the Church in Ireland’ (as Amended by the Committee), 25 June 1833.

^{page 210 note 3} Hansard, 3rd Series, clviii. 2105–12

^{page 211 note 1} B.M. Add. MS. 40410, fol. 289 (Harrowby to Peel, 20 Jan. 1835).

^{page 211 note 2} Hansard, 3rd Series, cl. 1 ff.

^{page 211 note 3} Ibid., xvi. 561 ff.

^{page 211 note 4} Ibid., xvi. 664–5.

^{page 212 note 1} Ibid., xix. 940–8.

^{page 212 note 2} Parker, C. S., Sir Robert Peel from His Private Papers, London 1899, ii. 221–2.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} No. 132, regarding the mode in which sums were to be paid for the bishops’ leases.

^{page 212 note 4} Lushington commented that he had had occasion to speak against Inglis and Shaw on some part of the Bill, but would now speak for them and state that such conduct was most liberal on the part of the heads of the Church! For the whole debate, see Hansard, 3rd Series, xviii. 1065 ff.

^{page 212 note 5} B.M. Add. MS. 40425, fol. 45.

^{page 212 note 6} See above, 211.

^{page 213 note 1} Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MS. 44732, fols. 19–25 (20 Jan. 1843).

^{page 213 note 2} P.P., 1845, xxxv. Report of the Estates Committee respecting Leasehold Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commission.

^{page 213 note 3} Church Commissioners, Library reference 231.12, Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Commission, Misc. Papers, Letter from J. Meadows White to the Earl of Harrowby, 8 March 1849.

^{page 213 note 4} Church Commissioners, File No. 10,155, Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Commission. Letters Received, Unregistered, Part 3.

^{page 213 note 5} P.P., 1850, xx, 271, Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Comm. Minutes of Evidence.

^{page 214 note 1} Ibid., First Report, 31 Jan. 1850.

^{page 214 note 2} Hansard, 3rd Series, cxvi. 1218–21. The duke of Richmond noted the precedent of the Irish Act, allowing lessees to force renewals, and affirmed that lessees ought to have done the same in this country, thus avoiding these constant discussions: Ibid., 1221–2.

^{page 214 note 3} P.P., 1851, xiii, Lords' Report.

^{page 214 note 4} Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851.

^{page 215 note 1} Hansard, 3rd Series, xix. 924–4.

^{page 215 note 2} Ibid., cxviii. 1790–1.

^{page 215 note 3} Ibid., xvi. 1393–7.

^{page 215 note 4} Ibid., xix. 940–8.

^{page 215 note 5} Ibid., xvi. 1399–1406.

^{page 215 note 6} Ibid., xvii. 1001.

^{page 216 note 1} B.M. Add. MS. 40333, fols. 158–60; Hansard, 3rd Series, xvii. 1386–98.

^{page 216 note 2} Manning, H. E., The Principle of the Ecclesiastical Commission Examined, London 1838, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} For Radical objections, see Hansard, 3rd Series, xxxv. 57, 58, 351, 360, 531. For Inglis as Tory spokesman, Ibid., 345–6.

^{page 216 note 4} I.e., dropping of the 147th clause.

^{page 216 note 5} Hansard, 3rd Series, xxxv. 34–5, 42–3, 52. Mr. Ewart said the measure provided for the great aristocracy of the Church, instead of for democracy in it.

^{page 217 note 1} See Hume's speech when the Established Church Bill was first brought in—unless Church rates were ended, and Church needs provided from sinecures, the question would not be settled. Hansard, 3rd Series, xxv. 36.

^{page 217 note 2} See above, 207.

^{page 217 note 3} B.M. Add. MS. 40418, fol. 298 ff.

^{page 218 note 1} Parker, Peel, ii. 209–11 (letter to Peel, 8 January 1833).

^{page 218 note 2} Ibid., 215–16 (letter to Croker, 5 March 1833). See also 212, 215.

^{page 218 note 3} Walpole, S, The Life of Lord John Russell, London 1889, i. 190–1. (Grey to Russell, 25 October 1832).Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Hansard, 3rd Series, XV. 561, 568.

^{page 219 note 2} Ibid., 57. See Halévy, iii. 142–3 for the theory Stanley used to avoid the charge of confiscation—i.e. his application of Ricardo's doctrine of rent as enabling the State to benefit from any increased value.

^{page 219 note 3} Hansard, 3rd Series, XV. 576.

^{page 219 note 4} Ibid., 600–7; xvii. 1002–3.

^{page 219 note 5} Ibid., XV. 577–8.

^{page 219 note 6} For Peel's dilemma, see his letter to Goulburn, 24 June: ‘The choice is between taking no part, and active exertion against the third reading—uniting in vote, but not in design, with the Radicals. … The great question, then, is this—Is it best for the Church to submit to this Bill, or to speculate upon the chance of a better?’ Parker, Peel, ii. 222–3.

^{page 220 note 1} B.M. Add. MS. 40418, fol. 199.

^{page 220 note 2} Hansard, 3rd Series, xxix. 790 ff.: xxxvii. 296 ff.

^{page 220 note 3} See P.P., 1845, xlv. and 1846, xlii. for a series of acid letters from the Lord Lieutenant to the Commissioners, about keeping expenditures within income, and Commissioners doggedly sticking to their figures for building, rebuilding, fences, stoves, scouring, etc. Governmental concern was the result of a debate in the Commons in July 1844 on the Commissioners’ proceedings.

^{page 221 note 1} Gladstone's Correspondence on Church and Religion, ed. Lathbury, D. C., ii. 10 (to Phillimore, 26 February 1847).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} One-quarter for education of the people, one-quarter for building and repair of churches, one-quarter for the poor and one-quarter for the clergy.

^{page 221 note 3} Land which paid the clergy 16d. an acre, paid the landlord 30s. an acre in rent, and some at much higher rent. P.P., 1831–2, xxi. No. 4801. Lord John admitted in Parliament that the clergy received only one-fifteenth of the rental, while the average rent in Ireland was equal to one-third the produce.

^{page 222 note 1} P.P., 1831–2, xxi. No. 4847, 4853.

^{page 222 note 2} See above, 209.

^{page 222 note 3} He estimated an additional £480,000 a year from improved leases, after bishops' leases ran out.

^{page 223 note 1} P.P., 1831–2, xxi.

^{page 223 note 2} Mother Church Relieved by Bleeding; or, Vices and Remedies: Extracted from Bentham's Church of Englandism, London 1825—to be done through sales of lands at the death of incumbents, payment being in form of government annuities. His pointed addition was: ‘Ireland! Ireland! He that has the courage, let him apply all this to the case of Ireland.’Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} B.M. Add. MS. 40343, fols. 217–26 (to Lloyd, 20 Mar. 1828). Also in the Memoirs, from a slightly different copy.

^{page 223 note 4} Manning, H. E., The Preservation of Unendowed Canonries. A Letter to William, Lord Bishop of Chichester, London 1840.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} In his evidence before the Tithe Committee, Whately rejected any suggestion of an Irish poor law similar to the English one, using the prevailing ideas on self-help, need of an independent poor, etc. O'Connell was opposed to any kind of Poor Law. See Halévy, iii. 210.

^{page 224 note 2} How Can the Church Educate the People? London 1844.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Whately, Richard, A Charge Delivered at the Primary Visitation to the Clergy of the Dioceses of Dublin and Glandelagh, Dublin 1834.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} Blomfield, Charles James, A Charge Delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of London, London 1832.Google Scholar