uch as it would result from improvements in the
system of episcopal leases to be carried out by the agency of the state.
Every one saw that, however disguised, and whether legitimate or not,
appropriation of the surplus for secular purposes would be an act of
confiscation, and must needs be interpreted as a precedent.

The cabinet itself was divided on the subject, and despaired of saving
the bill in the house of lords, without sacrificing the disputed clause.
On June 21, therefore, Stanley announced in the house of commons that
the appropriation clause would be withdrawn, and that any profits
arising out of financial reforms within the Church would be allowed to
fall into the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners. The fury of
O'Connell was unbounded, and not so devoid of excuse as many of his
passionate outbreaks. He treated the Church bill as the stipulated
price to be paid for the coercion bill, and the appropriation clause as
the only part of it, except relief from vestry cess, which could possess
the smallest value for Irish Roman catholics. There was no valid answer
to his argument, except that another collision with the house of lords
must be avoided at any tolerable cost, for, as Russell bluntly said,
"the country could not stand a revolution once a year". Thus lightened,
and slightly modified in the interest of Irish incumbents, the bill
passed through committee and was read a third time by very large
majorities, the minority being mainly composed of its old radical
partisans. Peel's letters show how anxious he was to "make the reform
bill work," by protecting the government against this extreme
faction,[115] and the parliamentary reports show how much he did to
frustrate the attempt to intimidate the lords by a resolution of the
commons.

The debate in the upper house lasted three nights in July, but is almost
devoid of permanent interest. The appropriation question being dropped,
there was little to discuss except the historical origin of Irish
dioceses, the precedents for their consolidation, and the economical
details of the scheme for equalising, in some degree, the incomes of
Irish clergymen. Two or three peers, headed by the Duke of Cumberland,
took their stand once more on the coronation oath, and Bishop Phillpotts
of Exeter availed himself of this objection in one of the most powerful
speeches delivered against the bill. On the other hand, Bishop Blomfield
of London, and the Duke of Wellington, no