Star. — London, England, 1830-04-28 00:00:00

;~, The hes. member opposite had stated that there were only 3,000 eul of 30,000 inhabitants, and only 38 magistrates out of 300, who had signed the petition. But what dici that prove ? The honour. . shit member could not deny what was stated in the petition, or pane that any false assertions had been made. And was it nothing to And such a number of Protestants in one county praying fee a reform in the Church, and at the head of them a Peer ? He "mild not say that the signature of a Peer was of more value .has. that of a commoner; but this he would say, that the Peen :p• nil it for their interest to support the present system in order to come in for a share of the immense revenues, and that this Uri itch patronage was made use of for political purposes—for Itribuig both Peers and commoners. He differed entirely from the swimmable member who had presented the petition, and denied that the Church of Ireland was fit for the country as at present maintained. He would say that the subject ought to be taken into Ow serious consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, and that a return; was loudly called for by every disinterested person. It ap peared from the petition that the revenueof the Church was dispro portionate sad extravagant, and that great evils arose from absentees and pluralistic He could not agree with the noble lord who had got up the petition that the revenues of the Church were not too great. For his part, he thought they were a great deal too large, and requised Immediate revision. He would say also that the property of the Irish Church was public property. It bad been taken from one party and given to another, and ft depended on the Legislature .to dispose of it at its will. He would put a case. Suppose that house should say that the Quaker's religion was the established religion of the country, what would be. some of the revenues of the Church ? Would they say that these re venues should remain in the hands of the present possessors ? Cer tainly not. What ought Parliament to do in such a case but take pos armies of the property and dispose of it as they might judge fit. He so.ild not agree with the honourable gentleman that any alienation of the Church property would produce a revolution, or sap the f..ondation of the Church. He could see no such danger; and he trerefore thought it was the duty of the House to institute the in. qt.iry prayed for in the petition; and he was quite sure that, if evidence were taken at that bar, the main facts would be borne out by the result. He could not conclude these remarks without ex pressing a strong hope that his Majesty's ministers would soon ;radium an inquiry for the purpose of a more equal distribution of church property, which, he believed, was equally desired by Eng land, Scotland, and Ireland. Mr. KING explained. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had al. ways protested against any lengthened discussion on presenting a petition, and he probably would not have troubled the house on that Asensio:was it not that his silence might be construed into an ac quiescence in the principles laid down by the hon. gentleman. It was a consolation to him that these principles were not generally adopted. The hon. member seemed to insinuate that his Ma. jesty's Government were blind to any defects in the Irish church establishment; but be was sure the house would do him the justice to admit that, whenever the subject had come under discussion, he did not deny—and this was in accordance with the feelings of the clergy of that church—that there were evils arising out of the present system which required correction._ It could not be denied that abuses had existed, but he could say with confidence that for the last few years a strong desire had grown up among all classes of the establishment to remedy these evils, and which evils, by the way, were, in his opinion, attributable not to the church in Ireland itself, but to the peculiar circumstances under which it was placed. He was sure the question when it came to be discussed would be treated on principles far different from those laid down by gentlemen in the various observations on the subject. He was certain that care would be taken not to interfere with private rights, and that, while it might be made out that blame was due to particular individuals, the interest of the whole body would not be injured. Lord L. GOWER rose to protest against the assertion of an hon. gentleman opposite, that his former statements on the subject of the church in Ireland were borne out by the present petition, which was signed by 38 magistrates of the county of Cork. The honourable member might see that the petition set out by admitting the great service which the established church had rendered to Ireland—an opinion quite contrary to that so often declared by the honourable member. The honourable member also said, that the property of the church would be treated by parliament u freely as any other public interest which came before it; hut, in his judgment, that phophecy was not likely ever to be fulfilled, for he could not find in history any instance where Church property had been thus arbitrarily disposed, without that of the whole community being exposed to the same convulsion. He was sure whenever the Church could be dolt with in that liberal manner, that his property, as well as that of the hon. gent. would not escape the general destruction. Sir JOHN NEWPORT deprecated a discussion on this salmi' at present, because the Crown had appointed a Commission to in. vestigate all mum connected with the Irish Church, and it wadi be only proper to wait until the result of that inquiry had been laid before the house. Mr. MOORE ton only to say that the general feeling of the people of Ireland was better known on this subject by the fact, that though the petition had been in progress two months before the sitting of Parliament, and though the whole country were challenged to support it by similar petitions, no other had appeared than by the statement of any Hon. Member. Mr. BARING protested against the doctrine that Parliament wee not competent to deal with the Church revenue, end that it was not to be considered in the light of private property. With regard to the plans of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, he oriel* would not leave the organization of the Church to that lion. Gast. but it was evident, and admitted on all sides, that there were abeam whisk should be remedied. The greatest injury which the Estahlhament could receive was through the abuses which it sullied to alai within itself, and he considered the disproportion of inseam as ens of the greatest. Some of the dioceses in Wales, for instance, wen tooor in income to admit the residence of the bishop in it. One e7Wrwas obliged to live in London for that rearm The Wisp ereford resided at Winchester for the same reams, end the Bishop of Llandaff was compelled to remain in London. Tide woe not tight at the moment when more than one see was Mem to be worth 100,000 a year—(hear, hear.) Such a statement as this was sufficient to convince t he house that there must he a distribution of church property for the sake of the church Motif --(hear hear, hear). He had no wish to despoil the church, wed his sentiments were not to be taken in that light ; but he was am. Tinned that the interests of the establishment required a men equitable arrangement of its revenue than at present existed, and he could not agree with the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer that parliament ought to have no control in the case. With respect te the church in Ireland, he only knew the state it was in from nimour, and be had not the opportunity of making himself penonafy acquainted with the facts ; but he protested, with regard to it, as wall as of England, against the doctrine that its affairs were not cog. amble by Parliament. He treated the property of the establish. mast as a whole, and not in parts, and contended, not for Is despo. Nada), but for the more equal distribution of it among its own pro. lissom. He thought that the subject should be inquired into, and he felt that a rigorous correction of abuses was the best way of securing the prosperity of the church. Dr. LUSHINGTON said he would make one or two observations ea what had been said by the hon. member (Mr. Baring), in order to correct the imeesion which his remarks w ith respect to the two Right Rev. P relates, p and the general emoluments of the Church might make. So far from it being the fact that any see was worth an income of 100,0001. he could state to a certainty that the Archbishop. tie of Canterbury, which was the largest, was not more than 32,0001. It was supposed that the see of Durham exceeded that sum ; but he was assured that it was under 22,0001. These were the principal sees:l but it was evident that London was becoming daily more advents. rand the great increase which would be derived from the new i vili ldings was admitted. With regard to the observations of dm noble lord respecting the licensing of curates—be had it in le power to state that the law made the granting of the license ans. pulsory on the pan of the Bishop ; and Bishop Howley, on taking the see of St. Asaph, gave notice to incumbents and tunas; that he would proceed against them one and all, unless ta t e l2 cam far ward to receive licenses from him. The law ex pressl y thawed, that no man should be authorised to perform the howl duty can. less he should have Institution as an incumbent, or license. With regard to the observations which had been made on the propriety el' respecting the revenue of the church as if it • ere private he would mduivour to show the true distinction on which it be preserved. Sane of the pprroopp was undoubtedly private, such as an alltrowson, and any inter erases with It would be • violation if private rights; but where the right of preferment existed kt the crown, the legislature had a right to interfere, and then no prin. eerie would be dostreyed. He would not try the question whether the revenues of the Church were in some instances too large, and in ethers too smell, becaushe well knew that the Inconveniences at. wading that sheiinistriece were not to ba compared to the incomes!. MOP which would miss from any attempt at equalisation. He felt the danger, and would not encounter it, and he preferred the present system, with its Ault', t o an y a d vantages to be derived theoretically trots a &mtge. He had no wish to def e nd th e ph i . talkies and nen.raddesces of the Church of Ireland. He ad. omitted that great injury arose therefrom, and he would readily join in correcting It, and he thought the safest way of doing so, without any injustice to existing rights, would be for Pullman to }as s a retrospective law, that no clergyman should, after a amide Ow, take a plurality, unless it were contiguous to his former living, end sakes be were competent to paform the duty of both. (Hear.) he was of *ion that reiMi should in all cease be strictly eatoesed, ea go believed in his conscience that the residence of a good . f. i lemilen was a gtlo blessing to the country where be VIM Mess, har t be. m) The Chancellor of the Rs. chequer d el gem *edit for his conduct with respect to the Irish Church. &Ores the first to reheat the . abuses which he found subtle', aril which had Woad for a bag pried. Up M a certain peer every thing connected with the Irish church had been bought and sold; but a different system had been called into action by the right hon. gentleman; and no establishment could be conducted on sounder principles than it now was. With respect to the Bishop of Llandaff, the hon. member was certainly under a mistake ; for so anxious was that right reverend prelate to do his duty, that he hired a place within the diocese, where he resided the greatest pan of the year. The advanced age of the Bishop of Hereford should be taken into consideration when his name was introduced. That right rev. prelate was now 80 ; and, though it could scarcely be expected from him, he went down last year to the diocese, in order personally to inspect it. And it should be re collected, that if be were now at an age which precluded active ex ertion, he had long been distinguished for the zealous and efficient performance of his duties. He could only say, in conclusion, that he would hesitate a long time before he consented to any measure which would operate as a revolution in Church property. Lord OXMANTOWN said, if the law with respect to license was such as the Learned Civilian had stated, it ought to be more generally known. He could only say, that he knew an instance where a curate, after doing duty for Ave years, was refused a license by his Bishop. Mr. BARING hoped that what he said would not be construed into a desire to deprecate the character of the Bishop of Llandaff or Hereford. He only introduced their cases as instances where it was proper to add a revenue from the overgrown pro perty of other sees. He doubted whether it was for the in-, tercet of the Church of England that one Bishop should have 32,0001. a-year, while another had only 1,3001. (hear, hear.) He feared the learned civilian had underrated the income of some of the sees in the statement he had made, or neglected to add the ex traordinary revenue arising from fines and other sources, to the ordinary income. He (Mr. B.) was assured is naming 100,0001. as the income of one see, be was not exceeding the truth, if every source of emolument was taken into account. Sir R. INOLIS said he was pretty certain that the income of any see, including the ordinary and extraoridnary revenue, did not ex ceed the estimate made by the learned gentleman. With regard to the assertions which he had made of Irish revenues, he believed that misrepresentation or great exaggeration had occurred ; for in no' case did they amount to a fourth of the sum which they were stated to produce. It was not necessary for him to eulogise the Bishop of Llandaff, as no charge was introduced against him, but he could only say that he had known that distinguished prelate for twenty. live years, and he could bear testimony to his great virtues and vs. luable services. The petition was then laid on the table, and, on the question that it be printed being put, Mr. HUME regretted that what he had said with respect to the church property had been misstated by the right hon. gentleman opposite. There was all the difference in the world between church property belonging to the Dean and Chapter, and that derived from advowson. The last as private property, and he had no desire to interfere with It ; but he thought that the Legislature had a right to deal as the country required with Church property belonging to the Bishop and Dean and Chapter. He was content with the notice which had been taken of the petition, and he was convinced that this short debate would lead to further inquiry. The result showed that further inquiry was necessary; and when he heard the contradictions given by Iwo. members to each other, he thought no further proof was necessary. In conclusion, he hoped, before the end of the Session, to have from Ministers that full explanation which was so necessary to the future interests of the country. The petition was then nrdered to be printed. IRISH VESTRY ACT. Mr. O'CONNELL rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for leave to bniig in a Bill to amend the Act of the 7th of Geo. IV. which re gulated Vestries in Ireland. He said that the Act passed in 1827 considerably affected his Majesty's subjects. It was much com plained of by petitioners. He had himself presented 30 or 40 peti tions against it, while three times that number had been presented by other Members. He knew that it gave universal discontent, and its provisions fully justified that disfavour. He quoted from a newspaper the authority of a Clergyman of the Established church, in order to show how it was considered by a class worthy the attention of the house. At a meeting in Galway, at which Mr. Daly, the Protestant warden, was present, a ques tion arose as to taxation, and the difficulty of levying a certain tax was agitated. One of the parties present observed, that gen tlemen were greatly discontented with the act. Mr. Warden Daly said, " Not gentlemen alone, but magistrates, for I myself know a case to have been brought before magistrates, when they pronounced the vestry act to be an abomination, and a substi tute for the penal code." He read this to show that he did not ex. aggerate, in stating the feeling entertained; and, although he was not inclined to use such language, he felt bound to say that he considered the Act as one sanctioning an invasion of private pro perty, and that the right given by it to the few over the property of the majority was neither just nor constitutional. the Act was re. cent, and made an alteration in the former laws, at a period when the parties most interested had no one present to defend their rights: and he considered it a great benefit of the Relief Bill that now there was at least one individual in the House, however humble, who could defend those rights, and would lay a fair statement be. fore the Legislature. The evil of the Act was, that it left the power of assessment to a few, to the exclusion of the votes of the rate-payers. This power extended to the building of churches and chapel" of ease, and the rebuilding, enlarging, and repairing of those edifices. It excluded Roman Catholics also from voting on the election of churchwardens, or on the salaries of parish clerks, and also empowered the Protestant inhabitants to pro. vide every thing necessary for the due celebration of Divine Service, according to any of the canon In force either in Enlgand or Ireland. The law went on to exclude Catholics from voting at vestries for the making of rates necessary for these purposes. Up to the passing of this statute Roman Catholics were only excluded on the building of churches, but not on the repairing and enlarging; and there was no other exclusion with respect to them, save on the election of churchwardens, or the devising of parish estates. The number, therefore, of exclusions was increased by the new Act : and this was not justified by any complaints against the Roman Catholics, either of endeavouring to obstruct the building of churches, or any other neglect or criminality; on the contrary, the Act was passed because it had been shown that the greatest abuses had prevailed in Protestant vestries. In England there was no rate for building churches, and neither the building nor rebuilding were vestry matters; but in Ireland they were. It went on to say that the Roman Catholics in Ireland had to complain of a burden which did not fall upon England. While the Roman Catholic Church existed in Ireland the churches were kept in repair, and at the time of the reformation there was, at least, one in every parish. The canon law obliged the clergymen to keep the churches in repair; and l that continuing after the reformation, made it a duty upon them to do so. This, however, was neglected, and the churces went to ruin, through the negligence of the incumbents. The Irish legislature threw the onus on parties who wee not guilty, and taxed the people instead of the incumbents. Even after the reformation, and the introduction of the penal code, Catholics were still entitled to vote at vestries; and up to the 12th of Geo. I. this power was not taken away. That Act was passed upon false grounds, for It recited that Roman Catholics had prevented the building and repairing of churches, and therefere excluded them from vestries. But the legislature had forgotten that, two years before this period, an Act had pissed that Roman Catholics should not vote upon such subjects; in other words, that the majority of Protestants alone could vote on any question for the building eta church. This state of things continued up to the 7th of 01:0. IV. which he complained of, as enabling one class to take away the property of others. That was net the sole complaint, because, by the 29d section of that act, if the vestry omitted to make a rate, and that the bishop was of opinion that a church was in want of repair, be was empowered to assess the parish to any amount he thought proper —to issue his monition for that assessment, which became as binding as an act of vestry. The bishop was thus rendered absolute over the property of protestant*, dimmest% and catholic'. Another_peo vision gave full costs to a churchwarden, or any other offiletr, in any anion, even although a verdict were bad •against him; and these were to be added to the cos and parish tax. Suppose, for instance, a churchwarden had committed a trespass—not by virtue of his authority, of course; for if he acted within that be was secured treble costs—still if be acted beyond his authority and illegally, the parish were still to be encased for his costs. There was another point also to be considaed—namely, that one set of statutes enabled the Lord Lieutenant to make unions of livings which were per pe tual, while other statutes enabled to unite parishes pro Mc via; but the statute dth George IV. enabled bishops, where there was no church in • parish, to unite that with another, however remote. The right honourable m e mb er for Waterford bad given an instance where there was one parish united to the other ten miles off; and he himself knew instances where an union was effected solely for the purposes of taxation. He could give a list of fifty parishes in Ireland, containing upwards of 280,000 Catholics, and little more than 2,000 Protestants, where one man was allowed to tax SS. It might be said that Roman Catholics would prevent repairs of churches ; but he denied that, althouigh his own private opinion was, that every class should tax itself for the maintenance of its own places of worship. Hiseseaeure, however would not trench upon any right of the Iddellehed Chum*. lis would suggest that a mandamus should Imo dm the Court of King's Basch to compel a rate, when doers was say hapeepor la. terference on the part either at Catkelle or Pseesstant pawn s legal rate b ein g levied. The Hon. Gentlemen, daft a at ethic observations telative to abuses at present tolerated, amehidsd by moving for leave to bring in a BILL The CH ANCELLOII of the =CH Ie:QUES, meld, that as be was the Individual who had the beau, to laemedess dile hill into t, he mated he should be excused if he awed Mosup o g ar ret/T e o; a measure which hod ea other mailer Me die *at of misrepresentation sad sank, sad the repeal of add& wee sisibt foe by the boa. member Ise Clare. Ile would do es without ad• suds( es say of these Weeks, sad was glad to dad dot tie temper which prevailed now was so different from that which , tad on former occasions ; but he would show that this Act was not deserving of the accusations that were cast upon it, but was, on the lev s e o t n o t n r roofetehmoe,tenwohfosethe cattle r th la e w hom , andanadgreues,Ledal gentlemen especially professed to advocate. The hon. gentlentan of ' tLT:rd " c l ,7 had said that this act was because the people had no repre sentatives in this house. At h e aring this proceed from one not at tentive to what passed in that house, he should not wonder; but be must be allowed to think, that although the hon. and learned gen tleman was absent from the house at that period, there were still others as attached and attentive to the interests of the Roman Ca tholic population as it was possible for any one to be who professed a faith in unison with themselves ; and he could safely say that of the late Attorney- G eneral for Ireland, who had assisted hint in preparing the bill. And he would declare that that distinguished individual exhibited the most ardent desire to serve and relieve the Roman Catholics from the burdens which they laboured under. It was said that the Established Church should depend on those only who professed the creed of the Church of Eng land. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) conceived that the word establishment implied that it was supported by the general contributions of all classes. The honourable gentleman said that the Bill gave a large power of assessment to Protestant vestries; but, lie admitted that, as far as related to the re-building and repairing of churches, the law had previously conceded the right to Protestant vestries. The honourable gentleman had adduced • statement of particular hardships which affected Ireland. It might be true that, in England, persons were not assessed (and, practi cally speaking, in Ireland they were not assessed); but the fund was provided under an antecedent Statute—that which re g ulated first-fruits, and enabled individuals to advance the sum the parish was substantially chargeable. There was not that dis similarity between England and Ireland, upon which the honour able gentleman insisted. Whatever might be the hardship or in convenience of obliging parishes to repay the funds advanced for rebuilding Protestant churches, the evil did not arise under the Bill of which the honourable gentleman complained. The law pro vided that money should be lent to the parish, and that the parish should repay the money so advanced. The first evil under the former law was, that Roman Catholics were compellable to bechurch wardens, and this was made an instrument of oppression. For that the subsequent law provided a remedy. It did not ex empt Roman Catholics from the office of churchwardens when it was to their advantage to fill the office; but gave them the option of filling the office or not—stating that they should not be com pellable to fill it if they disliked the office. The objection to the previous Act was, that all matters of right were brought before a tribunal which was an ecclesiastical tribunal, and which pronounced judgment in its own cause and that parties were subject to dilatory pleas, leading to endless litigation and expense. They were brought before a tribunal of which either the Judges were clergy or connected with the clergy. The j urisdiction was subsequently transferred to the Magistrates. This single Instance showed that there was a desire of treating the whole matter fairly. The next objec tion was, that the bill confirmed the power to levy any sum on the parish which was thought proper. Those who looked at the bill would observe how the power of the bishop was restricted. It was then objected, that if a churchwarden unjustly and unsuccessfully proceeded against any parishioner, he was entitled to costs. He admitted that it was so, and defended the system. The act provided for a general assessment, without going into particulars. the accounts were open to all the parishioners, and there was an appeal, and power of redress, in every stage of the proceeding. It had given the power of appeal for the rectification of abuse which might have occurred in the administration of the law. He could not give his consent to the bill of the hon. member as it stood, or with the amendments he proposed. The whole of his amendments came to this—that every ratepayer should in future vote on all questions connected with the maintenance of the church. Previous to the law now existing being brought forward he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had sent to the various parishes for a specification of the various rubrics and canons relating to the subject, in older to prevent the possibility of misunderstanding. He thought the pre sent bill would be an aggravation of existing evils ; and he trusted he had satisfied the house that there was nothing in the law as it stood to entitle it to the appellation of unjust. 3ir. S. RICE said that it was hie misfortune to differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman, both in his statement of facts and in his arguments. Had a ease been made out that the present state of the law was one which it was expedient to continue ? If this Bill were rejected there ought to be a distinct pledge on the part of Government that no time should be lost in carrying the amend ments into effect. He would rather see the amendments under taken by the Government of the country, than by any private indi vidual. He was convinced that whatever defects there might be in the present law, they were not to be imputed to P ar li ament , or any per- sons who had felt an interest in the proceeding. He was ready to vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he obtained a pledge from the Government that th e y would introduce a Bill to remedy the present inconveniences. Better remedies might be devised than those which the Hon. Gentleman had suggested. The first would be to remove the pressure of Church rates from o ccu pyi ng Roman Catholic:a, and impose these local burdens on the ownets of the land. (Hear bear. ) He wanted to have it distinctly ascertained what were the objects for which parochial levies might be made. The Right Honourable Gentleman had inquired what were the directions of the rubrics and canons, but bow could he expect that parish Vestries would be able to give such information ? There were perhaps, not ten pedants lathe house who could say a single word upon the subject of rubrics and canons. If there was now • re sistance to the amendment of the principle of the bill by the govern ment, he would remind the house that, two years after the passing of it, his right hon. friend nor him (Sir John Newport) and him self, brought in a bill to amend it, and that amending bill included the two propositions which he had mentioned.—vis. the assess. meat upon the landlord instead of the occupier of land, and a check by the Leal Lieutenant and C oun: il o f I re l an d upon the building of new churches by vestries. That bill went to a second reading in that house, and was dropped only on ac count of the lateness of the session. If the government of Ireland would give a pledge for the speedy amendment of the bill, he would be content with that; but, if not, he would vote for the motion of his hon. and learned friend the member for Clue ; and in so voting he would consider himself pledged only to vote for the amendment of the vestry laws of Ireland, and would have nothing to do with any scheme of his hon. and learned friend. He was in hopes he would not be driven to vote so, bat that the noble lord, who is responsible for the working of this measure, would find a remedy for its evils. Mr. G. MOORE dissented from the principle that Catholics and other Dissenters in Ireland should be exempt from the payment of church.raus. He was glad that such a principle was now dia. claimed ; but, though disclaimed, the next stage of amendment that would be voted for, if the present amendment was to be granted, would be a repetition of that principle. (Hear, hear.) After the able speech of his right honou ra bl e f r i en d, a nd after the aban donment of the material part of the motion by bis honour able friend the member for Limerick, he need not dwell on the subject, but he would content himself with saying that more irritation would be produced by adopting the propositions now sub. mined by the Hoo.Member for Clare, than by lea the Bill as it was. The House was aware that there were many Protestants in Ireland without a plate of worship in their own parish, and by the Act of 4th Geo. IV. they might attend at the next p ar i s h chu rch; and, as long as they attended, so long were they liable to be as sessed to the pariah rates for that church ; but when they built a church for themselves the annexation of their contributions fell to the mead. The Hon. Member then referred to Burn's Eccle siastical Law for an explanation of the Rubrick and Canons, and said that the Act of Parliament was in those matters sufficiently defined. 81r J. NEWPORT said that the boa. member's explanation of the Rubrick, from Burn's Ecclesiastical Law ' made the matter more incompewbensible than it was before. The right bon. potle man the se- • of the Exchequer dealt more liberally, by sending a circular to all the parishes in Ireland to explain the Rubric ks and Casson He knew, however, that many of the in. cumbents of parishes in Ireland sa id they w ould not pay deference to that authority in their construction of the law, and some of them laughed at the letter. The assessments for e various ob. jests, as organists, tuners, catechists, Re. were so numerous as to be quite oppressive, and be was sure that they were not all contests. plated by the of the Bill. He wished some amendment to be made to away with all the litigation arising out of these matters in the way of appeals, the experts/of which always fell, not on the Clergy, nor on the vestry, but on the parishes. He hoped the noble Wd (Lunen Gower) would give an assurance to the house that the Bill would be amended. All seemed to agree in the propriety of some amendment, except the honourable and lamed gent. (Mr. Moore), who thought it enough to refer to Burn's Rale. siastical Law for an explanation of the Subekl. He would vote for the motion, Solna Government gave a pledge that they would amend the Bill. Lord I. GOWER began by saying, that, under any dream stances, he would consider it his duty to grate the meth* and be would state his views. When be uninteek the slim AM be now held, he entered upon it with great illieulty in slum Is that law, which was t h en so much diamond in lwissi Ile found it to be a ems et Moguls, failure of the dime of Lord Mao. kett and his right honourable Mend. The *bilk -be derived from the working et the law was, tbst regubed mem& meet, but net that it wriabliebed a wreng ease et swim mimed beim the law. It was net tor to to the fall nplanatien given by his right boa hills of dm ili et the law, bat be would any that Us bum. liked the neiriber he U. aterkkabould name hiss bt sea pledglog bind! Man bemeediele intosemtlea of an amendment et Ali la - . tr—OrmA He bestowed ONO roleeties on disuse dna ble trenomm Ne Mad was aware et; It might be imeaded mid unseated, bat be meld notrai bow dm be mild adept doe resememodedens be bed hem d parts of Ireland. To deal candidly with his honourable friend, ihr would tell him that if he rested his vote upon the hopes eat he (Lord L. Gower) would introduce any measure this sac,,, for the amendment of this law, he could not purchase In s honourable friend's vote—valuable as he thought it—on such a condition. The motion of the honourable and learned tuemit:t would go to admit to a vote in the vestry all those who were no, excluded by this law ; and the honourable and learned tumult t thought that all bad feeling would be excluded from the vestry missions by the temper of conciliation which watt now beginning prevail in Ireland. That might be so, if he could hope that tl.r tone and temper of discussions in that House extended to Ireland but he need not tell the House that the tone and temper of the d:r Cussicms in Ireland on such subjects were very different. (Heat, hear.) Upon that ground he would say that the expectation of the honourable and learned member for Clue for the waking of 'is proposed measure would be disappointed. Mr. THANT rose to offer his decided opposition to this motion. The hon. member for Clare had said that he had no wish to alter the system by which the professors of one religion were made ts pay for the support of another; but he could never give hut credit for sincerity in this respect. He had no doubt whatever es to what the hon. and learned member was about, and, knowing turn to be earnest in his belief of his own religion, he had front di commencement felt convinced that the hon. and learned men*. would not allow one Session to pass over without aides. vouring—he knew not what to say—(a laugh.) Well, he would say, without endeavouring to undermine what the hon. and learned member was pleased tocall an " intrusive Church."—(heat, hear.) It was quite clear that both the hon. and learned member and his fellow religionists now assumed a power over the established church In Ireland. It appeared that the hon. member for Limerick would not be satisfied unless there was a schedule of rates for the Church of England established by act of parliament ; but in Ha (Mr. Tram's) opinion such a proposition as this was not for a moment to be tolerated. It behoved the house to watch with the uunost caution and jealousy every measure which came from the Roman Catholics, and which affected the Established Church. Ale. Secretary PEEL was quite ready to admit, with the boo member for Dover, that they ought to look with vigilance and sus. picion upon any measures of this description that might originate with persons differing In communion from the established church, and more particularly after the opinions and sentiments which had been expressed by the hon. and learned gentleman who had brought the present question under the consideration of the house. That bon. and learned gentleman had stated that he would not at present urge any proposition for relieving catholic' and dirsen tees from the payment of church-rates. He (Mr. l'ce!) wished very much that the hon. and learned gentleman would state to the house at once what his real views were ; for it was tolerably evident that he contemplated some. thing more than he had mentioned. Looking at this measure in the shape in which it had been brought forward, he (Mr. Peel) was not to be deceived by paltry arguments about any defects that might exist in the Vestry Act. He looked to the main principle of the measure, and found that the great object of the honourable ant! learned gentleman was to make Catholics and other Dissenters eli. gible to vote in the assessment of church.rates in Ireland. To this proposition he (Mr Peel) could never accede, believing that, if it were once adopted, it would be productive of endless confusion if: Ireland. (Hear.) Nothing was more evident than that the kook' was bound to consult the due maintenance of that branch of the united church of Great Britain and Ireland which existed in the latter country. Very great reforms had already been effected by those who had the superintendence of the established church is Ireland; but such reforms were, in a great degree, counteracted by the want of places of worship, and who, be would ask, were bouts: to provide them ? Who but the possessors of land in Ireland?— (Hear, hear.) It could not be expected that England should do so; fax she had, on many former occasions, contributed much towards the maintenance of the Irish Church by the purchase of land anll glebe houses. If, then, the Irish possessors of the soil wcre the parties who were bound to support the established church in Ire. land, the only way to do so was by making a parochial charge ; but to allow persons who did not belong to that Church to have a eoin asseannents for maintaining it, would, as he had already stated, lead to universal confusion, or very probably to the total denial of pecuniary means. With respect to the proposed inter. fames of the Court of King's Bench by mandamus in matters or this nature, he must deprecate it altogether. He should regret very much to see the Court of King's Bench made a sort of political tri bunal in parochial affairs. How could that Court take upon itself to decide as to whether or not churches ought to be bulk in parti. cube parishes ? But, while he was decidedly hostile to the prin. ciple of the Bill, he concurred with his lion. Friend, the Member for Limerick, that the cases in which rates should be imposed for building and repairing churches ought to be defined by Act of Par. Bement, instead of being left to the Canons and Rubrick to de. terming. Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, said that he had two powerful ob. Sections to the present Act. The first was, that under it Catholics were taxed without being allowed to vote ; and the second was, that the purposes which it contemplated were undefined. In his opinion the Rom member for Dover took a very erroneous view of the question now before the house. This was a question of taxation, and not of religion, for religion did not consist of pounds, shillings, and pmos—( cheers .) If the poor man was distrained for that which he ought not to pay, it was not religion, but ado,. don. He denied that any one sect of religionists had a right arbitrarily to impose taxes upon another—(hear, hear, hear). If things were reversed in Ireland, and that the Protestants there, and ' not the Catholics, formed the majority, he should have very little re spect foe the independence of that Protestant who would allow the Catholic minority to tax him at their discretion.--(Hear.)—Tte Protestant Church of Ireland was well known to be the richest in the whole world, and ought it not thus to pay for its sacramental ele ments, for its ornaments, and pew openers ? This surely was only rea sonable, considering the enormous wealth it possessed, yet the people were taxed for all thae and various other:charges.Tho practice of the Court of King's Bench was always to issue a mandamus for a rate, where a rate was necessary ; and that being the case in England, why should not the same practice extend to Ireland ? There were in Ireland fifty parishes, in which the proportion of Catholics to Protestants was as eighty to one ; and was it not monstrous to give to the one the exclusive right to tax the eighty ? (Hear, hear.) From his heart he disclaimed any thing like sectarian feeling with him the question of religion was always confined to the temples of his Goo. He had been sent to that House by the freemen of Clare, faithfully and conscientiously to represent their interests, and he should endeavour to do so to the utmost of his ability. If the mottoo should be lost, his constituents and the people of Ireland would have the satisfaction to learn that it was lost upon its merits and not upon his demerits. He stood there as the advocate of jus tice, and he appealed for justice to a British House of Commons. (Cheers.) The House then divided For the motion 47 Against it Majority — 130 inacztna. Sir J. MACHIN I'OSH, on our re.entering the gallery, was in Y of the house. He was recommending to his right hon. Z:1 11;r. C. Grant) to postpone his motion respecting Terceira to same other evening, when it might be brought on at an earlier hour. It was then half-past ten o'clock, and be contended that the importance of the subject demanded that an evening should be de. voted to its discussion. Mr. C. GRANT would willingly adopt the suggestion of his right. boo. friend, if any other evening could be fixed upon. lie I begged leave to sarthat on Thursday next there were several no tices, but that, with one exception, the hon. gentlemen who had given them, bad consented to give him the priority. The one notice to which he had alluded bad been given by the hon. and learned 'member toe Knaresberough, and he should consider it u a personal favour if his hon. and learned friend would give way. Mr. BROUGHAM was most desirous of accommodating his right hat. friend; but really, en looking at the order book, he did not see bow it wasp ble for him to di) so. From the notice, it might be mppoeed that his motion would have reference only to a corner of the, great question of legal reform; but be begad to say that, in reality, it would embrace the whole question of a 'cheap, ef fectual, and convenient administration of justice. If be were to waive his precedence upon Thursday next, he feared that he meet pompon—Dot for a few dap, but h this month and the next month, and until the middle of J a laugh,)—tne order book was so fully occupied. He would not stickle for a day or two, and if any arrangement (reasonable one,) could be made, he should be most ready to accede to it. Mr. R. GRANT reminded his hon. and learned friend (H r. Broughham) that if the debate upon Terceira came on at that four it must to a moral certainty be adjourned to Thursday, and then it must take the precedence. Mr. BROUGHAM said it might be adjourned to Thursiay, but could net cut out his notice. The adjourned debate would be an order of the day, and on Thurdays motions had the precedence ' of ceders. 11;:iseretatty PEEL said justice could not be dose to the quo- Sea at that hoer of the aiiot. Would not Tuesday the 4th of May do ? Nr.;BROUGHAM said there were six notices of motions for that day. Mr. Secretory PEEL thee recommended the 6th of May. Len J. RUSSELL sold he had a motion fixed for that day o but he would glee way if the boa sad lamed nanaber he Clam would do the came, with reiguet tea modal which lobed gins coomrols6 refona. Mr. O'CONNELL did not know of my subject of half the le- Intone of :Am. (Latogistrs, sod aftof "Go ea," sod " No, Aft, non litzdwis esevandise, the motion was periPmell t• todwlwrow (We=aad Mr. Semetexy Prot. expeisold • bore that it would hi to some is at fire o'clock.