The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-22 00:00:00

[ i.CONI) EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. „THE PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HO USE OF LORDS. The VICE.CIIANCELLO R took his seat ou the Woolsack at Eve o'clock. Lord RA VENSWORTH presented a petition from --, against the.Ccrporation Reform Bill. A Messve from the Commons brought up several private Bilh. Lord DUNCANNON laid upon the table the protest of flogn., one of the Corporation Commissioners, against the Report of the Commissioners. Lord SEGRAVE presented a petition from the freemen of Gloucester, against the disfranchisement clause in the Cor vorntion Bill. Several petitions against the Corporation Reform fill were presented. MERCHANT SEAMEN'S SILL. The House went into Committee on t.lie Merchant Seamen's Bill.—The Report was ordered to 1- Je received to-morrow. Several private Bills were rercrted. Earl SELKIRK then presei.ted several petitions in stip po-t of the Church of Sc , ,tland.. The House then af 3 : j ourned at twenty minutes to six o'clock. NOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAF.ER took the Chair at five minutes to four o'clock. Captain GORDON presented a petition from Aberdeen in favour of the Bill now before the House for the Registration of Stsines. • Also petitions from other places in Scotland, the purport of which the Hon. Member did not state. UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. Mr. TOOKE gave notice that on Thursday week he should call the attention of the House to the Address voted to his Majesty on the 28th March last, relative to the granting of a Charter to the University of London, and his Majesty's an swer thereto. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Sir ANDREW AGNEW presented about a dozen Peti tions from Sir,sex, Derby, awl various parts of the country, praying fo': some legislative enactment for the better Observ ance of the Sabbath. The Hon. Baronet gave notice that ea-ly next Session he should again have great satisfaction in moving for leave t o bring in a Bill for the b e tt er Ob servance of the Lord's Day, and for the protection of all classes of his Majesty's subjects in the observance of their religious duties. Mr. POTTER begged to observe that many of these peti tions bad very few signatures, and it was evident they did not speak the sense of the parishes from which they professed to come. Sir A. AGNEW had been assured by the respectable gen tlemen by whom they had been forwarded to him for presenta tion, that they were signed by all classes—high and low. Mr, POTTER—Then the parishes must contain a very limited population. COURT OF ADMIRALTY, (IRELAND.) Mr. EIIMERSON TENNANT had a most important petition to present from the Chamber of Commerce of Bel fast, relative to the improper detention of a Danish vessel, and complaining of the proceedings of the Court of Admiralty in Ireland. A similar petition had been presented a short time since by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. The Hon. Member entered into the details of the case, which were the same as detailed by Mr. O'Cpnell on the former oc casion. The vessel having got upon the shore, a per son forced himself on board, in order, as he said, to render assistance—the only thing he did was to cut the hawser, which did more damage than bad been done befo:e. For his services, he claimed salvage to the amount of 1401. That demand was resisted, and the ship was detained for upwards of a month, at an expense of 151. per day, when the Court of Admiralty decided that the party claiming had right to no more than was paid int 6 Court. That was an infamous proceeding, considering the circum stances the vessel was driven in, and if no other person early in the next Session took up the matter for the amendment of the proceedings in the Court of Admiralty in Ireland, he would bring in a Bill upon the subject. Mr. CR A.WFORD and Mr. RUTHVEN supported the prayer of the petition, and trusted the Hon. Member would persist in his intention. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL. Mr. VERNON presented a petition from the Proctors of the Ecclesiastical Court of York, complaining of the Attorney- General's Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill. He had the honour of being a Judge of that Court—(Hear)—and he could assure the House it was no sinecure, and whatever he felt to be his incapacity for the situation, such was not the feeling of the county of York and the northern counties, all of which would violently oppose the Bill. TITHES. Mr. DOBBIN presented a petition from John Huson, Esq., a most respectable gentleman, resident in the county of Durham, complaining of the very unjust charge of tithe made upon his lands. The land was abbey-land, and had not been subjected to tithes for one hundred years ; but, under the late compulsory Tithe Act, the Commissioners set it down at the rate of 701., reducing the value of the land full 1,0001. The Hon. Member also presented a petition to the same effect, from some other landholders in the county of Durham. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD bore testimony to the re spectability of the petitioners, and supported their prayer. ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for certain Re turns connected with this office, which were ordered, and im mediately afterwards were brought up and laid on the table. Sir R. INGLIS presented two petitions against the con templated Irish Church Bill. Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Macclesfield, complaining of the pre sent rate of duty upon licenses. Col. JONES presented a petition against the claims of Ba ron de Bode, from a place the name of which we did not bear. Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition from 1,163 inhabitants of a parish in Mayo, in favour of the contemplated Bill for the regulation of the Irish Established Church, and praying for the total abolition of tithes. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Ipswich Election Committee, which was as follows: " 1. That it appears to the Committee that Thomas Moore Keith aided and abetted the procuring and continuing the absence of John Pilgrim, toprevent his giving evidence on the petition against the Ipswich election, and that he used the charge of embezzlement ac a means of inducing Pilgrim to remain in concealment for the same purpose. " 2. That on Pilgrim's return to Norwich, an infotmation was laid against him for embezzlement, which had tie effect of delaying obedience to the Chairman's summons, and his attendance before the Committee on the Ipswich election. "3. That it does not appear to the Committee, from the evidence before them, that there is any proof that these prosecutions were taken for the purpose of procuring such delay. " 4. That it dues not appear to the Committee, from the evi dence before them, that any charge is proved against Joseph Sewell, John Blake, or John Joseph Blake." Mr. HUME believed the invariable rule to be that when ever a party was reported against in this manner he should be ordered into the custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms. Mr. WYNN thought the rule was not quite so clear as the }lon. Member thought. In the case of the Magistrates who were reported against by the former Committee, they were not ordered into custody. The House would not take that course before reading over the evidence, and judging for themselves. Mr. WA SON.—The Right Hon. Baronet had made a mistake in the allusion to the former case. All the parties reported against specifically, were instantly ordered into cus tody. The case of the Magistrates was different, as they were only reported to have been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, without its being stated what the breach was. Mr. HUME considered that the Committee had been ap pointed in order to save the time of the House. He thought the duty of the house was clear, and he would move that Mr. Keith, the gentleman reported against, be taken into custody by the Sergeant -at- Arms. Sir R. INGLIS asked whether the Hon. Gentleman had given notice of this motion. Mr. HUME did not think that any notice was necessary in a motion of this nature. Mr. SINCLAIR thought that the time of the House ought not to be occupied in examining witnesses. He thought that the matter had been referred to a Committee for that purpose. Mr. WILK S—The Committee had gone beyond that. It was not a mere reference to examine witnesses—the Com mittee were empowered to form an opinion, and it was necessary that that opinion, under such circumstances, should appear, for it was to no purpose that the Comnai":„ t. l .y givin g should simply come t o a d ec i s i on un l ess , a f ter di st i nc their opinion, that House was to act upon it. Sir J. WROTTESLEY suggested. `.'sat as many mem. bers had entered the Haase since tl-sj- Report had been read, it should be read again. .The Retr.ot having been ;Tad accordingly, Mr. W.YNN said, when the proposal for the appointment of the Committee was made, there was a considerable differ ence of opinion ,in that House upon it, and he appre itended that when the Committee was appointed, the great object was to save the time of the House, and to save them from the inconvenience of examining witnesses at the bar of the House. While some Members were coming, and others had only heard one part, and others another part, the same questions were put over and over again, and It was the least conducive to justice of any mode of pro reeding, If the mere opinion of a majority of a Com mittee was to be conclusive, where was the use of directing them to report the evidence to that House ?—(llear, hear. ) Why lay the Minutes of Evidence before the House, if the He.use was bound to submit entirely to the discretion of the Committee ? The question was, whether a witness had prevaricated or rarseonded, and he wished before they came to a decision, the evidence taken before the Committee should be laid before the House, and then they would be able to judge what WAS the real meaning of the words " aiding or abetting." These words admitted of very different constructions, and it was only fitting that the House should know the case before they fixed the punishment. He only wished that the House should have an opportunity of reading the evidence before they determined upon it.—( Hear, hear.) . Wiatever might be the decision of that Hanse whether it wauld be different from that come tss'oy the Committee or not, lie thought that it would be 111r)VC satisfactory after the evidence should have bee s ia pilAted. lie believed that one day would be sufficient to pto-laOliirs in possession of the evidence ; and if upon this delay they Could have the evidence, their decision would give infinitely more' satisfaction. 'Mr. I'. M. Sit WART felt bound to differ from that iihich had been stated by t4great authority which had just sat 'clsavn. In the former instencr, the House did not wait for the ."VitiUting of the evidence, but committed the parties on the re ' poifoltbe Committite. 'lie thought that the same course ought ~~ certainly to be pursued in the present instance.—( Hear, hear.) He entertained very little doubt, that the evidence taken before the last Committee was very similar to that which was given befeec the Cominittee of which he was the Chairman. MN MILES thought if Hon. Members would wait till the evidence was printed, they would be disposed to deal with this individual more leniently than it they proceeded to older him into custody without it. This, considering the state of the individual, would be extremely de sirable, as probably the House might aggravate his condition if it acted hastily with him. Mr. HUME could assure the Hon. Member that in moving this he had merely done it officially. He was willing to admit that what the Hon. Member had stared was worthy of the con sideration of the House, aftet It had vindicated its own autho rity.—( Cries of " Hear.") If the authority of the House was not sumerted, it could not administer the justice of the country. r M. W. RIDLEY fully admitted the statement of the non. Member for Middlesex, that the House ous?:I": `..3 vindi cate its own dignity, but he thought ti!:l 4 . vindication would take place more effectually if it did not act till the evidence had been printed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was disposed to move, as an amendmer.L, that the motion should be put off till Friday. If the House ordered this individual into custody, it might, as had been stated, aggravate his state of mind, for which he would be sorry. Mr. II A WES thought, when the evidence was laid before the House, it would be found to be an ample justification for the most severe punishment being inflicted on this individual, nor did he believe that the results anticipated by the Hon. Member opposite, as to the aggravation of his state of mind, would take place. This impending delay would be quite as in lurious to Mr. Keith as any present proceeding. Ile (Mr. Hawes) was fully aware of the circumstances stated by the Hon. Member for Somersetshire, ar.d it was this knowledge enabled him to state, that delay would not, in his opinion, be the wisest course. The question was then put that the motion for directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to take Mr. Keith into custody be postponed to Friday, which was agreed to. Mr. P. M. STE WART trusted the House would indulge him for a few moments on a matter pesonal to himself. The concluding sentence of the Report condemned the Chairman of the Committee, for signing a warrant for the arrest of Pil grim, one of the witnesses, as being contrary to the usual practice, which was to resort to that House for the warrant of the Speaker. That sentence was a gentle hint to himself (Mr. P. M. Stewart), and he pleaded guilty to it. The House was aware of the difficulty they had experienced in tracing Pilgrim at home or abroad, and when a summons out of five or six had at length been served upon him at Norwich, he had been arrrested under a warrant from the Magistrates of that town. It was then suggested that he (Mr. Stewart) should send a summons to the Constable of Norwich, but he had doubted whether such a proceeding would be sufficient and, without mu c h cons id erat i on , had issued the warrant. He believed the Chairman of a Committee could not sign a war rant, and that he (Mr. Stewart) should have applied to that House.—( Hear.) The Magistrates were, therefore, perfectly right in refusing to act upon that warran t. Mr. WYNN could assure the Hon. Member that the para graph to which he had alluded had not been introduced for the purpose of casting any imputation upon him, but because if such a precedent was improper, and if acted upon by future Election Committees, would be extremely inconvenient. IPSWICH ELECTION. Sir B. VERE moved, according to notice, that J. E, Sparrowe be brought to the Bar, and reprimanded and dis charged. Mr. AGLIONBY said before the motion was agreed to, he would like to hear some reason assigned for the dis charge of this person who had so grossly outraged the laws of the country.—( Hear, hear.) His petitition set forth that he had been in confinement for six weeks. He (Mr. A.) was certain that there were many now in goal, and had been for six months, for a much less offence than this per son had been guilty of.—( Cheers.) This was one of the few instances of a person caught almost in the very fact, and he trusted the House would not part with him till the end of the session, wit lout some reason being given for taking such a course. Mr. HUME agreed with his Hon. Friend. If it was not to be a mere farce to bring up a man of such distinction upon a charge of this nature—a man who knew the laws better than most people—charged with such an offence, they should not part with him without any reason being assigned for it. When a motion was made for the liberation of the Dorchester Labourers only a few nights ago, they were met with reasons certainly, but not in his opinion valid ones; and he did not think them such guilty criminals as Mr. Spar rowe. He thought they ought at all: events to keep him till the end of the Session, however long that might continue. Dr. LUSH INGTON took no slight view of the offence with which this person was charged, for it was one that involved infinite danger to the cause of justice— that had involved an expense of many thousands of pounds. Notwithstanding his strong conviction of all these circumstances, still he thought that it would be much better to discharge those persons yet in custody, and bring in a Bill making that offence punishable before a Jury of the country—( Cheers,)— when the punishment would be given by a Judge who was not a party to the question—(Great cheering)—for which the punishment was awarded. He did not think it was the duty of Parliament to punish in that sense of the word. They only asserted their dignity and privileges by making an example in order to prevent a repetition of the offence. In his opinion the dignity of the House would be better kept up, and the purposes of justice better served, if the House would now release those parties, and provide as he had suggested for the punishment of such cases by a judge and jury. Sir R. PEEL had serious doubts as to the policy of adopt ing the plan of transferring to any other tribunal the power of that House to enforce its authority.—( Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Member who had just sat down (Dr. Lushington), urged the inconvenience and possible injustice of the House acting at once as prosecu tor and judge ; and proposed, in cases of obstruction to the warrants of the Speaker and the authority of the House, that it should be referred to a jury to determine the degree of criminality of such obstruction.----( Hear.) But the House was only exercising that power to enforce its own authority, as in the Court of King's Bench, or any other, and he thought they would greatly weaken their privileges and encourage contempt of their authority. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had referred to the argument he (Sir R. Peel) had used in favour of a mitigation of the sentence on the Dorches ter labourers ; and if the mitigation in this case depended upon the Crown, as in that case, the argument would equa lly a pply, and should admit th a t the Crown might decide upon the case with reference to Parliament. He was of opinion that the end of punishment had been sufficiently answered, after six week's imprisonment ; and that, after this example, no man would attempt to lend himself to the abstraction of any wit ness from the examination of this House.—( Hear.) Mr. P. STEWART would not dwell on the enormity of the offence, but he would say they must take the law as it now stood, and he thought Mr. Sparrow had undergone as severe a punishment as the House could think of giving him.— The Honourable Gentlethan opposite said he only proposed to incarcerate him until the end of the Session, why even to them sitting there in the light of day enjoying the freedom of debate, there was something appalling in the idea of having to remain here until the end of the Session.— ( Hear, and laughter ) He would ask whether a profes sional individual, after being confined six weeks at a great pecuniary loss, and then coming forward in a penitent manner, was not entitled to the merciful consideration of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. AGLIONBY denied that be had made any such amendment as that imputed to him by the Hon. Member. All he opposed was the discharge of the man this day. Mr. RIGBY WA SON said be should oppose the discharge of Mr. Clipperton. Dr. Liii3HINGTON explainel. He merely suggested to put it upon the same footing as bribery, that is make it punishable at common law the offence of evading the Speaker's warrant, or aiding- others in doing so. ) iLcrd JOHN RUSSELL thought that such a course as that recommended by his Honourable and Learned Friend would very much weaken the authority of that House, and he doubted whether they would be able t t , enforce attendance in any way if they adopted such a course. It would place them below the Courts of Cctunnit Law, and it was a oroposition which he dil l _ nut think that he could ever be disposed to '7;iisent to. Regarding this particular case the ciees t '':n under consideration was whe there were any object 'answered by continuing this person in prison. Withe- - :, Mr. CI giving any opinion re gar di ng th e case o f ' - e perton - , he thought that in this case for the offence `, - inmitted the punishment that had been inflicted was sufficient.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He did not think that a continuance in prison a few weeks longer, would more effill tually deter others from the same offence. The course thny had alrendy taken was a very right and a very necessary course, but he did not think it necessary to continue it. At the same. time ha considered this as one of those cases in which the person concerned had expressed deep contrition, but at the same time lie stated that he was ignorant of the offence. He would not, therefore, say that in a similar case he would pursue the same course. Mr. AGLIONBY withdrew his motion, and the prisoner, Sparrow, was ordered to be brought up to-morrow and dis charged. _ _ _ CASE OF MR. CLIPPERTON. Mr. FRE SHFIELD rose to move the discharge of Mr. Clipperton, confined for the same offence. He hoped the House would feeLthat Mr. Clipperton had suffered enough already for what he had been guilty of. Mr. Clipperton had no connexion whatever with the election—he was not at Ipswich at the time, he happened to be the agent of oue of the parties, and in that character he was bound to protect his interest by every means in his power. Mr. Clipperton had seven children, the eldest only twelve years, and the youngest about three months old.—( Hear, hear.) If nothing else would call upon the House to act leniently towards Mr. Clipperton, he trusted the statement of that fact would have that effect. He trusted the House would grant the prayer of his TheStio". Laving bee put, ASON should certainly feel it his duty to oppose the motion of the Hon. Member opposite. Mr. Clapperton had put statements that were not founded on fact in his po session. The Hon. Member proceeded to comment in very severe termsupon theconduct of the petitioner. which he insisted was any thing but that of a man of honour. Instead of his fortune being injured by the proceedings of that House, he thOught he would be found the Parliamentary agent of every borough in the county on future occasions.— (Cries of Oh, oh.") The petftioner stated that the wit news had absconded of their own accord, and not by any contrivance of the petitioner, and yet the evidence of Mr. Clippeton and other, witnesses before the Committee, was di rectly contrary to this statement. (tart- syri:Axa.), THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY'N, 183 b IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, JUT.Y 21. _ _ _ Mr. BERNAL, and others from the Commons, brought up a Bill for extending the post to foreign countries, to which they desired the concurrence of their Lordships. ORANGE RIOTS. Lord FARNHAM thought the circumstance of these per ions having been sentenced by the Learned Judge to a double term of imprisonment, was a proof that they should not have escaped with only half the punishment. The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition from the shipowners of Cardiff, against any alteration in the Timber Duties. The Marquis of BUTE presented retiticni from tin Li verpool Shipowners Asscciatiwl e and other Ores, to the same effect. Lard l'DiT !MORE presented a petition from the borough of Bridport, in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW presented petitions from the counties of Meath and Wicklow, against the intended Tithe Abolition Bill. Also a petition from the Grand Jury of Wa. terford, in favour of the Bill for the removal of the Assizes in , Ireland. Viscount DUNCANNON presented a petition to the same effect from landowners and rate payers cf Waterford. Also a petition from the same individuals, praying for an al teration in the present system of Grand Jury Taxation The Marquis of WESTMEATH complained of the pre. sent system of licensing in Ireland, and begged to ask the Noble Viscount opposite whether the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons of 1832 upon the subject would be attended to ? Viscount DUNCANNON said a clause had been intro duced for the regulation of licenses in the English Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, and he believed a clause to the same effect would be introduced in the Bill for the Reform of Corporations in Ireland. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that could only iffect towns. Lord FARNHAM (we believe) thought it ought not for a moment to be entertained that anything should be. done in the present session with a measure of such importance as that of the reform of Irish corporations. Documents that were not yet on the table were necessary for a due consideration of the subject, and its being prematurely introduced he for one should strongly oppose. The Earl of WICKLOW said it had given him much pleasure to hear the Noble Viscount state that the Bill now regulating the licenses in Ireland had not worked well, and must be altered ; but, at the same time, he wished to observe that that applied to the Bill as a whole, but that there were some of its provisions not at all objectionable, and which he should like to see continued. He trusted that such would be the view of the Noble Viscount en further con sideration. accurate information; but I am endeavouring, by pointing out the errors of previous statements, to remove the prelimi nary, obstacles which I find opposed to an acquiescence in my motion, namely, the gross exaggerations and ereoheotis ime pressions beet hilhei.tet Thu Merin ber for Middlesex, in the year 1824, calculated the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics in Ireland, as about one to fourteen. He assumed the number of Protestants in com munion with the Church, to be 400,000, whilst: ' e gross po pulation of the cctultry was F e 066;60. 11 ~ 1 1f t lib . 11 ' taken gebet pains to Make nidett. tu the revenue of the Church of Ireland, and that after the closest investigation of the Report, lie was disposed to esti mate the aIIIQUIIt Qf that revenue at 0490 Orßle ytte ftentere He sod 1 / 7 id tile proportion of Catholics to Protestants had in creased in lISSi levee '6f to i. to 11 to j ; th t in many parishes the proportion was 40, 50, and 60 to UiL going that this increasing disproportion in the relative numbers of the two classes distinctly showed the worthlessness and in utility of the Established Church. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by asking whether any man could be so littedy as to say that such an establishment ought to be kept up, at an expense of 3,000,000/. sterling per annum. It Is true that in later times these exaggera'ted and most erroneous im pressions have been partly removed. When in the year 1034 the Hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Ward) brought for ward his motion on the subject of the Irish Church, he mates rially reduced the extravagant estimates of Dr. Doyle, and the almost equally extravagant estimates of tile lion. Member for Middlesex—(Mr. Hume.) The Hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Ward) observed that he had been furnished with various statements showing the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics in Ireland, and he said " I have no doubt that the strongest cases have been related by those who have put themselves in communication with me. But if in lieu of adopting the averages which these returns would authorize me in taking (that is, 1 in 23, or 1 in 39) I assume Wakefield's average of 1 in 14 to be correct, I think I cannot fairly be ac cused of any design to diminish the numbers of the Episcopa lian Protestants below their real amount. This would give 600,000 in all, as the numbers of those for whose exclusive benefit the present establishment is kept up. And what ie the cost of this establishment ? Very nearly 1,000;000/. sterling. The Noble Lord, in his calculation of last year did not make it out to be so much ; but he omitted in his estimate the glebe lands held by the clergy amounting to 85,000 acres of good land, which at 30s. an acre, would amount to 135,0001. a year. This, together with the bishops' lands, the ecclesiastical corpo rations, and the returns of tithes, will make a total of 937,4561., as the yearly revenue actually received by the Irish Church." When Lord Althorp spoke upon this subject on bringing for ward the Church Temporalities Bill in 1833, he fairly admitted the previous exaggerations which had existed with respect to the actual amount of the revenues of the Church in Ireland. " I can say conscientiously," said the Noble Lord, " that a greater exaggeration has prevailed upon this subject than in any political topic which I recollect. Before I looked more narrowly into the question, I myself greatly exaggerated to my own mind the amount of the revenues of the Irish Church Establishment. One great exaggeration has arisen concerning the amount of the revenues of the Bishops: I think I shall surprise the House when I mention the amount of all the revenues of the different sees in Ireland. The net revenue of all the Irish Bishops is only 130,0001. a year ; the gross revenue is 150,0001., but their net income is only 130,000/. a year. There is certainly a great tract of country which belongs to the Bishops ; but they do not enjoy the whole of the beneficial interest in that land. The esti mated amount of the annual valise of these lands is about 600,0001., of which the Bishops have only 100,0001. This circumstance accounts for the exaggerated statements which have obtained credit with respect to the incomes of the Episcopacy of Ireland." Further on, the Noble Lord says, " I think I am justified in stating that the revenue of the Church of Ireland applicable to the support of the ministers of that Church does not exceed 800,0001." Now in order that you may come to a just conclusion, I ask you to ascertain facts. I despair, I admit it in the outset, of removing the impression which these exaggerations have made upon the public and upon the House. You have heard of the gross abuse of the Established Church—you have heard of its mil lions of revenue—you have heard of the comparatively insig nificant number of its members—what I despair of now is, that when you hear the truth—although you may admit the facts—you will not be able to struggle against the force of your previously received, and deeply rooted erroneous impressions. —(Hear.) You have made these statements yourselves ; you have heard them re-echoed by your constituents in the coun try ; and you have taken the echo of your own delusion for an impartial confirmation of your views of the subject.—( Hear, hear.) But I say it is not fair to act upon these impressions, if they are proved to be erroneous.—(Hear.) If it shall ap pear that the Church, instead of possessing millions, possesses scarcely one-tenth of the sums which you have erroneously attributed to her—if it shall appear that the members of the Establishment, instead of amounting to 260,000, according to the estimate of Dr. Doyle, amount in fact to 860,000 as veri fied by recent examination—then all I shall ask of you is to struggle against the force of your own previous impressions— impressions founded upon error, and to keep your minds in that state—if not to decide in favour of my proposition, at least to admit the entrance of the truth.—(Hear, hear.) Super added to the obstacle which I find in a strongly-formed pre vious impression, resulting from exaggerated arid erroneous in formation—superadded to that difficulty, and almost equally powerful is, the resolution of this House, adopted for party purposes, and under the influence of false impressions.— ( Cheers.) lam too deeply impressed with the paramonnt im portance of the subject to wish to argue it upon any other ground than an appeal to the force of reason.—(Cries of " Hear.") lam content to abide by that.- But I say, that, under erroneous impressions, a powerful party in this House has pledged itself to a resolution which, if carried out to the full extent, would lead to the destruction of the Church, and from which, from false delicacy and false pride, they may find it difficult to release themselves, even when the truth is manifestly placed before them. But if the House will con sent to remove these obstacles—if it will forget this resolu tion, founded upon erroneous impressions—if it will consent to struggle against those impressions, founded upon false as sumptions of the fact and upon erroneous representations, then, if I have to argue with generous and ingenuous minds, I have not a doubt, if I can do justice to the question—if I can bring before the House the grounds upon which my own conviction is formed—that the majority of those whom I address will vote in favour of the separation of this Bill into two parts. Hear.) I wish, in the first instance, to state the grounds on which I propose to argue this question. lam not about to vindicate the maintenance of any abuse in the Irish Chitra— -1 do not contend for the existence of any superfluous esta blishment in Ireland—l do not say that there ought to be sinecures there for the purpose of maintaining learned men— I do not say that there ought to be pluralities there for the pur pose of encouragingmen of family and of high birth to become ministers of religia—l will try this question by a test which you yourselves have taken. I waive the argument of the Act of Union—l do not deny the force of it ; but it is not neces sary for me to contend that the Act of Union presents an insuperable obstacle to your measure; but I say this, that I will limit myself to within the circle which you, my oppo nents, have drawn around me.—(Cheers.) I take your admis- Sions—l take your promises—l take your facts—(Cheers)-_I take the result of your inquiries—l take your evidence—l will fight you with the instruments with which you yourselves have supplied rae.—( Cheers.) Abandoning none of my own grounds, but occupying for the moment solely and exclusively the position upon which you profess to maintain yourselves, I will prove from your own inquiries—from the Report of your own Commissioners, that the surplus of revenue, of which , you have said so much, is non-existent and purely visionary.— (Cheers. ) If you abide by your own principle and give over admissions, I will prove not only that you have no surplus to dispose of, but that the pretence of there being a surplus is a dishonest one--(Cheers)—and that to talk of the application of a surplus is only to encourage delusive hopes, and to under mine the Protestant Church in Ireland by the establishment of a false principle.—( Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord has brought in a Bill, the object of one part of which is to pro vide for the realization of that part of the property of the Church which consists of tithe—the other part assumes that there is a surplus to dispose of; and, therefore, in the preamble of the Bill the Noble Lord declares that it is important that the surplus should be applied to other purposes than those im mediately connected with the ecclesiastical purposes of the Establishment. It is necessary, therefore, in order to give a foundation for the motion which I shall make, that I should consider the bearing of the first part of the Noble Lord's Bill supposing that the Noble Lord shall succeed in carrying it. First let me consider the bearing of this Bill upon a measure which passed in 1832, and which was brought forward with the unanimous consent of the Government of that day, I mean the Bill which went to suppress ten out of twenty-two Bi shoprics in Ireland, and which is commonly known by the name of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. That Bill, when brought forward in the House of Lords by Earl Grey, was described as a Bill for effecting an important Reform in the Church of Ireland. The summary given by Lord Grey of the Church Temporalities' Bill, was to this effect. In the first place the Bill relieved the occupying tenant and the land lord in Ireland altogether from any contribution towards the expense required for building and repairing Churches in that country.—( Hear ' hear, hear.) It did away a l toget h er with what was called Church toss, and provided that the whole of that charge—which had previously been borne by the land of Ireland —should thereafter be borne by the revenue of the Church. Lord Grey estimated that the charge thus to be provided for out of the Church funds would be to the following amount—church cess 60,000/. a year. Another great object contemplated by the Church Temporalities Bill was the augmentation of small livings in Ireland. The House of Commons, by a distinct resolution, had acceded to this proposition—that where there was anq parish of the value of less than 2001. a-year, in that case, out of the revenues of the Church,-not out of any public fund, the value of the living should be increased to 2001. a-year. By an almost universal consent, the House determined that 2001. a-year should be taken as the minimum value of every living in Ireland. I believe that the resolution embodying that view of the House was carried unanimously. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex grumbled a little, but did not take the sense of the House upon it. And at a sub sequent period the Hon. Gentleman very candidly and gene rously said that 3001. a-year was not too much for men occu pying such a situation as that of the Clergy of the Estab lished Church in Ireland. The House of Commons, there fore, having, by an almost unanimous vote, admitted the pro priety of raising ail livings under 2001. a-year in Ireland to the full amount of 200/. Lord Grey estimated tho•cost of such an augmentation of livings at 46,500/. Then theie were several parishes in Ireland which had no Churches,' and in which it was necessary that Churches should be pro vided. The charge of building these' Churches Lord Grey estimated at 20,000/., and the cost of providing new glebe houses he estimated at 10;000/.; , : so that the' total - charge arising - carder the operation of- tho Bill would amount to nct less than 136,5001. Lord Grey then Fetii !filt 4 ster estimate of the funds out of which for the future these charges ii'ete. to be defrayed. These funds , arising fr om var i ous sources, from stippressed bishoprice, the tax on bishops and . incum bents,, the tale pf glebe lends ; tke., the Noble Earl estimated at 105,0001. Now I win ld fhe attention of the House to the real:state of the case. I find that inSteed pfehe 155,0001. which Lord Grey supposed would be realized for Pee pur pose of meeting the charge of Church cess, the real amount ef.retentfC new bi the poalession of the Ecclesiastical Com tHOidf4Sefi Tettignrelities Bill is 29,127/.; whilst the estimated charge for the futufti repnlre of 411, rc h el is 25,000/. ; end the amount of other charges formerly de creer:l cot, of the proceeds of the vestry cess, is 34,4121. In dopkeiently of tkiis, trie ap . ettlea of the Board itself amounts to nearly 10,060/, .a year; so that the perrriallern teernge ex-- q 'the edierni§iibriera .areounti to nearly 70,0001., whilst, as I have before staiej, ;fa ieless than 30,0001. —( Hear, hear.) This being the case, it was esSessesary for the Commissioners to take as me step to meet the di ffi culty of their situatioe I and, as is often the case in Ireland, they have succeeded in realizing a debt.—(A laugh.) They have raised on account of cs stain prOpereles a sum of 52,000/., and they er poet to havc eat sum increased to 63,000/4 but still, upon elite year's income and expenditure, they have a deficit of 40,0001.—shear)—And at the same time no provision has yet been made for repairing or building churches, for augmenting smell livings, or ereeting globe _houses.—( Uear, bear. ) When the changes propoacd id be effected by the Church Tempo ralities Bill were in contemplatien, it of course became necessary to make a calculation as to whether the fund to be placed at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be a productive fund. The Noble Lord ( Stanley) the Member for Lancashire, calculated that there would be a tax upon incomes de r i va bl e f ee m livings ia Ireland, which would yield an amount of "Ij-1,000/. a-year, and the Noble Lord provided, wisely, as think, that all sinecures, as they fell in, should be carried to the perpetuity fund, for the purpose of meeting the charges thigh would he made upon it. Now supposing that a permanent income of :12,0001. a-year should be realized from this source, and that the tatessal out ,going of 70,0001. a year- should continue, when will the !annual income of- the Ecclesiastical Commissioners be equal 'to the amount .of the contemplated expenditure ? And whilst the annual amount of income continues less than the an nual amount of expenditure, what must be the ultimate amount of debt which the Commissioners must necessarily incur to meet the demands which will be made upon them ? , [Here the Right Hon. Baronet entered into a statement to show that the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners could never —or, if ever, only at a very re mote period—be made to s field sufficient to meet the charges which, by the Temporalities Bill, had been imposed upon them.] The Noble Lord by the present Bill destroys the calculation which was made on the introduction of the Church Temporalities Bill, and upon the supposed accuracy of which that Bill proceeded. He shows that the prospect of gain is very remote, and that he has not the slightest hope of receiv ing any repayment of the advance which lie assigned to the clergy in liquidation of any claims for any loss they might have sustained in consequence of the operation of the Bill. Therefore the effect of the Noble Lord's Bill is to postpone altogether the object contemplated by the Church Tempera , lilies Bill. In the preamble of the latter you declared that three things were necessary for the permanence and stability of the Church in Ireland, viz., the increase of small livings, and the building and repairing of churches and glebe-houses. The Bill you have now brought in destroys altogether the hope of soon being enabled to provide for these objects, and postpones to an indefinite period the realization of any surplus. Let us now consider what will be the effect of this Bill on the permanent revenue of the Church in Ireland, consisting of tithes. It will affect that revenue in more ways than one. There is a certain process in mathematics called the process of exhaustion, and a more complete and successful manner in which that process is proposed to be applied by this Bill to the revenue of the Irish Church never was contemplated by the greatest mathematician that ever lived.--( Opposition cheers.) There are three main processes of exhaustion directed by this Bill against tithe. The first is the deduction of three tenths from the amount of composition ; the next is the power of re-opening the compositions already effected ; and the third consists in this provision, that whereas the existing compo sitions were calculated upon the average of prices taken during seven years at a former period, those averages shall now be entirely set aside, and shall, by the direction of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, be supplanted by new averages, to be taken on the calculation of the prices of corn for the last seven years. Now, with respect to the deduction of the three-tenths, that amount differs but very little from the deduction proposed to be made by my Right Hon. and Gallant Friend the late Secretary for Ireland ; and certainly, if you transfer the charge of tithe from the occupying tenant, who is now liable by law, and impose the obligation of paying it upon the landlord, who is not now legally liable, I do not think you could do that with justice, without making a con siderable abatement in: the amount. My present intention, therefore, is riot to complain of the provisions of the Bill. Un doubtedly, I do decidedly object to many of its provisions ; but my main object now is to show the effect this Bill will have on the revenue of the Irish Church. lam assuming the principle of the Bill to be correct, and that the first part of it will take place, and then, postponing the consideration of its justice, I wish to show what will be the effect of that part of the Bill on the revenue of the Irish Church. In the first place, then, a deduction is', to be made from that revenue to the amount of three-tenths, in consideration of the substitu tion of a rent-charge for !tithe composition ; in the second place, the composition is to be re-opened ; and, in the third place, a new average of seven years, founded on a calculation of prices for the last seven years, is to be substituted in the case of every composition that has been entered into by the clergyman, under the faith and assurance of an average calcu lated upon a former seven years.—( Opposition cheers.) The effect of the reduction of three-tenths is obvious ; let us, therefore, see, what will be the effect of the other two, pro cesses of exhaustion. The effect of re-opening the composition cannot be given. I may, however, observe, that the decision as to such re-opening is not vested in the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council, but is to re s t w ith three gentlemen sitting in Whitehall-place, constituting the Board of Woods and Fo rests, and the Lord-Lieutenant is to be a mere ministerial and subordinate agent for carrying their orders into execution ; and these orders may be issued upon the application of a certain number of persons who shall state that they are ag. grieved by the existing composition. Now I admit there may be instances in which the composition ought to be re opened. There may be some single instance of fraud ; I know not how that may be. I have heard that there are such cases ; and if there should be any clear and notorious fraud established, no one could require of the aggrieved party an exact performance of an agreement so tainted. But here is a proposition to be decided upon by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, that on the application of certain parties, every composition with the clergyman must be re-opened—it must be so, I apprehend. What must be the consequence of these re-openings, and in what a position do you place every clergyman in Ireland?—( Opposition cheers.) You gave the parties concerned in these compositions the power of ap peal—you gave them the power of an occasional revision of their compositions—but now you state that before converting definitively the claim into a rent-charge, these compositions may be re-opened, and the expense of it may also fall upon the clergyman.—( Opposition cheers.) You expect this clergyman to defend not only his own interests, but the interests of the Church in the recovery of its permanent revenue. Ile may be appointed to a living in which his predecessor—and it may be his two immediate predecessors have made a composition in the persuasion that no legal evidence of it would be required, and therefore none was prepared ; or it may be that the evi dence has since destroyed; and yet you call upon this Un fortunate man to defend the composition up o n the ground of the interest during his life which he has in the receipt of it, that is to say, here is a clergyman unable for the last four years to recover his tithes in consequence of the op position of his parishioners to the payment of them, and yet you expect, from his zeal for the permanent interests of the Church, that he will undertake the defence of a composition made perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, and in respect of which he has no kind of evidence whatever. And what is the tribunal before which this composition is to be re-opened ? It is to consist of three itinerant barristers. There may be a clergyman possessed of four or five benefices, from which lie has probably not received any thing for the laSt three or four years, but is living with his family starving around him. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests may determine that the compositions in these benefices shall be re-opened, and imme diately this destitute clergyman is visited with the treble curse of three barristers, who, in their discretion, may determine that their fees of five guineas each a day, besides their tra velling expenses shall be paid by Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Now, take the case of a clergyman of 150/. or 200/. a year nominal income, not one shilling of which has he relized during the last four years, and then Just conceive on a fine summer's morning a barouche and four driving up to his dwelling with three barristers inside, who came to tell him that they were appointed by the Woods and Forests to re-open the compositions of his parish at the moderate charge of five guineas a day each, beside travelling expenses.—(Loud laughter.) Why, what a mockery it is. —(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) What possible hope is there that no effectual opposition can be made to the opening of these compositions on the part of a man who has not been able for the last three or four years to realize one single farthing.__( Opposition cheers) ? To what -extent this will go to diminish the income of the Church it is impossible for me to calculate. But it is the vexation and the injustice which will be done by encouraging every party to open com positions which, in most cases, have been made voluntarily, and if not, still made by the appointment of an arbitrator, against whose decision there was a pow er of appeal. To give parties under such circumstances a power to re-open those composi tions is a proposition fraught with greater injustice than any other act I ever heard of.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition). That, then, is the second step taken by the Noble Lord to di minish the revenue of the Irish Church. The third process is the substitution of averages formed on prices of the last seven years, iii lieu of those averages which formed the standard of existing compositions. In order to explain the effect of this, it is necessary shortly to state what is the principle of the existing compositions. They were in the first instance pro vided for by a Bill which was brought in by my Right Hon. Fi iend (Mr. Goulburn) in 1823, which was amended by a second Bill also introduced by my Right lion. Friend in 1824, under which the greater part of the compositions have been made. By the latter Bill it was provided that an option should . be given t o th e part i es f or ma ki ng t h e composition for tithes which should endure for twenty one years. " Most of the compositions entered into under the Bill of my Right Honourable Friend were for twenty-one years, consequently the compositions which were entered into in 1824, renewable at seven years, under my Right Hon. Friend's first Bill, Would continue - till 1831 inclue sive, while those that were entered into under his amended Bill for 21 yew, wOuld continue until the year 1'545, water an , .. a ----- invariable avera n -e--thatla, q; veers were to elapse befere the standard was to be varied. A Iliti was then brought in by the Not,it lut4 (itanley) in the year 1832, which made it coin; pulsory, in all caaei alliere no composition had been entercd into, that a composition aftould take place. It also provided that in those cases under my Right Hon. Friend's Bill where the composition was renewable every seven years, it s hould still continue renewable, and that in those cases where tt' e tataaposition was entered into for twenty-one years, the cornpea .. sition for that period should remain without disturbance ; h "' the Noble Lord paatidad that at the expiration of the twcntY one years, the composition should be open to a revision On I r'et'ying aeale of averages. The compositions entared into under the &ill of my Right Hon. Friend for 3 and t 1 y ears would not expire until the years 1845 and 1851 ; and the corn: positions entered into under the Bill of the Noble Lord would not expire until the years 1840 and 1841. Then let us se° what it is that this Bill does. It provides that in lieu of the standard which has been adopted in the making of the prese nt compositions a new standard shall be adopted, and a new ev e " raae of prices shall be taken and substituted for the aveog' which has been already taken by the consent of the parties' And what is this new average ? It is to be the averag e t . of the last seven years immediately preceding the passing 0 this Bill ; that is to say, the average is to be taken during a period when it is notorious the price of corn has been ex, tremely low.-( Great Opposition cheers.) The average 0 seven years, ending tile Ist of November, 1821 (that taken by my Right lion. Friend), was regulated by these prices-viy wheat, 1/. 15s. 10:W. per quarter, and oats, 13s. 11V. 114 ' e average taken by the Noble Lord (Stanley) was the seven , years preceding the Ist November, 1830, w h en the price 0 ' wheat was 1/. 12s. 0. 1 ,d., and of oats, 13s. This Bill super sedes those averages, and applies a new average fountlad e''' the seven years preceding the date of the Bill itself ; wl" e1) wheat, instead of being at it. 15s. 10;1., is only at 1/. 10s. 11°,,,; and oats, instead of being at 13s. 11V., is only 1 Is. 8 :r . The joint operation of forcibly adopting this new standard, in" stead of the two preceding standards, will be to diminish the amount of the revenue sixteen per cent., or one-sixth of the whole. That sixteen per cent. is, therefore, to be added to the three-tenths, and to the deduction that will be effected by ;a-opening the compositions. Let us see the effect of these re a m aaMns on a clergyman having a living of 100/. a ye, a ;: tithe comiaTagitien ; and, next, on a person having a living yyt,' a nominal incon::' of 6001. a year ; and next let us mark 1 0° effect of this ingeniou; urocess of exhaustion on the revenees of the Church gonerally.--( Hear, hear.) First, the 1001 a-year will, by the deduction o f three-tenths, be reduced t°, 701. To what extent it will be redneed, by the re-opening 0 ; the composition, I cannot say ; but there will be the fees and travelling expenses of the thice Barristers to be deduc ted But I have got a calculation of what will be the effect of the,' forcible adoption of the new average, namely, a deiaaction 0; one-sixth, which on 70/. will be la. 10-a ; therefore the 100 b will be melted down to 58/. 10a. But that is the sum which t the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are to receivea - n the Clergyman-for lie is to be charged sixpence in the pot for collection, being 1/. 95., consequently all that the Clergy': man will receive out of the 100/. will be 57/. ls., indepen de °` of any reduction on account of opening the composition. The as to the effect of the Bill on the 6001. nominal income. li' e three-tenths will reduce 6001. to 4201. The one-sixth dedl tion, on account of the new average, will be 70/., which air sweat down the 4201. to 3501. The sixpence in the pound . I. ° collection will be 8/. 15s. Thus reducing the 600/. to 341 1 ".' c i But that is not all : there is a tax of 2,1 per cent, to be Ps' on this sum, under the Church Temporalities' Bill-(OW' sition cheers)-which, amounting to 81. 10s., will bring the happy possessor of a nominal living of 600/., down to an le : come of 332/. 15s. Now, supposing this man should keeP ; curate, and have insured his life at 40/. a-year, I will le°,; it to the House to judge what the position of such a pers° . must be. The only point on which a doubt can be ent er tamed as to the accuracy of this view of the case is as to having overrated the effect of the new corn average. Pu t t , there be any error in that respect, I think I can fairly'lf against it the effect of re-opening the composition. I v q , l now consider what will be the effect of this Bill on the I ,°: come of the Irish Church generally ; and this, after all, is t"" most important consideration. Let us first ascertain Wit?" under the machinery of this Bill, will be the productive lt venue of the Irish Church. I have taken pains to ascertri what is the real amount of the gross composition for c leric; tithes payable to the parochial incumbents. The two N ob . Lords in their estimates have included the lay tithes ; but it '5 not necessary for me to encumber myself with those tithes' The gross amount of composition for lay tithes was stated ü be the Noble Lord to be 123,0001. For our purpose it is cl" clear that amount ought to be excluded from our calculation' I am now dealing with the revenue of the Church, and O sidering what will be its productive revenue. In the Nob le Lord's estimate of ecclesiastical tithe he included tithe r'i ceivable by the Bishop. Now I apprehend that portion I' s tithe ought also to be excluded from our calculation, because the whole amount of the Bishops' incomes is provided for by t. 5 Church Temporalities Bill, and any tithes receivaWe by thei ° ' e paid over to the Commissioners under that Bill. It: the I d way I omit all consideration of tithe due to the &all chapters, because those tithes go to the repairs of the eatheor e be g and where adean receives tithe as being attached to a church, ! will fall into the gross estimate of the tithe composition Pa); able to clerical incumbents. Now, from the best calculat l° . I can make, after a careful revision of the whole of the parisi.. 7f from which returns have been, receivod, the gross amount, tithe composition payable to parochial incumbents, excludn't bishops, deans, and chapters, and vicars choral, is 507,3 61 That is the total amount on which the parochial clergy of Ir e .; land can depend for their maintenan ce . I w ill now consit in what way that gross amount can be affected by this 0 % 1 : - before I determine what will .be the surplus applicable '- other purposes. Three-tenths of 507,3671. are '152,700 1 .'":,„ thus reducing the income to 354,667/. Then sixpence in tu" pound, to be paid to the collector, will amount to 8,872 1 _ 4 1 this will reduce the total amount to 345,795/. But I ITUP . „ again remark that I am enable to estim a t e th e reduction b 1 re-opening the co mp os iti o ns. lint applying the principle! estimating the reducti on o f one-sixth o n accoun t o f the Tl' stitution of a new c orn average., a further sum of 57, 63 #' must be deducted. Thus the total amount of the Irish P e ; rochial tithes, under the ingenious process of exhaust' ti e e established by thi s Bill, i nstea d o f being 507,367/. Will " t reduced to 288,163/. I will, in this stage of my argume ti ; just compa re th e amoun t t o w hi c h I h ave re duced o f tithes of Irel a nd, w ith th e es ti ma t e o f D r . Doyle, or rai l l e with the more modest estimate of the Honou'rable Gentle man, the Member for Middlesex. Upon the closest cale!„, 111 ; lion, that Honourable Gentleman found the amount of Chor e . property to be 3,200,000/.-( Loud laughter.) I ask whet„,", I was unseasonable in impressing on Hon. Members the _.„`""; cessity of guarding against the force of these early impressir o which, unconsciously to themselves, - might have prodnee°,lo most unfavourable prejudice with regard to this question- e addition to the 218,1631. derived from tithes, it is, of roar s h ; fair that I should add the amount of Mini s te rs ' money an° l ' A a amount of glebe. The Noble Lord estimated the glob,' r ; 65,000/. It is but fair that I should say, that instead of nu e r.; ting that estimate, I think lie would be right to take it at, higher value, namely, 76,778/. I believe the amount of A o o f nisters' money is 12,8381., consequently the total re venue the parochial Clergy in Ireland derivable from every eadire,,s from tithe, glebe, and Ministers' money-will be 377, 7 ' i ba Although this may be the total amount of revenue, a'et„, e( l immediate subject of our deliberation is as to the tithe reen a from the land in Ireland, which I estimate at 288,163 1 . d o d'scussing this subject now, we have an advantage which 1 ,,, e , not lightly estimate--that is, the advantago of having the ! de port of the Commissions, which we bad not when the 14 °"' 0 , pledged itself to a resolution as to a surplusreYenne.-( ° P l) ,to sition cheers.) I did all I could to prevail upon the House' r t postpone that resolution until those who called for theaßent t i were in possession of it ; but the House refuse s { to li e ti r e , that course, and pledged themselves that there Ernst he a ci 0 plus applicable to other objects, before they w e re in pa'ss es i t c aa of a Report, which was to show to us the real condition °', er o Irish Church revenue. It appears from this Report that SP h . e ., are in Ireland 1,335 benefices. There are 264 of these' 01 nefices, in which there are fewer than 50 Protestants. _ . 4 course it is obvious that there is a material distinction betvx'f benefices and parishes. A benefice may conaist of one of °.. many parishes. There arc in Ireland 2,505 separate parish es ' but there are only 1,385 benefices. Now, a s I stated befe re ; I wish to argue this question upon gr oun d' s afforded me by t t v King's Government. Ido not wish to argue it upon 3 1 , principles assumed by myself. F rom t h e p r i nc iples of the King's Government I diss e nt ; b u t f or th e p ur p o se of Of . 1 4 gument I assume them to be correct. But, even assum a l yr that, I contend that they ought to acc e de to my motion, am, : , separate this Bili into two distinct measures.-(Opposi te , cheers.) My object now is to show-giving them every advr o tage on the principle, and arguing from their own evidence---t" r on their own admission they have no surplus to apply to ot be p purpos es , an d th a t they are b oun d by con sistency and by e o , adherence to their own principles, not to alienate this P r s perty.-( Opposition cheers.) Out of the 1,385 benefi ce : there are 264 having fewer than 50 Protestant inhabits °ts .,, There are therefore 1,121 benefices with more than 50 f ''f _ . .. testants. I object to the principle of an union ofparisltes'i think whenever you ma k e a re f orm i n th e Ch urc h o f Irebt - ," you ought to seve r th e un i ons , an d ought to constitute eac h Po rish as a scat of parochial Government. I make no doT t a e - e l from this country to build churches in Ireland. This e t , i — pd from necessity, and lam bound to abide by it. But I shall myself . also upon this ground, that the parochial cess for provided out of the ecclesiastical revenues ; that mo ll ' re building glebe-houses, a n d f or k eep i ng the churches pair, shall also be provided out of the e cclesi a stical reve ll ,lot If these things are to be done, and if you make to me :of admission, then I tell you that you have not one shillb l o tir o surplus to apply to oth er p ur p oses . If y ou i nten d to = build to the clerical incumbent 2001. a-year—if you intend to s, glebe houses and pari s h churches—give me these adttlis si-l' si.. and I will again tell you that you must accede to my P r°l3 o o tion, and separate these measures. But if you abando n 10 0 principle involved in these admissions, and confine vourtiob only to making the revenue uphold the c on diti o n of the " - di , Church according to your own principle—that of Wig id vine service performed, and maintaing a separate roini ste :vell every parish where there are more than 50 Protestants , ' then, I say, if my estimate of the revenu e b e c orrect, P ) % l -be will not have any surplus to dispose of. You have I, l2 i n ot nitices with more than 50 Protestants. N ow di v ide the tirs' of the tithe composition, exclusive of th e g l e b e and minister, money, by these I,l2l—supposing it were desirable to aP:,e lion them equally—in that case there will not bo a k ve „ r i i ir c .a of tithe appropriated to each benefice throughout l a r ,"6/ (which has more than fifty Protestants) of. more than " - t •,:re, year.—( Great Opposition checrincr.) But, as I. said b e ,' - t bo every one who has discussed this subject has admitted tha t w e union of parishes into a benefice is a great evi4.and that an d ought to sever the parishes in all cases where practicable! t bo constitute them independent parishes. That has W I , t bo principle of Lord Plunkett ; Sir John Newport, other eminent men who have devoted themselves tolhet.os pct.'. Now, suppsing this principle to be adopted,' " NEWCASTLE RAILWAY BILL. The Bishop of HEREFORD, seeing a Noble Lord oppo site, who some time ago had made a statement respecting a Gentleman, one of the promoters of the Newcastle Railway Bill, which statement had been greatly misrepresented, was desirous to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of explaining on a subject which had given great pain to the party imme diately concerned. The statement made by the Noble Lord was, that the individual in question had received 3,0001. to give his cnnsent to the Bill. This was understood to refer to the Bill then in progress, whereas it actually referred to a former Bill on the subject. Lord WALLACE stated that when, in reference to the Carlisle and Newcastle Railway, he spoke of an indivi dual as having received 3,000/. for his assent to the 13i11, he intended to convey that that individual had received such a sum for his assent to the first and not to the se cond Bill. ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES BILL. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY rose to move that the Ecclesiastical Revenues Bill should be committed, pro forma, in order that two additional clauses might be added as amendments, and that, so amend e d, it m i g ht b e p r i n t e d. I n doing s o , th e Right Rev. Prelate took occasion to say that, since the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had presented their first report, they had continued their labours without inter mission; but notwithstanding, they had found it impossible so to conclude the inquiry submitted to them that, without the inconvenience of partial and ill-digested legislation, they could present any measures to Parliament during the present session with reference to the great question of pluralities and non residence. So much progress had, however, been made, that early next session they would be able to proceed with the great object they had in view, namely, the bringing before the consideration of P ar li amen t the whol e ques ti on o eccle siastical revenues. In the meantime, in order to prevent any inconvenience which might arise from delay, and in order to enable the Commissioners to act with greater circumspection and caution in a matter of such great importance, he had to state that his Majesty had determined not to appoint a succes sor to any preferment before it came under the consideration of the Commission.—( Hear.) This determination had been followed by the late Lord Chancellor, and the several Bishops and Archbishops on the Commission, and one or two private patrons had intimated that they were disposed to concur in it. This made it incumbent on the Commissioners to provide for three things; Ist, to secure the revenues of such dignities and benefices as might become vacant ; 2dly, to secure such dig nities and benefices from lapses to any Bishop or Archbishop, or from any other lapses to which, from the new regulation, they might become liable • 3dly, it was necessary t o p rov id e for the cure of souls i n s uc h benefices by the residence of their respective incumbents. To accomplish these objects the pre sent Bill was introduced, and in its clauses the requisite pro vision was made. There were, however, two parts for which the Bill did not provide, and, in order to do so, he intended proposing the introduction of two further clauses, Ist, a clause preventing any retrospective action of the Bill, in cases where ecclesiastical estates or emoluments had been already divided ; 'and, secondly, a clause, providing that nothing in the Act should prevent a patron exercising his patronage should he think proper to do so. He proposed that those two clauses should be added to the Bill, and that it should be printed be fore it proceeded further. The clauses were brought up and added to the Bill. To be further csinsidered in Committee on Friday next. Several Bills on the table were forwarded a stage.—Ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 21. At the request of Lord MORPETH several Hon. Mem bers who had motions standing for this evening postponed them. Sir R. PEEL presented petitions from various places in York, Gloucester, and from the Brethren of Sion College, in London, against the Irish Church Bill. On the motion for the House resolving itself into a Com mittee on the Irish Church Bill, Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I now rise for the pur pose of moving that instruction of which I gave notice, namely, an instruction to the Committee on this Bill relating to the Church of Ireland ; an instruction that that Bill should be divided into two parts, in order that Hon. Members may have an opportunity to give their support and consideration to that part of the Bill which provides for the recovery of tithes, and the realization of the property which justly belongs to the Church, and to that part of the Bill which provides for a new distribution and alienation of that property to other than ecclesiastical purposes. Sir, I rise impressed with a deep anxiety upon the subject—(Hear)--an anxiety partly arising from an apprehension that I shall not be able to do justice to my own feelings and conviction ; being chiefly impressed with a fear that the House of Commons will not re fuse assent to this proposition.—( Great cheering.) I rise impressed with a natural anxiety, overwhelming one who fears that in his hands full justice will not be done to this cause, and that I shall have difficulty in the mode of stating my arguments—arguments which fall upon my mind with irresistible force.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") I know that there are great impediments in my way—l know I have great obstacles to contend against. In the first place, I have to contend against those prejudices which -are so diffi cult to be overcome—prejudices which have arisen from re peated exaggerations as to the amount of Church property. Iwish most sincerely that in arguing this question nothing shall be taken for granted. I wish to establish every conclusion I draw upon evidence which appears irrefragable ; and in the first place I will apply myself to those prejudices which have been raised upon this question, and to the gross exaggerations as to the amount of Church property in Ireland. I have beard it stated at different periods, and it has made a great impression. I have heard much upon this subject—much discussion upon it, and I have heard exaggerations with respect to the amount of Church property, and the number of the ministers of the Established Church—exaggerations, almost taken for granted, and not denied, because there might not be means of contradicting the statements that were made. I have beard those exTgerations,and having heard them, I am not surprised at the impression they have made upon the public —( Hear, hear.) I have read a letter, addressed by a Roman Catholic Prelate of high reputation, and supposed to have an intimate knowledge with the circumstances of Ireland and the condition of the Established Church—l mean the late Dr. Doyle. I will road his statement with respect to the revenues of the Established Church, and the number of those ministers to which its spiritual interests are confided. In a letter to Lord Farnham, Dr. Doyle says—" Can you Lordship lay your hand upon your breast, appeal to your conscience or honour, and then say that the Irish Church Establishment requires no reform ? It is impossible that you could, my Lord ; because it is monstrous to think that an annual income amounting to seve ral millions sterling, being appropriated in such a country as Ireland to the maintenance of the pastors of less than one thirtieth part of the population." That is to say, that this gentleman, of whom I wish to speak with no disrespect—the late Dr. Doyle—intimated the amount of the revenue of the Established Church at several millions sterling, and the amount of the members of the establishment at about 260,000. Am I surprised, then, that upon such an exaggerated estimate Dr. Doyle should draw an erroneous conclusion. He proceeds, " A man of reflection, living in Ireland, and coolly observing the workings of the Church Establishment, would seek for some likeness to it only among the priests of Juggernaut, who sacrifice the poor naked human victims to their impure and de testable idols." Such was the conclusion drawn by Dr. Doyle, irom the grossly exaggerated views which he took of the subject at the commencement of his letter. I come now to members of the Established Church, and members of the Le gislature, arguing the necessity of Church Reform, and with their impression upon the subject, imagining, not unnatu rally, but in perfect conformity with reason, that the necessity for that reform is urgent and immediate. When the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Middlesex, some eight or ten years ago, brought forward a motion upon this subject, his impressions with respect to it were nearly as erroneous as those of Dr. Doyle. On the 6th of May, 1824, the Hon. Member for Middlesex stated, that having attempted to ob tain the most accurate information upon the subject —now -I am not blaming tl o Hon. Gentleman for the .exaggerations into which he fell, because he had not access to the sources of ~__ wouli Acco Parisi they cler g as b e do e c •Nobl 860 tateis.