The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 27. A message from the Commons was announced by the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod. The LORD CHANCELLOR came down to the bar, and the doors were thrown open, but no messenger ap peared. The LORD CHANCELLOR then ordered the doors to be closed, and went back to the woolsack. Lord LITTLETON presented a petition from the vicar, parish guardians, &c., of the parish of Yardley, in Worcestershire,respectin g the better observance of the Sabbath, the desecration of which they attributed to the great inconvenience of beer houses under the new beer bill. The noble lord said that so far as he under stood the bill of the noble lord ( Wynford), as well as that which was introduced in the Commons, he could not give either his support, but he yet hoped to see a better bill than either brought up, when it: would give him pleasure to do for it as much as it was in his power. PRINCE LIEVEN. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice that it was his intention on Monday, if convenient to the noble earl (Grey) to ask questions, or make in quiries,or move for papers, relative to our want of any Ambassador at the Court of St. Petersburgh. Lord Heytesbury, he believed, was recalled in August, 1832, and Sir Stratford Canning was appointed in the October of the same year, but had never gone out, and since that time we had been without an ambassador of any sort in that great country. He would take the opportunity of being on his legs to state his regret at the recall of an in dividual (Prince Lieven) who had 'served the important office of ambassador in this country for 25 years, and that with great celebrity. He regretted that recall, because he believed that no other person belonging to the same country was so well acquainted with those interests best for both. He did not wonder that his Imperial Majesty recalled that individual, but what he wished to know was, why this country had re mained for so long a period without having an am bassador of the same rank in that country ? He would not then say more, because on Monday he would have an opportunity of bringing the whole question before the how., Earl GREY said that any day would be equally convenient to him. Monday would suit him as well as any other, and he would take care to be prepared. He considered that he would be deficient in his duty if he did not entirely concur in the regret expressed by the noble marqui. ft to the recall of the cele brated individual to wuom he had alluded. ( Hear.) He believed that that recall was because that illus trious individual had been appointed to an office of very high distinction in his own country, but he, as well as the noble marquis, must bear his testi mony to the character and good intentions of that individual. (Cheers.) In the course of his transac- tions in business with that illustrious individual he had had opportunities of knowing how much advantage at tended his presence here. Sure he was that his con tinuance would have promoted the satisfactory settle ment of those questions of, he might say, tremendous importance which yet remained to be arranged. SIR JOHN CAMPBELL. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that in the absence of his noble friend the Duke of Buckingham he had to present a petition from the parish of Illesden, praying that the universities might not be forced to receive persons of any religion but that of the establishment. The noble marquis presented several petitions to the same effect, and then said, that while he was on his legs he would take the opportunity of stating that he felt great pleasure in saying, that since the last discussion upon the de tention of Sir John Campbell in Portugal, the Go rernment had written a letter to the Government of Lisbon, he meant of Don Pedro, demanding his re lease, though they had not said one word upon the matter for the three months and a half previous. -Such an application having been made, he would not now say more than that he trusted when the Government got an answer to the application, it would be communicated to the house by the noble earl in the same spirit as the other papers had been done, and that he trusted such an answer would be received before the termination of the session. He was sure that when their lordships looked at the papers they would think with him that it was nothing but a spirit of persecution, under which Sir John Campbell had been detained so long. Earl GREY said that if the noble marquis had any thing to bring forward about Sir John Camp bell, he should be perfectly ready to meet him ; but if he only dealt in the assertions he had done, those as sertions being without proof, he should give them no attention. The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented several petitions from different parts of Essex, in favour of the claims of the dissenters, and praying for redress. LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK. Earl GREY presented a petition from (as we un derstood) the Directors of the Bank of England, against the bill for the establishment of another bank in the metropolis. The noble earl stated that he had heard with surprise that such a bill had passed the other house, and as at present advised he should give his utmost opposition to it. He cordially supported that part of the prayer of the petition which prayed that the petitioners might be heard by counsel at the bar of the house against the bill, which he thought interfered with the privileges of the Bank of England. He thought Monday next too short a notice for the se cond reading of a bill of so much importance, and he hoped the noble marquis who had introduced it to that house would not think Monday se'nnight too long a postponement. The Marquis of BUTE did not think a week's to tice could be fairlycalled a short notice. At the same time he felt bound to postpone the second reading, as requested by the noble earl. The LORD CHANCELLORthought they ought. well to consider as to the admission of counsel to argue at the bar whilst the Warwick bill was pending. Their lordships might perceive that it was not so easy to get rid of counsel when once they were allowed to appear at the bar. It would interrupt all other busi ness if they were to have two bills going on at the same time with counsel heard at the bar. The Marquis of BUTE denied that the bill he had introduced encroached upon the privileges of the Bank of England. The Earl of MALMESBURY inquired whether any proceedings had been taken for the suppression of the fraudulent trade supposed to be carried on between the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, to which he had already called attention. Lord AUCKLAND said that inquiries had been made and some steps taken upon the subject, but he was not yet prepared to state the result. CORN LAWS. Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition for the total repeal of the malt tax, and for some alteration in the poor laws. EarL FIT ZWIL LIAM expressed his entire con currence in the prayer of the petition. The greatest benefit would accrue to agriculture by the removal of that duty. He would also take the liberty of calling Ise attention of the house to the complaints of other parties as to other laws. He had a petition to present from nearly 18,000 inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying for the repeal of the corn laws. This petition was well worthy the attention of the house, as containing those maxims and principles of true commerce by following out which they would alone be able to arrive at a state of permanent commercial and national prosperity. It was possible that the corn laws might put something into the pockets of the existing landlords, but what would it do for their sons and their grandsons? He was sure that none of their lordships would desire to do that which would be an injury to their successors for the benefit of themselves. It might be asked of him whether he meant to follow up the petition with p.ny substantial proposition during the present session, in iLliswer to that he would say that, after seeing 150 gentlemen in the House of Commons voting in favour pf the principles he advocated, he was satisfied that the question was making great progress, and to leave It as it stood for the present year. The Earl of MALMESBURY complained of this desultory mode of attack on the corn laws. He de nied the assertion of his noble friend that the corn laws were a landlord's tax, or that the farmer and la bourer, were not equally interested in their maintenance. But if any one class was more so than another it was - the class of yeomen occupying small tracts of land, who must be totally ruined by the loss of the protection now afforded them. Earl FITZWILLIAM explained, and made some further observations in support of his views. The Earl of WINCHIL SE A agreed in deprecat ing the course taken by the noble earl who presented the petition as most unfair and inconvenient. The petition fils,then laid on the table. Earl Fl TzYnutafA M Alit sent ed a second petition signed byrkom`2o,oo - 01f5A0,. inhabitants of Lon don against the corn lAys. z -'• , Lords ROLLE presented petiti ns from Newport and a amber of other plaCes, nst (as we under _ , • aaod stood) granting the concessions demanded by the dis senters. Lord BEXLEY presented several petitions to the same effect. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a num ber of petitions from Sussex and other parts of the country against the claims of the dissenters, especially their admission to the Universities, and praying that the established church might be protected. Viscount STRANG F ORD gave notice that he should on Tuesday next submit to their lordships a motion relative to the silk trade. The Bishop of LICHFIELD presented petitions frer - t'le clergy and other Protestant inhabitants of s,:,eral parishes within his diocese against the admis sion of Dissenters to the Universities, and praying that the established church might be properly maintained. The Earl of DURHAM presented a petition from the eastern division of the county of Kent, praying that a two shilling rent might be substituted for tithes. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOT LAND) BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, seeing a noble friend of his in his place, wished to ask him whether he would postpone the second reading of the Roman Catholic Marriages ( Scotland) Bill for a few days ? That bill had been introduced into the other house of Parliament by his (the Lord Chancellor's) right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Murray) the present Lord Advocate, and before he concurred in the alterations proposed to be made in it he wished to have an op portunity of consulting his right hon. and learned fri ad upon them. The object of the bill was to do away with obsolete penalties ; and as the measure could not be prejudiced by the delay, he hoped his noble friend would accede to his request. The Earl of ROSEBERRY expressed his readiness to comply with his noble and learned friend's desire, but he, at the same time, submitted that if the second reading were allowed to take place now they might postpone the committee to any period that would suit the convenience of his noble and learned friend. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that very little advantage would be gained by the course which his noble friend wished to take. By Friday he (the Lord Chancellor) would have the information he wanted, and he had no objection to the bill being read a second time on that day. The Earl of RO SEBERRY assented. to this course, and the order of the day was withdrawn and fixed for Friday. The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE had several peti tions to present to their lordships from places in the county of Wilts, praying that the rights and privileges of the Established Church of England might be pre served inviolate. These petitions were all respectfully and properly worded, and he was bound to say that in the language of those petitioners he wholly and en tirely concurred. (Hear, hear.) If he had a fixed opinion upon any subject it was upon this, and the opinion that he entertained was that the rights and privileges of the established church should be carefully preserved : that in every situation, and, in short, in every measure brought before Parliament, the safety of that church should form an indispensable ingredient. ( Hear, hear, hear.) He was most anxious that all due attention should be paid to the claims of the dis senters, but he must at the same time declare that he did not consider the sentiments expressed by these petitioners at all inconsistent with that species of relief to which the dissenters were unquestionably entitled. (Hear.) He did not believe that the church establishment was in danger, but he could not help admitting that the sentiments expressed in many of the dissenters' petitions which had been presented, not only by himself but by other noble lords, in a great degree justified the alarm that obtained out of doors upon the subject. He might differ from the petitioners as to the best mode of accomplishing the object which they had in .view, but however they might disagree in this point, of one thing he was certain, and that was that he never should concur in any measure which he believed to be calculated to endanger or even impair the efficiency of the church establishment. (Hear, hear.) The petitions were ordered to lie upon the table. The noble marquis also presented two other petitions, one from the dissenters of a place in the county of Durham, praying for a redress of grievances, and the other from a parish in Scotland in favour of an alteration of church patronage. The Earl of WINCHIL SE A presented petitions from the parishes of St. Paul and St. Michael, near Bristol, and from a number of parishes in the county of Gloucester, against the claims of dissenters, and in fa vour of protection to the Church. A NOBLE LORD (whose name could not be ascer tained) presented a petition from Perth, praying for an alteration of the Bankruptcy Laws of Scotland. THE WARWICK BOROUGH BILL. The Earl of DURHAM, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose to propose that their lord ships should adopt some peremptory means of en forcing the attendance of certain persons whose evi dence was material to the Warwick Borough Bill now pending before that house. The noble earl accord ingly moved a resolution to the effect, " That it ap peared to their lordships that Richard Lapworth, Wil liam Oram, and Samuel Dingley had absconded, in order to evade giving evidence on this inquiry." Lord WYNFORD did not rise to oppose the mo tion, but he must at the same time suggest to the noble earl that the precedent he had chosen was any thing but a judicious one. The LORD CHANCELLOR entirely agreed with his noble and learned friend that the precedent was not a good one. He must say that he could not approve of the course which his noble friend had taken. He had no objection that they should agree to an ad dress to his Majesty with a view to a reward being offered for the discovery and apprehension of the per sons whom his noble friend desired to produce as wit nesses; but he certainly had an objection to this pre fatory—this, he would say, condemnatory—resolution, which might turn out to be unfounded, for, non constat, those persons might be able to satisfy that house that they had not absconded for the purpose of avoiding their lordships' summons to give evidence on this in quiry. Instead, therefore, of following this precedent, he thought it would be much better to so far deviate from it as to pass over the condemnatory resolution al together, and what he proposed was that :they should examine Mr. Butt, their lordships' messenger, as to whether the parties alluded to were in attendance, and, if not, then the motion for an address to the Crown for offering a reward for their apprehension might be proposed ; but in no case should such a step be taken until the parties had been called in the usual way by an officer of that house. Lord WYNFORD agreed that they ought to be called in the first instance, and, if they did not answer, the address proposed by the noble earl might be agreed to. . _ - The Earl of DURHAM was quite ready to pursue the course which his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) had suggested. The noble lord then moved that their lordships' messenger, 11r. Butt, be called to the bar. Mr. Butt having presented himself at the bar, The LORD CHANCELLOR asked him if 'he had been to the residence of Richard Lapworth and the other parties, for the purpose of summoning them to attend to give evidence in that house ? Mr. Butt replied he had. He had left the sum monses with their respective housekeepers, but he had not seen either of the parties themselves. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether he knew if Richard Lapworth was in attendance ? Mr. Butt replied in the negative. The LORD CHANCELLOR directed him to call Mr. Lapworth in the usual way. Mr. Butt retired for the purpose, and on his re turn said he had executed their lordships' order, but Mr. Lapworth had not answered. The Earl of DURHAM then moved—" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order a procla mation to be issued offering such reward as he should think fit for the discovery, apprehension, and detention of Richard Lapworth, in order that he might be pro duced to give evidence on this inquiry in that house." The motion was agreed to. Mr. Butt was then directed to call in the same man ner William Oram and Samuel Dingley. He did so, and having stated that they did not answer, The Earl of DURHAM moved a similar address with respect to them, which was also agreed to. The house then proceeded with the examination of witnesses. Mr. TooKE and others from the Commons request ed their lordships' concurrence to the Bribery at Elec tions Bill, the Chimneysweepers Bill, and a number of private bills. The examination of witnesses on the Warwick Borough Bill was then resumed. The house adjourned at nine o'clock till Friday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 27. The SPEAKER resumed the chair at 25 minutes after five o'clock. A messenger from the Lords announced that the United Kingdom Assurance Bill had been agreed to, with amendments. . • Mr. HUME presented four petitions against in temperance. Mr. LEFROY presented a petition from Mid dlesex, and two others to the same effect. Lord GERMAINE presented a petition from Bury St. Edmonds against drunkenness. Sir A. AGNEW presented petitions from Edin burgh, Tiverton, and other places, against drunkenness. Mr. WILK S presented four petitions against the proposed plan on the subject of church rates, two against drunkenness, and one for an alteration in the laws affecting friendly societies. Mr. EWING presented a petition from Glasgow for a committee to inquire into the cause of drunken ness. Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from Christchurch, Monmouth, against dissenters. Mr. G IL L ON presented several petitions from Linlithgow against drunkenness. Several other petitions of • a similar nature were also presented by different hon. members, but in consequence of the excitement which prevailed in the house, we were unable to catch the names either of the members or the places. ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND). Mr. WARD said, in rising . to bring forward the resolutions of which he had given notice relative to the established church, he begged to assure the house that he had not become the centre of the momentous circle which the discussion was likely to give rise to, without a deep conviction of its importance. On these grounds alone he had ventured to claim the attention of the house, and he would not do hon. mem bers the injustice of supposing that any deficiency on his part would induce them to treat the question with apathy. He should be obliged to trespass upon their attention at some length, in order to justify himself to his conscience and the public in bringing forward so great an innovation, by showing that there were ample grounds for such a departure from ancient practice, and that it would be productive of great practical good. He would first prove the necessity that existed for this change, and.then he would show the justice of what he proposed. For it was upon those bases alone that the policy or expediency of such important changes, and, above all, those in which religious principles were involved, should rest. He entirely concurred in the observations of the right hon. Secretary for the Colo nies, who had said two years ago that the question as to the maintenance of the connection which, in Christian countries, had been established by the legis lature between the religion and the state, should not be raised without deliberate consideration, and that it would require the most imperative necessity to justify any interference. He (Mr. Ward) entirely concurred in the whole of those sentiments,; but the question which he had to put to the house was, whether, on the most deliberate consideration, so far, at least, as Ireland was concerned, the case of im perative necessity had not already arisen? whether that house would reject the evidence of necessity that had accumulated upon it ; and whether, then, it could refuse justly to apply the remedy which the constitution had placed within its reach ? This was a case which, if be failed in establishing, the house would do no more than its duty in re jecting it. Before he proceeded farther, he would state what it was his intention to do, and the reason of the change which he had made in the shape of his resolution as it had originally ap peared. He hoped the house would do him the justice to believe that he had not sought to obtain by that change any unfair advantage. He had been told that he must separate the question of principle from details, and he had felt the necessity of this the more, because many who would support the ques tion on principle might not support the details. From want of local information a degree of obscurity would, he feared, necessarily attend those details. He had to ask the vote of hon. members on the prin ciple of deduction ; the details, provided the house sanctioned the principle of the bill, he was desirous of leaving for discussion for another occasion altogether. He was most desirous not to trench on the rights of others in any respect, and if any more effec tual mode could be suggested, of carrying the princi ple he had to propose into execution, he would be one of the first to accede to it. He would come now to the question of necessity, which was the basis of his present object and of the whole. (Hear.) The necessity—the imperious necessity—of making a great and important change in the law affecting the Protestant Church in Ireland was evident as the shining of the sun, if hon. members desired to tran quillise that country, heal old wounds, and to identify the interests of Ireland with the feelings of the empire at large. (Much cheering.) In entering upon this, nothing could be further from his wish than to fatigue the house with details of the fruits of his own experience, but it might be essential on this occasion to prove that some of the wisest and greatest statesmen who ever adorned the British Parlia ment had always said the greatest causes that ever disturbed that unfortunate country were _rather reli gious than political. ( Hear, hear.) Indeed the ques - tion of religion was so blended with our Irish policy that it was impossible to draw any line of de marcation between its religious and political state. Sir James Mackintosh had said that religion, the church, and the whole administration of property in that unhappy country, were so blended together that any rumour raised in any one of them spread alarm throughout the whole. In that sentiment he most cordially concurred. This opinion was not peculiar to Sir James Mackintosh ; it had been shared by nine out of ten who had ever been con cerned in the management of Irish affairs, or paid any attention to them. Their opinions might have been modified as the proscriptions of in tolerance had disappeared, but still they could not fail to be entertained to the present moment. Mr. Canning, as early as the year 1812, reprobated the principle of the policy which affected Ireland, founded, as it appeared to be, on the system of religion. He asked one of his opponents, while boasting of the abolition of the penal law, whether he thought it judicious that an impartial removal of the chains which bound the Roman Catholic should take place, and that a part should be left re maining, as it were, for the purpose of re minding him that he had once been in chains. The feeling against those laws, by which a compulsory provision was ground in the shape of tithes from the pittance of the poor was not of modern date, it was dated from the period of the relaxation of those penal laws which gave, if he might be allowed to use the term, to Catholics a legal existence. Lord Charlemont, in one of his earliest memorandums, stated that the cause of the great misery in the south of Ireland must be ascribed to the exaction of tithes. Mr. Grattan was of the same opinion ; and Mr. Pitt coincided in opinion with his great rival Fox. Mr. Pitt said, that without some great reduction of the Protestant establishment in Ireland, the union with that country could never be ' completed. The experience of 31 years had only given additional cause to deplore that the opinion then expressed by Mr. Pitt had not been acted upon. ( Hear, hear.) The union had never been completed ; the interests of the two countries had never been identified. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was one great argument with those who agitated the question of the Repeal of the Union, that the claims of the Irish Church pressed most urgently, and he need not inform the house that half the repeal petitions were petitions for the aboli tion of tithes. If this latter portion were disposed of, the question of repeal would be disposed of with it. Sir John Newport, in his motion in 1821, said that it was impossible to collect tithes except at the expense of the internal disquiet and misery of the country. Upon the same occasion the right hon. gen tleman opposite (Mr. S. Rice) exclaimed, that if there was one thing more dangerous than discussion it was despair, and added, that though tithes were not the exclusive cause of the disorganization of Ireland, yet they were so intimately mixed with it that it would be futile to devise measures of relief in which they were not concerned. ( Hear, hear.) What was the grievance most complained of? Tithes. The revolts since the union had not been less frequent, and their objects always the same. In 1823 Sir H. Parnell stated that twenty-six years had been successively disturbed, and that honourable mem ber attributed the whole to religious wrong, and to , the political excitement arising out of it. All the vexatious exactions of tithes no one had more ably described than the right hon. Secretary for the Colo nies, who he regretted was not in his place. (Loud cries of " Hear.") Nothing but an entirely new ap propriation of church property in Ireland would satisfy Ireland. ( Hear.) Everything of a coercive kind had been carried into effect, but was Ireland more tranquil? ( Hear.) In whatever way tithes were paid the grievances were still the same, and no commutation could remedy the evil. When those resolutions were brought forward to make the crown the receiver-general ' for the church, they were met on all sides by decla rations, that however the law might authorise tl.e exaction of the tithes in Ireland, it was a robbery. The Solicitor-General, who had no seat in the house now, said the arm of the Church was weak, but the arm of the law was strong. But the house purchased a truce at the expense of one million, but the truce could not be maintained in such a state of things at any expense. The military and police force kept up had cost enormous sums, and for no other purpose than to collect tithes and keep the country tranquil, but still they had failed. Was Ireland tranquil ? Was the property of the church secure ? Had its ministers any reasonable prospect of col lecting tithes, either through the old system or the medium of commutation, unless they consented to some change of appropriation ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman said it was " a system which never ought to have existed in any Christian commu nity between the pastor and his flock." What the right hon. gentleman said of the machinery, he said of the system. Tithes were levied on a Catholic popula tion for the support of a Protestant church. This was the greatest grievance in Ireland. This was an evil which no commutation could reach. If he wanted proof of this, he had only to refer to the working of the right hon. gentleman's celebrated resolution of 1832, by which he constituted the Crown receiver general for the church. The right hon. gentleman thought he, had only to make the Crown the creditor, and he should settle the question at once. How was his argument met ? He was told, then, by the hon. baronet, the Member for Dundee, that "the system of advances and repayments was impracticable. He was convinced that the means by which that object was to be effected would not succeed. They had the most distinct proof, in the evidence given before the Com mittee, that they could not succeed. To his own knowledge, that evidence was most correct. The plan had. not the slightest chance of success." In this state ment almost every Irish Member agreed. The hon. gentleman here quoted the opinions. of the hon. mem bers for Kildare, Wexford, Tipperary, &c. It should be recollected that these were the sentiments, not of those who had been called professional agitators ; not of men anxious to sever the connexion between the two countries ; but of men distinguished amongst themselves for their high and gallant bearing, and who were considered to speak the sentiments of that part of the community whose opinions were entitled to the greatest weight. It was true that there was no want of prophecy on the other side. Amongst others who indulged in too fond a dream was the Solicitor- General for Ireland, who, by the bye, had not now a seat in that house. (A laugh.) He said, " The mo-. ment the fiat of the legislature was pronounced, com bination against tithes in Ireland would be broken. The arm of the church was weak, but the arm of the law was strong, and combination and conspiracy would melt away before it, " Like snow before the summer's sun.' " It was always dangerous for a lawyer to indulge in poetry. There, perhaps, never was a case in which the bright visions of the imagination had so withered away. All that was done was the collection of 12,0001., at an expense of 26,0001., and the legislature had been compelled to purchase a truce at the end of last session, by the expenditure of a million more. ( Hear, hear.) That truce expired on the Ist of No vember, and the clergy would be driven once more to the old system, or forced on the resources of the country. He appealed, then, to the noble lord, with that deference and respect which he always enter tained for him, whether, after the notorious failure of every experiment of commutation, he could undertake the responsibility of again recommending to this house any such plan, of the inevitable failure of which he must be assured. ( Hear, hear.) In the words of Curran to the Irish Parliament—" You have the in fallible test of fact and experience before you, and wretched indeed must you be, if false shame, false pride, false fear, false spirit, can prevent you from reading that lesson of wisdom which is written in the blood and in the calamities of your country." By a return which he held in his hand, he found that the military force in Ireland, from 1825 to 1832, varied from 19,000 to 23,000 men, as follows : Year Infantry and Cavalry. " 1825 20,364 1826 20,875 1827 1828 1829 1830 ... 19,845 1831 1832 Being as nearly as possible the same amount of force as is required for the whole of our Indian empire, and within one-third of the force employed to occupy colonies in the other three-quarters of the world— Gibraltar, Malta, the lonian Islands, the Cape of Good Hope, Sierra Leone, Canada, Nova Scotia, Bermuda, the West Indies, and new South Wales. The cost of the army last year was, from the Ist of April, 1833, to the 31st of March, 1834 Officers, non-commis ioned officers, and pri. vates—garrisons, &c. £1,623,621 and of an annually increasing police force— In 1830 256,663 1831 268,119 183 0 He supposed that, since 1832, there had been a still greater increase. - Mr. FlNN—Fifty thousand pounds a year more. Mr. WARD—Was it not, independently of any question of expense, a great abuse of our gallant soldiery to convert them into agents for collecting tithes in every petty village throughout the country ? (Hear.) They had not only tried force, but they had tried what law would do to collect the tithes, and that had equally failed, as would appear by a return which he would read to the house, of the number of tithe causes tried in Ireland from 1817 to 1821. (Return ordered 18th March, 1822.) . 1 In Ecclesiastical Courts • 3,418 " At Quarter Sessions, by civil bill process, before Assistant.. Barristers 86,487 89,905 " Or annually 17,931 " Magistrates were empowered to decide all cases under 101. by the 54th George 111. " Number so decided in Armagh, estimated by the Clerk of the Peace, at 1,000 annually. " Counties in which the tithe causes are distinctly specified in the returns by the Clerks of the Peace, seven. " The calculation as regards the rest depends upon the accuracy of the estimates of the Clerks of the Peace, who say that about one-third of the causes tried before the Assistant-Barrister are tithe causes. All cases in which a note of hand has been given being brought before him, and this mode of payment is almost universal." He would not A venture to read these statements to the house, without stating the manner in which these returns were made up. When the returns were first ordered, the clerks of the peace professed themselves unable at the time to make a distinction between tithe cases and other cases. Subsequently they obtained in seven counties a return of the actual number of cases tried, and in the remaining counties the clerks of the peace set down the tithe cases at one-third of the whole. He stated this, because he was anxious to avoid anything like exaggeration. He put the paper into the hands of the hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin, whose absence he also regretted. That hon. and learned gentleman said he could not venture to say anything about the accuracy of the statement, but that, if the return comprehended all the cases tried before the assistant barristers on notes of hand given for tithes (a common mode of payment in Ireland), he did not think the amount exaggerated. (Hear.) Well might the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary to the Board of Control, in the speech to which he had al ready had occasion to refer, say that the tithes were a continued source of irritation in Ireland. Thus force and law had alike failed in supporting the Irish church. But they had tried morality also, and what had that done ? Let them look to the amount granted to schools having Protestant proselytism as a main object. REPORT FROM SELECT COM 51 IrrEE ON EDUCATION, • 1828.—AMOUNT OF GRANTS, Charter Schools X 1,105,869 Association for Discountenancing Vice 101,991 Kildare-place Society £1,378,368 Ever since the union they had been labouring hard to support the Protestant establishment in Ireland, and every effort had been equally unsuccessful. The people of Ireland had clung with almost a desper a t e tenac i ty to their religion--a religion which seemed to become more endeared to them, not more byery attempt to shake its hold on their affections, than by the flagrant abuses of the Established Church itself. ( Cheers from the Irish members.) He was anxious, before he entered on this part of the subject, to lay before the house a comparative statement of the scale of remu neration adopted by the different churches in Ireland. In doing so he had been anxious to get better data than those which hitherto existed. The house was aware that all religious disti nc ti ons h a d b een exc l u d e d from every census of population in Ireland since 1732 ; and that the return moved for by an hon. member, of the number of Protestants in all parishes where they were less than fifty, was not made out. He had the returns of the Catholic Association, but they only ex tended to 278 parishes out of 925. He was, there fore, forced to have recourse to the ordinary docu ments. By th e census o f 183 1, t h e population of Ireland was stated at 7,767,401. He might, there fore, now fairly estimate the population at eight mil lions. The hon. gentleman then referred to the evi -1 dence of the Rev. Mr. Cook, moderator of the Synod of Ulster, and to other data, to show the comparative numbers of Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. The returns made to himself from various quarters of Ire land rather tended to confirm the results of these cal culations. He took for the basis of his calculations Wakefield's estimate, that the churchmen in Ireland constituted one-fourteenth ofthe population. He had re turns from ten different counties, which he had taken, he could assure the house, without the slightest dis tinction of party, endeavouring first of all to ascertain that the parties furnishing it might be relied on for their accuracy. These returns comprehended seventy parishes, which comprised a population of 329,000 Catholics, and only 14,057 Protestants. The ave rage of Protestants to Catholics in all the parishes was Ito 23. In some it was Ito 40, Ito 95, and even Ito 134. The hon. gentleman then went into some further details to the same effect. He, therefore, felt justified in taking the episcopal Protestants as one fourteenth of the total population ; and it consequently followed that the whole of the present splendid church establishment in Ireland was kept up to supply the re ligious wants of only 600,000 persons. Wh a t was the annual expense of the establishment ? It cost yearly nearly a million sterling. ( Hear.) The noble lord, in his calculations last year, did not take into account the glebe lands, amounting to 85,000 acres o f good land ; which, together with the bishops' lands, revenues of ecclesiastical corporations, &c., made the total annual revenue actually received by the Irish church 937,496/. The estimate was as follows : Bishops' lands, number of acres, 669,247. Rent £45,258 Fines on renewals ... X 120,650 Ecclesiastical corporations X23,606 Total number of benefices 1,456 Income. Those from which returns have been received 1,184 £526,136 Add 1-4th for 272 returns, not received 131,534 Total 657,670 Glebes attached to benefices, and not included in re- Acres. turns ... .... —....-- 85,000 At 30s 135,000 Total. Bishops' lands Deans and chapters 28,600 Glebes Returns of tithes .0.041M1 ..... 657,670 X 937,456 Total number of benefices, 1,456 Of which 74 range from £BOO to £l,OOO 75 from 1,000 to 1,500 17 from 1,500 to 2,000 10 from 2,000 to 2,800 which is the maximum. There are 407 livings, vary ing from 4001. to 8001. p er annum ; and 386 exceeding 2001., which i s the maximum of remuneration amongst the Presbyterians of Munster. Who could wonder, when such sums as these were expended on the spi ritual teachers of a church which, he honestly be lieved, did not contain more than 600,000 souls, that the conduct of the clergymen themselves should lay them open to those attacks, on the ground of non residence, which constituted one of the most crying charges against them ? In 1819, there was a return made of residents and non-residents, by which it ap peared, that there were in 1814, 664 residents, 543 non-residents ; in 1817, 665 residents, 544 non-resi dents; in 1819, 758 residents, and 531 non-residents. Non-residents were classed rath er s i ngu l ar l y. Th ere were no-residents' by exemption—non-residents ,by dispensation, faculty, and license --non-residents with out dispensation, faculty, or license—and miscella neous non-residents. (A laugh.) Now really what these last were he could not understand. ( Hear.) With regard to the 730 resident clergy, some of them did the duty for the most trifling remuneration—in some cases as little as 18/. a-year up to 70/. ; but, taking the whole of the residents, averaging 70/. a-year each. What sort of feeling was this calcu lated to create in Ireland, when they saw the whole actual work of that wealthy church done for compa ratively so small a sum ? With what grace could the Irish be expected to submit to the burdens iipposed on them for the maintenance of such an establishment as this ? As the honourable member for Tipperary had said, there was no more reason why there should be divines without a congregation than boroughs returning members without constituents. What, then, it might be asked, did he wish to destroy the church, or abolish the establishment altogether ? He did not hesitate to say, that he contemplated nothing of the kind. What he wished was to do away with the glaring disparity that existed at present be tween the scales of duties and compensation. He did not see why 8001. or 1,0001. a year should be given to the rector of a parish which did not contain more than ten or twelve protestants to benefit by so ample a fund, these ten or twelve Protestants constituting, as they did in many cases, only the family of the rector or vicar brought into the parish for the very purpose. ( Hear.) In cases where there remained only a rem nant of a Protestant flock, full provision might be made for that remnant by securing the services of a curate, without going to the expense of a rector. Ac cording to the evidence to which he had alluded, the income of a presbyterian minister in Dublin, Armagh, Newry, Belfast, and that district, varied from 250/. to 500/. a year, and partially averaged throughout the country 1601. The government allowance was divided into three classes, allotting to one 1001., another 75/., and another 551. a year. If this were not sufficient, let them look to the clergy of Scotland. In what country on the face of the globe were the duties of the Christian minister more faithfully performed than in Scotland ? and in what country on the face of the globe were the ministers of religion more loved and respected ? ( Hear.) And how were they paid? The minimum payment was, he believed, 150/. a year; but generally in the country districts 1801. and 2001. a year. Some few were 2501. per annum, and in no in stance exceeding 300/. ( Hear.) This was a stronger case. He thought he should deal not illiberally with Episcopacy if he proposed as a fit scale of remunera tion as ample compensation as the Presbyterian cler gyman of the north of Ireland, and as the whole Protestant clergy of Scotland received for their labours and faithful discharge of all the duties of a Christian minister. If he were asked how he proposed to effect this, he would reply, by means of commissioners, giving them the power of assigning certain salaries, in particular cases, under the control of parliament, which was to fix the cases, and the amounts of salaries to be given. A strong proof of the facility with which this could be carried into execution might be found in France, where provision was made in the budget of every year for all ministers without distinction of reli gions. All that was required was, a notification to the Minister of the Interior, under certain forms, on which he assigned a certain sum out of the taxes. ( Hear.) In France there was no tithe fund, tithes hating been abolished by the Assembly in a moment of what was frequently called revolutionary enthusiasm, but which he would call revolutionary frenzy; and in . conse quence isoifoothoefnluormgeordouosmacioonsfistchaetions benefitof t o h f e t t h im e e abd a , n ri d_ France. This was, therefore, properly a national fund. Archbishops and bishops there received from 1,500 to 2,00 Q francs, and the salaries of curates, &c., were small, subject to increase from surplice fees, which in the metropolis and large towns were conside rable. This system . in France was found to work well ; it prevented rivalry between different sects, and secured to the population a full measure of instruction ; and, under existing circumstances, he thought it might be a very fair question whether, in the case of Ireland, it would not be wise to apply some portion of the church incomes to the de cen t support o f t h e m i n i sters of the various religions prevailing in that country. ( Hear.) He should not go into the details of his plan now, but was perfectly prepared to do so if the house assented to the principle. But the right to re duce the church establishment depended on their right to deal with church property at all. ( Hear.) This principle he had most distinctly embodied in this resolution. (Hear, hear.) He had been blamed by persons for doing so, as it was raising a new ground of contention. But he would do no hon. member the injustice to suppose that he could vote for the resolution, without believing that he had full right to regulate the distribution of church property He knew that he must in the first instance establish the right, before he proceeded to act on it; nor would he shrink from the discussion. It had been urged on them that there were many gentlemen who were in clined to vote for reduction, but who did not like to vote expressly for touching church property. Another objection had been made to touching church property in Ireland, on account of the 10th article in the Act of Union. But it would be found that such argument did not apply. That article stated " that the doc trine, worship, discipline, and government of the said united church, not a word about temporalities' ( A laugh from Colonel Perceval, which called forth a very loud and general cheer), shall be and remain in full force for ever, as the same are now established for the church of England." He knew that in 1825 no less a statesman than Mr. Canning, for whom no . maneer have more personal respect than himself, said argument of the union was conclusive,. not Y T worth, and a the right hon. baronet the member for reduction but inquiry. That same line thagatainst aro:an:aken by also by the hon. member for Oxford. But he thought that, without indulging in casuistry or special, pleading , coupling the declaration of Mr. Pitt, in his spe ec h before the union, with the omission of the word .. tempora lities" in the Act of Union, he had a right t o as sume that it was not the intention of the government o f that day to include the temporalities of the Irish Ch u rch. (Hear.) But even if it were the intention o f the government and of those who framed the Act of Union, still he would say they had no right to bind future generations ; they had no right to bind the represen tatives of the two countries in Parliament assembled , from modifying that act in any manner which the mu tual interest of the two countries required. He had $ high authority for this. No less an authority than said,with his , peculiarTakie "Taking into ability considerationand energy. the present Lord Chancellor, who met Mr. Canning the T church in Ireland and the state of the population,who , though obliged to support that church, received no benefit from it, it was monstrous to assert that such s o system should never undergo legislative revision. " God forbid that he - should contend that the church had the same power over its property which indivi duals had over theirs. There was no sort of analogy between them. The church received its prePe rt l for the performance of certain services, but _priva te , h s e ta n t o e ble lord property was held unconditionally." (Hear.) Had no t some of the regulations of the union with Scotland been altered? He must push the argument from that. He would ask whether the house preferred a union in name, or a union in reality, whether the name or the substance ? (Hear.) But, in point of fact it was„r, of the longer a question of principle, but of expediency. 1 " . " right was conceded last year by the Church Refern3 Bill. (Hear.) The bill dealt with the bishops Pre spectively ; he did no more. It abolished half the `'en try cess at one blow, and laid an income tax on actual existing incumbents, which was further than he `'en, tured to go. Were there any other grounds on which it would be concluded that we had no right to den with church property, or was there anything in the state of Ireland which rendered the assertion of t hat right inexpedient or da n g e ro u s. Why, almost ev erJ, member of the present Government had alreadY* swered that question. The noble lord, in 1 824 ,,,,,, , 'i_ asserted that a different distribution, or even u: to nution of the church property, was not calculateuaie injure the church. The Lord Chancellor also In f _ u r. _ use of the expressions to which he had already re 10. . .; red; and the hon. member for Essex even hado,Eto tested against the (doctrine that they had no ril e° , interfere with the c hurch. Thi s was not a mere t 1 in retical opinion—it was the practi ce o f every nat i° , l rhe Europe. It was the opinion of our old divines. bur hon. gentleman then quoted a p assage f r om War,. b % ton, in which that writ er asserte d t h at the aluanc - between church and state was not irrevocable , b ut . depended on the continuance of the usefulness of the former to the latter. Paley also said—" A religi on° establishment i s no part of Christianity ; it i s o nly a means of inculcati ng it. Its authority is founded upO o t its utility. Th ere is nothing in the nature of religion, as such, which exempts it from the authority of the le gislature, when the safety or welfare of the commudig ' requires its interposition." (Hear.) "If the disse n - the ters from the establishment become a majority of r people, the establishment itself ought to be altere d modified ;" and Lord Bacon, no mean authority , h: re repudiate the absurdity that new regulation* '•' a ,. not to be made for the regulation of the churcho.. well as for the state. Our ancestors made no hen he support of the reformed church. Surely, elle fold what the state gave, the state could resume if 't % ta ds tion in transferring the property of the Catholicrt„tre it necessary to change the distribution of the ;_ ‘joe which it had bestowed. This was the real qu t ia , which they had now to discuss—whether the leg the ture had not a perfect right, and whether air_ j e , people had not a moral right to call on the " 0 gislature to modify, remodel, and refortn.orj church of Ireland corporation, when they..t_nt it to be wholly inadequate to the task wnicua l terferie Tamworth had spoken of the danger of in ufiscatr s with church property, on account of the cb°aronet, if undertook to fulfil. The right hon. m . ember I. estates in Ireland, for, said the right hen. rye the a prescription of 300 years could not Pr . of 150 church, how could they expect a presc ri P ti two TICS' tions stood on a very different footing. It 1 es years to preserve those lands ? But these understood with reference to the church, that salad , were not given when there ceased to be work toorti performed. As Grattan had said; the church pr o f bu t was looked on in Ireland, not as the gift of God, v„, as a salary for prayer ; and the principle of the a lter,' o tion was obvious. But with regard to lay property, ti: a hon. and learned member for Dublin himself woe', tell the right hon. baronet that you could not toin former acts of settlement without shaking the title almost every individual who had acquired proP i e , ht since the relaxation of the penal laws. They in_ ra , therefore fairly set the interests of the present ge.ear, tion against the dormant claims of centuries. t r : hag hear.) Sir James Mackintosh, in his last wor 5 one it we touched on this very subject : he said that tion--that of the most malignant properties of confisca 0 „ ow l it was irrevocable. Persons purchased the C o nn: ch ip property bona fide :- it descended to innocent a n . 'n the dren ; it became security for creditors, s hl 5 its stahl interests of the nation became concerned in en _ d at could be present prevailed in Ireland —a feelutigo Whichfjustice and lity. This was the feeling which he . ap e r e ou id only be strengthened by that grea t from the elk ( Hear, hear, hear.) He had shown, had sv o the nions of the greatest statesmen, that .., had show n tuation of Ireland could not go on. tle eld vio that the condition of the Church Of Itself He identified with the condition of Ireland l_ dr, w hich had shown the remedy, and the only c remcalled ilea!! policy which he now called on the haoeuse to assent ta the house, most earnestly and solemnly, most itnr 3r. could be successfully applied i and he now to to from the discharge of their duty on thi%_ ct o r the tant subject. He called upon them to ue re o therw l ' e if tremendous consequences which might . country. any they result, not only in Ireland, but in tills n , , as k they looked to Ireland, he would confidetlYruntr hon. member who was acquainted with that ht indeed whether its public tranquillity, and he 6 W O t hese sa its domestic peace, did not depend up ar ? ( Head,. tlement of the question in the present Ye 'llitY 0' tranqui , hear.) When he spoke of the public illity as ov. Ireland, he did not speak of such tratitt..Le crop ir ti e, , enjoyed by this more favourable par t 01, 1 'L ts o f 0 1 ',. but he spoke of, at least, a cessation 0 1 a' ere le c)/ ‘ 1! rage and blood. Ireland and the empire ' cc . _ a nd 1 4 at the conduct of the house on this occasion, ~.,ec . fullyro character would depend upon the decision b efore •Ait to it. The question was now fairly and the rit h the house. It had been always allowed by . ect w hie t hon. gentleman opposite, that this was a sil„ b i nie nt, l3 : l l . must come under the consideration of par'l a time for they had hitherto always contended that tit? _ d s hoo • settling it had not arrived. He trusted he a ir th , c iliv that the time had arrived. He repeated til_ ' Aec i s ion; ratter of the house depended upon s it. the whether they would continue to uphold 0 1 , ' wkca, injustice of the Irish church. (Hear , he: o r.!_ try, all; the dissenters made their claims in this a in' , taishmen. , die t urged the abolition of the church e .thatst the basis of tl!iia, were answered by the statement, ity of the popul . establishment was the great nellaoincirged to it. Wile! tion of England, which b an establishment cc:,r, they had granted to Scotaila majority of the popn:, respondent with the gre t them not disgrace then let tion of that country, chains of another nation w . o _,7 ) s selves by rivettingotuhe shoal ( 1 d for its rights. The mein he 01J less justice, than S land, to which he belonged, he l o se the church of Eng end not to commit the c ire . r ecomm most strenuously not so successfully, yet w itn: o f g a y oing min , an d Ilic En tganh l nd b d ' ' • stiee 5° - be church establishment in England „cry land. The es tablishment in Irelandstood on two of the church .Not o the doctrines,. jou. different footings. only were . the rag. _s had ot struggled , il e ch,lrc i al t Church of England in conformity with lot ion, n"ci opinions of the great majority of the P o e respect sag the continue osn church tmfnous e .etoa r b i n t ee s itself a. n 's strengthenedv d as thuetartoi t iis by e ,, le . I t 0 ,, affection of the great body of thelift it m ight h) .!, pr.a yer t v convinced, n i 1 2 he 'llhis country c o l b i; its stability could be assured even i d e mands , _and that by not upholding more than its jus t , o re tain ; and to permitted -t't conceding what it ought no longer v continue in possession of_ tlTt w : ropog nant_ ti t o # right, and the holdi:goo_t which : f Christianity. Upon :_,l,iito the pure principlheey. this the ought without fear to aa . ; o o y a question as tils 0 f right. Civil utility was I lic ler r e„ the strict path hthey ought to seek, • If they 0 : iill' e the Church of Ireland ought nooltv.t.ochheitPhe—adinotilli object whic the ) ILI. d a rig tto set himself up as or s he that ha . bi 4 a $ what would .h be the consequenc e ' • t idg The Sacred Volume was open to all ; and ~ _,.e i r 0.7 4 `vas a ::as the true faith ? No man in t 1 , 1 ba .., right to interpret it according to the best of v' ha tV e judgment. No one was entitled to assun le 0 men religious opinions alone were the truth. It ILA . .. name of truth that the Spanish Inquisition_ !I: 010 111 , founded; and never had the name of truth W."