The Sun. — London, England, 1833-07-18 00:00:00

may prevent the collision of interests, and the consequent disagreements and dissatisfaction which have too fre quently prevailed between the ministers of the church and their parishioners. It may also be necessary for you to consider what remedies may be applied for the correction of acknowledged abuses, and whether the revenues of the Church may not admit of a more equitable and judi cious distribution. In your deliberations on these important subjects, it cannot be necessary for me to impress upon you the duty of carefully attending to the security of the Church established by law in these realms, and to the true interests of religion." I hope and trust your Lordships will enter into the consideration of the subject in the spirit and with the salutary caution recommended by his Majesty. 'With regard to the Church of Ireland, his Majesty stated—" In relation to Ireland, with a view of removing the causes of complaint which had been so generally felt, and which had been at tended with such unfortunate consequences, an Act was passed during the last session of Parliament for carrying into effect a general composition for tithes. To complete that salutary work, I recommend to you, in conjunction with such other amendments of the law as may be found applicable to that part of my dominions, the adoption 'of a measure by which, upon the principle of a just com mutation, the possessors of land may be enabled to free them selves from the burden of an annual payment." Now to thatsubject Iwish to call your attention, because, from some thing which has fallen from some of your Lordships to. night, it would appear as if this was considered a violation of the Union of the Established Church of England and Ireland. I acknowledge the union of the Established Church of England and Ireland, and I consider that union as sacred and inviolable ; but can it preclude the Legislature from all interference in the distribution or arrangement of the temporalities of the Church, or does it form an obstacle to all improvement, however expedient that improvement might be, nay, even if it were to be the salvatio❑ of the Church of Ireland ? I say that the necessity which is stated by his Majesty in the speech is sufficient to warrant this interference. I have another authority in favour of the necessity of something being done, and that the authority of a person for whom I have the greatest respect, although I have occasionally the misfortune to differ with him on im pot•tant points. [The Noble Lord then quoted a speech of Sir R. Peel, i❑ which he admitted that the time was 'now come when it was necessary that the state of the Church of Ireland should be taken into consideration, not so much for• the purpose of conciliating parties, as with the view of seeing if anything could be done to add to the stability and security of the Church itself. He was, therefore, prepared to enter into the consideration of the question of pluralities and the other abuses complained of, and he admitted that such was the situation of his Majesty's Ministers that they could not avoid the investigation.] My Lords, this is the authority of a great politician sin the necessity of interference on the part of the Government ; and, if necessary, I could cite the authority of the highest personage in the church itself, not only to make improvements, but even for sacrifices on the part i f the Church in order to secure its stability. Your Lordships will understand that this is the object of the measure, that these are our views, and that, supported by these authorities, to these views Ministers intend to address themselves. The work we undertake is a neces sary one—one which cannot longer be delayed —one upon which so many complaints have been made, and which at length have assumed the tone of intimidation and menace. I might add to this necessity, that your Lordships should consider the divisions which hate lately taken place on the several stages of the Bill in its prof;ress through the other House. The first division I shall mention is on the 'econd reading of the Bill.—(Cries of Oh, oh," and "Go on.") If any Noble Lord objects to my mentioning these divisions, it would be better for him to get up and state his objections. The Earl of GUILFORD rose and said that that House was not to be governed by the decision of the House of Commons. Earl GREY—The Noble Earl says that we should not be. guided by what the other House has done. True, we should not, and I am far from pretending that we should be, hut I wish to mention those divisions in or der tri give sour Lordships an idea of the general feeling with respect Zo the present measure. I think cert,inly, however, that we should respect the proceedings of the other House— (Hear)—and that your Lordships should not disregard the sense of that House, though it might be your duty to act differently. What is done in the other House should make your Lordships carefully weigh the measures passed and approved of by that House. On the first division, then, on the second reading of the Bill in the other House, the Ayes were 187, the Noes 46, by which it will he seen that the majority was more than 3 to 1. On the second read ing of the new Bill—for your Lordships are aware that the first Bill was withdrawn on account of informality—the Ayes were 317, the Noes '7B, being a majority in favour of the Bill of more than 4 to 1. After the Bill went through a Committee, the last general division that took place was on the question that " the Bill do pass," when the Ayes were 270, the Noes 94, being again a majority of more than 3 to 1 ; though, on this occasion, many who voted in favour of the Bill before, now voted against it, as they did rot consider it went far enough.— (llear, bear, hear.) Your Lordships will here see, then, a case almost unexampled, of a Bill having passed through the other House with, upon no occasion, a majo rity of less than 3 to 1 ; and, in one instance, with a ma jority of more than 4 to 1. Two other divisions took place on clauses respecting the property of the Church. In the first, the majority was S to I—the Ayes being 126, the Noes 16. Jr. the last division, the Ayes were 177, the Noes 86. These two divisions relate to clauses on church property ; and your Lordships, with these facts before you, will perceive that it is the intention of the other House to preserve the property of the church inviolate. I mention these proposals cf his Majesty's Government with respect to the property of the church, and which have been adopted by the other House, to show the sincere spirit with which the other House is actuated towards the Irish Church. Tile first great object we propose, is the absolute removal of what presses meat heavily on the peo ple of Ireland. I mean the vestry cess—a matter which has led, more than any other, to a spirit of insubordination among the people of Ireland, not only against the institu tions of the State, but particularly against those of the Church. Another improvement 1 shall have to state, re lates to the application of the vestry cess. We propose, then, in the first place, abolishing the church cess ; in the second place, augmenting the small livings ; and in the third place, providing for the building and repair ing of the churches. That all these three are objects of immense importance, particularly as regards the Irish Church, I deem that not one of your Lordships will deny. In the first place, then, it is proposed by the Bill to put en end to the vestry cuss, the original object of which was, as your Lordships must be aware, to provide for the Church according to the provisions of the 47th of Geo. 111. Every person at all acquainted with Ireland must feel that there was no greater grievance in that country than the annual levy of church cuss. That it is a griev ance I can appeal to considerable authority, and I am also supported by great authorities as to the necessity of re moving that impost, Even in a petition presented to your Lordships the other night by a Right Rev. Prelate, and signed by the Primate of Ireland, and otber Dignitaries of that Church, though the _ petitioners object to certain principles of the Bill, they do not object to that principle of it, which relates to the vestry cess. The petitioners say, with respect to the vestry cess, that they will not insist on retaining it, although they contend that it may be considered as belonging to tt.e Church. However, they say that if it appears to the wisdom of Parliament that such an assessment contributes to sow the seeds of discon tent in Ireland, they do not object to abandon it. Here, then, my Lords, I have an important assent to the prin ciple of the pleasure which takes away church cess, with the understanding of applying it to the revenues of the Church. The petitioners go on to say, that though the amount of the church cess is not great, still it must he considered as a severe grievance, and that it would be very difficult to retain it, if the other provisions of the Bill should be put in practice. With this sanction, then, I think I may call upon your Lordships, and ask you if a strong necessity does not exist, to look to this matter, to remedy a grievance on the people of In el :nd, a grievance which has been long disputed—which has been the source of many evils. I think I may ask you whether it is not absolutely necessary to set it at rest ? The purposes, let me state, to which the church cess is to be directed, are purely Church purposes, and by our inten tions on this bead, I think we are relieving the Church of Ireland from a serious danger, and doing justly by ing part of this fund to the revenues of the Church. That the levying of the cess has been of late years the source not only of deep complaint in Ireland, but also of N iolation of the laws and of various outrages, no one who Las attended to passing events can for a moment doubts The only question, then, that remains, is as to the wLy of removing this church cess, and the way proposed has been stigmatized by a Noble Duke as a measure of spoliation for no other reason that 1 can see, except because it relieves the people of Ireland from a tax they have long complained of. The next object to which the Bill applies itself is the augmentation of small livings ; and I will ask your Lordships if this is riot an object of immense importance to the Irish Church ? Is it not a subject of just complaint that the revenues of the Church should be unequally distributed—th at there should be ems of it, mem b ers l iv i ng i n a ffl uence f or scarce ly doing any thing, whilst others, who have very laborious duties to perform, are in great and trying pecuniary dais\ culties, and can hardly obtain a bare existence? This is a reason why some of the best friends of the Church have recommended that the church cess should be in part applied to the augmentation of small livings. In the last place, it is to be applied to the building and repairing of churches, and to other subjects intimately connected with the Church, which I think it not ne cessary for me to detail. My Lords, I shall now call your attention to that which is more likely than anything I have yet mentioned to cause con tention, and excite opposition—l mean the sale of perpe tuities, held by tenants under Bishops' leases. This has been called an act of spoliation of the Church, but I contend that it merits no such epithet. It takes nothing from the Church, but, on the contrary, its revenues are more fully secured by it. It appears to me quite clear, that, with the remaining revenues, added to other sources of profit, the Bishops in Ireland will still be amply pro vided for—amply recompensed for the duties they have to perform—and amply enabled to maintain themselves in that state of respect to which their rank entitles them. This part of the measure I consider of vast importance to the Church of Ireland. The Irish Bishops lose nothing by it, and the Church will gain a great deal by the proposed way of applying the funds derivable from the sale of those leases. There will also be another important advantage from this part of the measure—it will open a new source of employment to that portion of the Irish popula tion who stand most in need of it. I know that these leases have been regarded by some as good and as valuable as absolute perpetuities ; but it seems to me, that the difference between the two is most apparent. It is abso lutely proverbial in Ireland, that you may know, in passing through that country—that one may know at the first glance—which are the lands that are held under Bishops' leases. I think this bad state of cultivation a very strong proof that those leases are not regarded in the light of perpetuities, since the tenants do not appear to have the same inducement to lay out money on such lands, as they have where they have a freehold interest in them. I therefore think this part of the measure a boon for several reasons. It will do good to the Church— it will soften down its enemies—it will be a great source of advantage to the community at large, inasmuch as it will advance agriculture, and give employment to an active population ; the want of which employment, as it has been over and over again repeated, is the chief cause of the manifold evils so long and so loudly complained of. I know that it will he objected that this is an alienation of church property. That is true ; hut let it be recollected that the funds are to be strictly applied to church pur poses. I beg to state, while lam on this part of the sub ject, that in no alteration that has been made in the Bill has its original principles been sacrificed. We consented to the alterations that have been made because they did not affect principles which never formed part of the mea sure. lam not one to assert abstract principles uselessly, and, therefore, I took care that church property should not be applied to any other purposes save to those of the church. The time, however, may come when we shall be called upon to legislate upon this point ; and when that time shall come, I do not doubt but both Houses of Parlia ment will decide wisely upon the matter ; but until that time comes, I see no use whatever of introducing a discus sion upon it. lam anxious to state this to remove cer tain apprehensions. lam anxious to state that no such principle was ever intended to be introduced into the Bill, but the very reverse. In fine, the point was clearly re served for future consideration. I, therefore, my Lords, confidently state, that by alienating church property in this manner, no wrong, no injustice has been done to the church. I can quote an example of an alienation of this description sanctioned by your Lordships. Two years aeo a Bill passed this House, especially sanctioned by the Right Rev. Bench. It related to the Chapter of Durham, part of which was sold for the purposes of establishing a University. The object of that disposal of church property was great and useful, and I fully subscribe to the benevolent spirit displayed by the Right Rev. Bench upon the occasion. I state this to show, that without any vio lation of the coronation oath, the property of the Church may be dealt with, and applied to useful purposes—to a good system of education, as in the present instance. I therefore think that we are sanctioned by precedent to apply the same principle to the property of the Church, and that we are strictly warranted in applying that pro• perty to good and beneficial objects. I again repeat, that this alteration with respect to Church property will be of great advantage to the Church, and also to the commu nity at large. To the next point that I am going to allude, I am afraid, from what I have heard, that there will be more objection than to any other part of the Bill— I mean the reduction of Bishops It is proposed by the Bill to unite certain sees with other bishoprics ; by which means the number of Bishops in Ireland, which are now 22, will be reduced to 12. My Lords, I think there is nothing to prevent this reduction, provided it be found useful ; and it is with a view to its expediency that we propose it. I say expediency—that word which a Noble Duke abominates, and which he says should never on any occasion be attended to or considered. However, I main. tain that there is no principle—no usage—to prevent the adoption of this part of the measure, provided it be found expedient ; and consequently all we have to consider is, whether its adoption will be advantageous to the general good. The number of Bishops in Ireland was never uni form ; at times there were so many as 32, and at times the number was lower than it is at present. My Lords, I find that the precise number of bishoprics now is 22, and that these consist of several unions of sees made at different times. Further, my Lords, I think that were it not for the Act of Union, these unions of sees might be done without reference to Parliament. I find these unions of sees made at different times, under different circumstances, and in different ways. I find two sees—those of Cashel and Emly—united by Act of Par- liament in the 11tb year of Queen Elizabeth. The statute is a private one, and not upon record. The next union is that of Meath and Clonmacnoise, which took place in the 11th year of the same reign, also by Parliamentary autho rity. The union of Down and Connaught took place under the authority of Pope Eugene the Fourth. Water ford and Lismore were united in 1633 by Pope Urban the Sixth, and the union was confirmed by King ES ward the Third. Cork and Ross were united in 1678 ; Limerick and Ardfert in 1660, and have since held together. Killala and Achonry were united in 1607, and Tuam and Ardagh have held together since 174.5. It therefore ap pears that Sovereigns possessed the power of uniting by commendtzm, sees, the duties of which could be conve niently discharged by one Bishop—that it was done inde pendently of Parliament. Therefore it appears to me that the present sees proposed to be united may be united in the same way. I call the attention of your Lordships to this point, to show tbat we are warranted by precedent for what we are about to do—that we are doing nothing in consistent with the laws—and that if we can prove the expediency of the measure, we may hope for your Lord ships' consent. I said that the Bishops were at one time thirty-two, and at another period they were lower than they are at present. In the time of James the First, the number was eighteen—four Archbishops and fourteen Bishops ; that is to say, on the whole, four less than the present number. This, my Lords, is a singular fact, and when such is the case, it is rather strange that we should be so gravely accused of reducing the number of bishoprics. We propose uniting the same sees, or nearly so, that were formerly united. We mean to unite Kil more with Ardagh, which sees held together from 1603 to 1692. It was not until 1745, that the latter held by Tuam. This is the first union recommended by the pre sent Bill. It is further proposed by this measure, that the dioceses of Cloyne, Cork, and Roes should be united, as they had been, at a former period, for upwards of forty years. Derry anti Raphoe, it is also proposed, should in future be united ; and they, too, for a long time, were ad ministered by one Bishop ; as were Down, Connor, and Dromore, which, under this Bill, it is proposed to unite. Waterford and Lismore, which at present are, as well as Cashel and Emly, likewise now administered by one Bi shop, are to form for the future but one bishopric. It appears, then, from the statement laid before your Lord ships, that of the ten bishoprics proposed to be dispensed with, five had, in times past, been united, and that without any infraction of the rights of property, and with out any interference with the privileges of the Church, beyond those regulations which were required for appoint ing the manner in which those several bishoprics should in future be held. To this part of the subject I confess I feel no small difficulty in addressing myself, before I bear what arguments can be advanced against the provision— before I hear name sound objection to the reduction of the number of bishoprics, and that consolidation of some of them which is now proposed. On the question, can ten Bishops be spared from the Hierarchy of Ireland, in the manner proposed, without detriment to the interests of the church, and consistenly with the spiritual welfare of the persons committed to their charge—on that question I will now, with your Lordships' perrnision, say a few words. Let us for a moment institute a comparison be tween the state of the Established Church in this part of the United Kingdom and in that. In England we have 26 Archbishops and Bishops, that is, two Archbishops and 21, Bishops. What is the total number of benefices in England ? 10,533. One of the BlSHOPS—Eleven thousand. Earl GREY—It has been supplied to me as 10,000; but I have no doubt that the Right Rev. Prelate is per ectly right, and I will take it as 11,533. Now if we look at the mere superficial extent of the two countries, and compare them, we shall find that a most marked disparity prevails—a disparity to which it would be quite needless for me more particularly to direct the attention of your Lordships. It must be, then, universally admitted, that 22 Bishops for Ireland and only 26 for England place the numbers out of all proportion ; but if we look at the po pulation of the two countries, how much greater must the disparity be considered ? The population of England at the present moment must be considered to be somewhere about 12,000,000 ; and not long since 1 heard a Right Rev. Prelate estimate the numbers in communion with the Established Church as about two thirds of the whole po pulation of the country. The Bishop of LONDON was understood to say, that the numbers were greater of those in communion with the Established Church than they had been stated by the Noble Earl. Earl GREY—Be it so; but I am well satisfied to have understated the amount, and I will abide by the understatement. Well, then, taking the souls under the care of the English Bishops to amount to two-thirds of the whole population, we have 8,000,000 for then) in this country. How stands the matter in Ireland ? We have there by the last census, that of 1831, a population of 7,784,000. It is universally admitted that out of that number there are only 1,000,000 belonging t o the Esta blished Church, and thus we have 22 Bishops in the care of 1,000,000, and 26 to 8,000,000 ; here then is a dis parity vastly greater than that which exists between the superficial extents of the two countries. How stands the matter, then, as respects the benefices? In Ireland the number is 1426, and owing to unions, the actual number is considerably less. To return for a mo ment to the proportions subsisting between the Bishops and the population confided to their charge, we find that upon an average there are in England 307,000 persons to each Bishop, and in Ireland only 45,556. I never heard it for a moment insinuated that the duties of the Bishops in England were not well and ef fectively discharged. By the new arrangement which we have proposed, it will happen that only 83,000 per sons will in Ireland be confided to the care of one Bishop, which will not be equal to one-fourth of the number given in charge to an English Bishop. There have not been wanting those who contended that the whole number of the Bishops now placed over sees in Ireland were absolutely necessary to the security and the well• being of the Church in that country. To any mind not biassed by very strong feeling upon the subject, that must appear the most preposterous argument that ever was uttered. What would their Lordships say to this startling fact, that in order to place under the care of an Irish Bishop, an equal number with those en an average under the care of the English Bishops, you must reduce the number of the Irish Bishops to four. I be lieve that if they %vete actually reduced to four, the numbers of the members of the Church establishment confided to their care, would, upon an average, be even still smaller. Am I, therefore, to be understood as the advocate of that further reduction? On the contrary, I would recommend that the number of Irish Bishops should still remain considerable; and I regard it as large indeed, when fixed at the number appointed by the Bill. Whether we regard this question, then, as relating to the number of members of the Church in Ireland, or to the number of benefices, we must still say that the utmost disparity exists, and that if England be well provided for as to the number of her Bishops, Ireland must be looked upon as far better provided in reference to the number of her Bishops. Upon the grounds, then, that I have stated to your Lordships, I do not see how it would have been possible for us to assign to Ireland a larger number under this Bill than twelve Bishops. Attention has more than once been called to the exceedingly small number of benefices in Ireland, over which the Bishops in that country have to preside, and to the fact that one English Bishop performs the duties of a see which contains nearly as many benefices as the whole of that country, which has hitherto had 22 Bishops. If we subtract from the number of Irish benefices those which have no cure of souls, we shall find that the reduced number does not amount to more than thirty beyond that which might be found in a single English diocese. The reduced number of Irish benefices is somewhere about 1,300, the number in the diocese of Lincoln is 1,273, leaving a difference in favour of the whole of that country, as compared with a single Eng lish diocese, of about thirty. I am far from saying that the English sees are upon the best possible footing, though I confess I never heard any complaint of neglect of duty on the part of the English Bishops, but the contrary ; will, I cannot help thinking that the labour imposed upon those Right Reverend Prelates would be more equally divided, and the utility of that labour more widely ex tended, if some unions, and some separations were to take place amongst the English sees. Upon the several grounds which I have already laid before your Lordships, as well as upon abstract principles, I, with the most perfect confidence, take upon myself to affirm that it is inexpedient any longer to maintain functionaries, when the utility of their continued existence is not apparent as con ducing to the interests of the church, or promoting the objects of religion. I should, I can very sincerely assure your Lordships, be the last man in this House, or in the country, to recommend any measure tending to impair the usefulness or diminish the respect of the church in the eyes of the population of either country ; on the contrary, it would be my earnest desire, now, and at all times, to extend the sphere of that usefulness, and to maintain that respect to its fullest extent. Your Lordships will see by the Bill now laid before you, that we pro. pose not to bring down the incomes of the Bishops below 4,000/. a year. I frankly acknowledge I am not of the num ber of those who would desire to see those incomes brought to a lower point ; but, down to that, I am sure the House will agree with me that they ought to be reduced. I will now come to the much-disputed question of the tax upon future incumbents. That is a point which has occasioned a great sensation ; and upon that particular part of the measure the charge of spoliation has been chiefly urged. In the first place, I would desire the House to consider whether or net it be competent to the Legislature to en tertain the question of dealing with church property, and of applying the revenues to other purposes. No propo sition has been more frequently stated than that of maxing a change in the distribution of the revenues of the church. I do not say that the property of the church should or could, with advantage or even with safety, be diverted from objects unconnected with religion, morals, and edu cation ; but a diversion for purposes of that nature has very often indeed been contemplated by men who cannot be considered otherwise than amongst the best friends of the church ; but this rule in all its strictness has not been understood to apply to the taxes levied on the people fur the support of certain parts of the church establishment. In the year 1831, there was a meeting of the clergy of one of the Irish dioceses, for the purpose of considering the expediency of petitioning Parliament to abolish vestry cess, and providing for the charges usually defrayed out of that cess by means of funds derived from other sources of church revenue, and there was at the same time a pro position very generally entertained amongst the friends of the Established Church in Ireland, having for its object a new valuation of the church lands. Here then we have a direct proposition from the clergy themselves for the im position of a tax upon the property of the church ; and this, be it observed, was a proposition made by persons, the most remote of all others from any imputation of i hostility to the church, and still less could they be supposed capable of sanctioning any scheme of spoliation. Since the period to which I have been alluding, and long before, there have been, as must be known to most of your Lord ships, several proposals for an improved system of education in Ireland ; but even at a very remote period, provision was made for securing the means of promoting that edu cation throughout the several parishes of that country. The 28th of Henry VIII. provides that every clergyman having a benefice itklreland shall keep, or cause to be kept, in his parish, a school for the education of the children of his parish in the English language, and i n t h e prin ciples of the Protestant religion, taking the accustome d stipend for so keeping and maintaing such school. From that time forward, every clergyman, on his induction to any benefice, took an oath that he would so maintain such school as prescribed by the Act of Henry VIII., to which I have already referred. Let us now see how this has been complied with. Th e regulations under which the business of educatio n Was carried on throughout Ireland, or rather, I should say , in those parishes where there wa s any e d ucat i on at all —in those parishes the beneficed clergy allowed 40s. l a year towards the payment of a teacher where the in come of the living was under 2001. a year—where it ex ceeded that sum, Si., and 6d. in the pound fora beyond 300/. a year. The House cannot have forgotten the appointment and the labours of the well known Educa tion Committee appointed some years ago, which in cluded within its numbers the Archbish o p o f Cashel, the Bishop of Kilda r e , Dr. E br!ngton (after war d s Bishop of Limerick), and Mr. Leslie I.o.ter (now o ne o f the Barons of the Court of Exehequer in Ireland). That Commis sion recommended that the expense of maintaining the parochial schools should be defrayed from a fund created out of a per centage of two per cent, payable from the in. comes of the beneficed clergy. Now if s uc h men deemed a diversion of the revenues of the Church for the purposes of education right and fitting, ther e can b e no pretext for saying that any similar propositi on could amountto spoliation. to spo l spoliation , i o or w in i n t o h t ; remotest i i d degree attention of ee approach ing your Lordships to a few particulars, tending to sh ow t h e way in which the clergy of the Establ ished Church in Ireland observed the oaths which they took in reference to the subject of parochial education. From the report of those Commissioners, it appears that out of 1,120 parishes there were 837 returned as having no schools — that, in point of fact, there were only 361 schools in that number of parishes ; at another period, it appears that there were 549 schools out of 736 ; that 11,000 children a t one time received education, and at another 23,000. Now I will beg the House to remember the oath that these beneficed clergymen took, and to say how they have kept it.—(Hear, hear.) The late Archbishop of Dublin was examined before a Com mittee on the subject of the proposed tax upon the incomes of the clergy, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of parochial education ; and I now hold in my hand an extract from his evidence, in which the state ment is made to him of the proposed impost of 2 per cent. for that purpose ; and the question is put to him, " Does your Grace concur in that ?" when most explicitly he answers " I do." Fortified by such authorities as these, I would fearlessly ask, have I proposed a Bill of spolia tion? The tax upon induction, payable as it is by instal ments, amounts in principle to the same thing—it was a tax, as your Lordships know, originally impose I upon the clergy by the Popes of Rome, not for any ecclesiasti cal purposes, but to maintain the temporal authority of the Papacy. Now surely, if it were justifiable to divert the revenues of the Church for purposes exclusively tem poral, those which were every where recognised as con nected with religion ought not to be considered as unfit objects upon which to expend such surplus funds as the property of the Church could be made capable of supply. tog. After the Reformation, those first fruits were transferred to the Crown, and were by Blackstone consi dered as forming part of the revenues of the Crown till the time of Queen Anne, when a special arrangement was made with respect to them. These revenues, as the House knows, were used by the Popes for temporal purposes, and were transferred to the King as bead of the Church, and by the Crown were used for temporal pur poses till the beginning of the last century. Are we then going too far in proposing that they be continued to pur poses closely connected with religion? The Noble Duke, however, calls this spoliation, and yet he supported frequently in the House of Commons motions made by one, for whose integrity and public virtue we all entertain the highest respect, and for whose services, as a public man, the country can ❑ever be too grate ful—l mean Sir John Newport—motions, which had this special object in view, namely, the application of the first fruits. There is another question to which I would now solicit your Lordships' attention, namely, that of the expediency of setting on font a new valuation of the benefices in Ireland. In the reigns of Henry VIII., James I. and Charles H., valuations were made of the livings in Ireland, with a view to the collection of the first fruits, and at the time when my Noble Friend behind the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was Attorney s General, and the present Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland filled the office of Solici tor-General, a dispute arose with an individual clergy man respecting the right of the board of first fruits to a new valuation, and the opinion of the two law-officers of the Crown of that period was decidedly in favour of a new valuation. Recently the subject has been revived, and the opinions taken of the present Attorney and So licitor-General for Ireland, and of another Learned Gen tleman; they gave a decision opposed to the issue of a Commission for a new valuation. None of the three, however, stated that there could not be a valuation of livings not yet valued. Now the number of unvalued livings was greater than that of the valued livings; and if this plan were adopted, the effect must be to produce a great irregularity of taxation of the clergy of Ireland, for these formerly valued in the reign of Charles I. would of course pay, upon the old valuation, much less than those who would be assessed under the new valua tion. In England the valuation was not of so recent a date ; but in Ireland they were continued from the reign of Henry VIII. to that of James I. and Charles I. Such high legal authority I do not pretend to controvert; and it will be enough to say, on the present occasion, that the point is still in contest, and that it would be highly to the advantage of the church to have it speedily and finally settled. One position, I apprehend, no lawyer of this country or of Ireland will dispute—that though it may not be in the power of the Crown to issue a Commission for a new valuation (which, however, I do not concede), yet that Parliament has an unquestionable right, if it thinks fit, to pass an Act for a new valuation, and, when this is done, that the clergy would have no right to complain ; they might, indeed, consider it a hardship, but a new valuation by statute could not be looked upon by them as an act of injustice. Therefore, although livings have been valued, they may be re-valued, and in that case the produce would not, perhaps, be much greater than by a graduated taxation, while the money would he obtained in a manner much more inconvenient, inasmuch as it must be paid by instalments within four years, instead of spreading the amount over the whole time. Without any violation of the rights on which property rests, and without danger of establishing an evil precedent, this tax may be imposed in order to relieve the church from dangerous discontents, while the addi tional burden to be placed upon it will not be greater than that which Parliament might impose by a revaluation and an exaction of first fruits. Although I am aware that I have trespassed on the patience of your Lordships already, as I am anxious to leave no part of the subject unexplained, as far as it is in my power to explain it, it may not be inexpedient for me to state briefly—first, the objects of the measure, and then the means by which these objects are to be effected. The objects are— 1. The Abolition of the Church Cess. 2. The Augmentation of Small Livings. 3. The Building of Churches and Glebe-houses. The means are— I. The Sale of the Perpetuity of Bishops' Leases. 2. The Revenues of the Consolidated Bishoprics. 3. The tax on future incumbents. The Church cess is applicable, according to the Act, to the payment of the salaries of the clerk and sexton—to the purchase and preservation of Bibles, registers, surplices, 8, ., plates and cups for the Communion table, repairs, bells, and a number of other items, which no man will deny are strictly church objects. The amount of this cess is about 63,2411., deducting, however, 13,3261. for the debt contracted with the Board of First Fruits, we take it at 60,0001. There will be 465 livings to be augmented, since it appears by the return that that number are of less value than 2001. a year, and the average charge for raising them to that sum will be 46,0001. The building of churches and glebe-houses has been taken at 30,0001. on an average of three years. Your Lordships are, doubtless, aware that there is a great deficiency of glebe-houses in some parts of Ireland, and upon this head there may be some exceeding of expense. The account then will stand thus-- Church Cess £60,000 Augmentation of Livings 46,000 Building of Churches and Glebe-houses 30,000 -X136,0C1) 1 0 this sum is to be added the expense of the commission, which is not precisely known..—[The Noble Earl then st ited the mode in which these expenses were to be met, but in so low a tone, as he read from a paper at the table, that we could only catch the sums of 50,708/. to be derived front consolidated bishoprics ; 4,600/. to be paid as a tax by the remaining bishops ; and 41,000/. to be obtained by a tax on incumbents.]—l therefore hope that your Lordships will think that the objects in view will be eminently conducive to the welfare and interests of the Church, and that the means of attaining those objects are as little liable to objection as it was possible to make them. We hope, too, that the remedy will be quite suffi cient to meet the pressing exigency of the case ; but if more be found necessary, I shall be ready to resort to Parliament for more. I may farther say, that neither the objects nor the means can be said to be a violation of the rights of the property of the Church. Let it be recol lected, too, that the tax will not fall on so many as half the benefices of Ireland, for all those under 3001. a year are exempted from the payment of it. Only 694 out 456 livings will be subject to it. The tendency of of who are, the l, perhaps, measure i sto paid m reduce a o little thant tlet the is necessary,e emoluments while of i those t gives assistance to the inferior clergy, whose toils are as unremitted as they are beneficial. On these grounds Ministers venture to propose the measure on the table —not invading the rights of the Church, but relieving it from a tag applicable to church purposes, which cannot be levied without exciting that discontent which has so long and so injuriously prevailed. How can it be otherwise? It is a tax proposed by an exclusively Pro testant vestry, upon a population, in most cases, exclu sively Catholic.—(Cheers.) It is not a tax to which from its frequency in the year men are accustomed ; but it is levied only on Easter Monday, and it is the constant source of yearly irritation. I ask, then, whether by this change you will not relieve the Church from a danger of no light moment, and the extent of which is admitted by many persons of the highest authority in the Church. I repeat that I offer it to your Lordship s , not as a measure of spoliation or injustice, but, if I may use the expres sion,insinacelorewly toneand an xiously intended by Ministers as a remedy for acknow as one .....e .( m il in e e i n r t .) ly c(oTnhseerNvaotbiviee,Eaatnld, :here s briefly adverted to a p o i nt suggeste d b y il llenborough across the table: it respecte d 144 oibLeefdonvrgedoefidicceeEes, in which, according to the return, service had not been performed during three years, and which, there fore, came within the 117th Clause of the Bill. He contended, that instead of some hundreds, as stated in petitions, only 66 would be brought under the authority of the Commissioners, and go to the reneral fund ; and that it could never be argued for a moment that any of these ought to be perfect sinecures. His Lordship then proceeded.) I have heard many complaints against the constitution of the Board of Commissioners, and among other things it has been said that there is a majority of laymen. Now, who are the Commissioners ? The Pri mate of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice, the Archbishop of Dublin, four Bishops, and three persons to be appointed by the Crown. Even these three persons are not necessarily to be laymen, and those who must revile us, and who assert that we are recommending to the King a violation of the coronation oath, would not impute that we would suggest the appointment of persons who would abuse the powers intrusted to them. There fore, this danger seems merely imaginary; nor are the Commissioners to have the irresponsible control of the funds, general or particular, which will be applied to the payment of the church cess—to the augmentation of small livings—and to the building of churches and glebe-houses. I own that it is beyond nay powers of imagination to con• ceive anything in all this really dangerous to the interests of the church. When the plan comes to be fairly ex amined, I trust that this and other subjects, on which attempts have been made to raise a clamour against the present Administration, will not be found to merit the reproach that has been heaped upon them. Ido not know whether there are other details necessary to be stated ; but if I have omitted anything, I trust that the courtesy of your Lordships will allow me to mention it in reply. The purpose of the measure is to strengthen and secure the Established Church ; upon that principle his Ma jesty's Government have considered it. It has been said elsewhere, that the Bill is a violation of the co reflation oath. Ido not apprehend that that point will be urged by any of your Lordships to night ; but if it be, I shall be prepared to answer it. I shall not, however, think it necessary, fatigued as I am myself, and fatigued as your Lordships must be—(Cheers)—to anticipate ob• jections of this kind. I shall only say, that this measure has been brought forward upon the principles his Ma jesty's present Ministers avowed when they came into office, and to which they have zealously and conscientiously adhered.—( Hear.) It was said by a Noble E trl on a former night, that he saw in this measure the symptom and consequence of that policy which had been acted upon on another occasion—alluding, as I presume, to the question of Parliamentary Reform. The principles on which that measure was proposed are well known—they were professed by the present servants of the Crown when they took the reins of Government. They came into power under the strong impression, or rather under the decided conviction, of the necessity of carrying reform into execution—a necessity which, I believed, was felt and acknowledged by all, though many might and did disapprove of the extent to which reform was carried. The necessity of some reform was felt and acknowledged by almost everybody in the country, with the excep• tion of the Noble Duke opposite.—(Cheers.) Looking to the n tture of the question itself, we thought that, if carried, it was eminently calculated to promote the liberties of the country, and to secure the best interests of the constitution. It was tak e n up on a deliberate view of the circumstances of the times, and the necessity of meeting the opinion which universally prevailed, and of restoring the confidence of the people to a Legislature which had become an object of distrust and suspicion.—(Cheers.) Acting upon the same policy, we did not contemplate that measure as the limit of of our reform.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) We looked upon it rather as the means to an end, and we thought that any man must be mad who considered it in any other light than that Parliamentary Reform having been carried, it would be necessary to adopt other reforms, in order to give sa tisfaction to the country, and security to the Monarchy.-- (Cheers.) In that spirit we have acted—that has been our policy, although it has been imputed to us by the No ble Duke as dangerous. I do not deny the sincerity of that opinion, but I deny its soundness and its wisdom. We had come to a situation in which one of the two principles of Government must prevail. We must either take the bold, hazardous, and as I think, fatal determina tion of suppressing all desire for reform by severe coercive measures, or we must comply with the spirit and feeling of the times, and endeavour to correct those abuses which had crept into the constitution, and into the various institutions of the country. The first was a line of policy which every Government ought to repudiate, and we never could be parties to a system which must lead in the first instance to the establishment of another " Holy Alliance," to extinguish the spirit of liberty throughout Europe.— (Cheers.) It would be a vain and futile attempt, ending in a war of opinion, and perhaps, for a time, the de struction of the liberty and independence for the main tenance of which this country has made so many sacrifices.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The other alterna tive, therefore, only was left us ; and we have endea voured to bring forward those measures of reform which have been submitted to your Lordships, and to the other House of Parliament, strictly, I repeat upon Con servative principles—wishing to strengthen the executive against the attacks of its enemies, and to secure the con fidence of its friends—to remove what even its friends deplored, and to oppose those wild and extravagant pro jects-which, while they promised peace and freedom, would end in despotism or anarchy. This is the line of policy we have adopted ; we have pursued a straight and steady course, and having only the permanent good of our country at heart, we have thrown ourselves with confi dence on the generosity of our countrymen.—(Much cheering.) We have reformed, where we thought reform necessary ; and we have exerted the powers of the law, and the extraordinary powers of Parliament intrusted to us, to suppress a spirit of insubordination and violence, and to protect the constitution from the attacks directed against it. Upon that principle we rest the measure of tonight; the Noble Duke has a right to say that it is a necessary consequence of our policy; it is part and parcel of our system, for the adoption of which the present Ministry came into office, and from which, as long as his Majesty honours them with his confidence, they will never depart.—(Cheers from all sides.) We feel our selves bound in honour, in duty, and in conscience, from a sincere conviction of its propriety, to persevere in our course; and on this ground we introduce the Bill upon the table. But I feel it more strongly in reference to the immediate question of Ireland, in conse quence of the necessity—the unfortunate necessity— under which we found ourselves at the beginning of this Session, of proposing a law, which we did not conceal from ourselves or from the public, was a measure of extreme severity —a departure from the spirit of the Constitution, only, to be justified in a case of extremity. Give me leave to add, that I never would have proposed it, unless I had intended to remove those causes of complaint and grounds of d4turbance which rendered the coercive law necessary. —(glieers.) God forbid, my Lords, that that law should become permanent, since its continuance can only be ren dered expedient by the continuance of evils which ought to be remedied in the interval of tranquillity which it affords. I remember that, on a former occasion, a Noble Lord opposite alluded to the policy formerly pursued with regard to Ireland ; he complained, and justly, of the alter nation of severity and relaxation ; such, lamentably, has been the fact; while harsh and unconstitutional measures were adopted, the causes of complaint were allowed to re main ; they were suffered to grow to a great height with out any attempt at eradication. Under this accumulation of evil we have been called upon to act. We cannot be responsible for the rnisconduct_and neglect of former Go vernments ; and all we have attempted is the removal of the causes of disturbance and discontent. It is, therefore, our imperious and paramount duty, in the interval of peace afforded by the coercive and protecting measure, to make use of that tranquillity to remedy existing abuses, which, if not removed, as certainly as day succeeds to night, will reproduce the evils under which Ire land at present labours.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) We are anxious to avoid the alternation of severe and lax policy resorted to as occasion seemed to require, because there was no disposition to resort to any effectu +I and general reform. We have been sub jected to much obloquy—and in Ireland, where the people have i been misguided and mi s i n f orme d , we can hardly be surprised at t ; but we have been reproached here also for our measures, though I am consc i ous t h at, sooner or l ater , justice will be done not only to the intentions of Ministers, but to their measures of reform, brought forward under difficulties to which, I believe, no former Government was ever exposed.—(Cheers from all parts of the House.) The effect of th e coerc i ve l aw i n I re l an d h a s been ironic diate—it has produced peace and tranquillity there : only a single proclamation has been issued under it, and not a single courtmartial has been assembled. We brought it forward with great reluctance, and only from a sense of duty arising out of au imperious and inevitable necessity. I have now only to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard me.--(Cheers.) I trust I have explained our motives and objects clearly, and with out using any expressions that can provoke a feeling of h itth o i s hs t a i is l co it b y. peoenrta A o my yt uch oppassitn i i; de l ed ar . n it p is repard toe emyd e uty, zdtiselu discuss question with calmness, and I hope to wit ness among your Lordships that d e gr ee o f f or b earance which ought to belong to a deliberative assembly. Havine said this, I will not trespass farther upon the attention of the House ; but humbly move that this Biblhe read a se cond time. The Earl of RODEN would ground his objections to this measure ou the objections which had beep made by so many individuals, by the medium of the numerous tions he had presented on the subject. First of all objectionable points, there was the imposition of a tax the clergy for the benefit of the laity ; a tax most Unil most unprincipled, and in support of which no tensb argument bad been brought forward. The next was d destruction of the ten Protestant bishoprics ; an outrsl for which the Noble Earl had only alleged one pretend' that of expediency. The next and most important featlr t in this mo s t o bj ect i ona bl e measure, was, the appointu t of a Lay Commission, empowered to regulate not only t° temporal but the spiritual affairs of the church—(Hee f ' hear, from the Opposition)—with the arbitrary pose°, too, of suspending the appointment of any minister is parish, in which it may appear that service had not bee: performed for three y ears . Th ese were the pr i ncipal po ll" in a measure which he c ou ld not b ut cons i der as t° greatest question—the question involving more interest and more perils than any questi on , save one, w hi c h be ever come before that House since he had been a M e nthe of it. The consequences of the measure, if allowed to 13 0 would most fearfully involve the saf e ty an d c h aracter o f t bt nation ; and he trusted that these direful results w o uld be, narrowly considered by the House, b e f ore t h ey consen t to the motion of the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl, o° ,, former occ a si on s, i n s t a ti ng hi s groun d s f or propos i ng tl° reduction of the Protestant Establishment, had, for buS' self and his colleagues, assured the House that Governmen t would never lose sight of the safety and advancement of tli ° , Protestant E s t a bli s h men t. He (L or d R.) t h oug h t i t wo ol' require something more than the assurance of the No° Earl, and the logic of his Majesty's Ministers in general' to convince the moral and religious part of the communio that they were in any way actuated by any desire t o pre' tect and advance the interests of the Church, when tbel were seen to bring themselves to propose such a measure , as this. They called it a measure of Church Reform, boS it in no way tended to make any beneficial alterations in the discipline of the Church, or anything of that sort, which', was the only p o i n t t o w hi c h a re f orm i ng h an d m i g h t w ile propriety he directed. He could not but express his coo' viction now, as he had done before on several occasion'', than an atrocious conspiracy bad for some time past bete, going on against the Protestant Establishment--(Hela:: hear)—he had become more and more convinced that OP opinion was well-founded, and he would state to the Houle some of the grounds on which he went. He held in hie hand a communication from a correspondent of the Noble Earl's on a former occasion as to the late system of educr tion in Ireland—whether he had been a correspondent 0 this occasion he (Lord Roden) was not prepared to sat' This correspondent was the Catholic Bishop of Maronisl who had been examined before a Committee of tees` ' Lordships in 1828, when the great measure of Catholle' Emancipation was in progress.—(Hear, hear.) At thal, time, 1828, th;e Reverend Prelat e d ec l are d, t h a t , the boon of emancipation were given, the Catholle clergy and people of Ireland would live in p e rfect amity with their Protestant clergy and people there' Yet in the letter alluded to, written in 1831, the same Rev. Prelate, in his letter to the Noble Earl, says " tb‘ i the people of Ireland, leaving to England her fevourie e form of worship, would not fail universally to pour il l , petitions for the total repeal of the Church Establishmeo, of Ireland." Th e R ev . P re l ate goes on to demand ths /' tithes and the scriptural education in Ireland should done away with, " so as altogether to put an end to tbi last remnants of intolerance and tyranny, for that will' s , they remained, religious freedom was but a name." Tye letter concl u d es b y h eaps o f a b use an d i nsu l t on the B i s b o r , and clergy of the Established Church ; yet this was thil same Prelate who, in 1828, as he before said, had declare d ; that Catholic Emancipation once carried, the Catholics 0 Ireland would look upon the clergy and members of tK Protestant establishment as brethren. Having obtain' the boon, however, in 1831 he calls for the downfall 0,.1 the Irish Bishops, and requ i res " t h at t h e money, of while"' these Bishops bad so long robbed the poor, may now be .' returned to its legitimate channel." Let their Lordsb'l' now attend earnestly to th e ex t raor di nary co i nc id ence b e was about to lay before them. The first demand of Ole Catholic Bishop was, that tithes should be extinguished'„ Tithes were extinguished.—(Hear.) The next deros o °l was, that scriptural education should be done away will'' , 1 Scriptural educ a ti on was d one away w i t h . The tbire,, demand was, the destruction of the Church Establishmeatlrl and their Lordship s must see th at t h e present Bill was concurrence with this demand. In point of fact, the vel same means which were pointed out by the R e vere' Prelate for the prosecution of this object, were thos e ,. adopted by the Noble Earl ; and the measure of th e Nob le E rrl would infallibly produce the result desired by th s t Reverend Prelate—the destruction of the Protests! ) Establishment. Their first aim was the abolition of O Protestant bishoprics; let th e i r L or d s hip s remem b er ths' . these Bishops were always watching over the peo# resident among them, and spent the produce of their 0 6 among the poor inhabitants. In a country like Irelaa l ' absenteeism was the g rea t ev il ; yet t hi s measure wwo ld deprive the country of no less than ten resident Bisboe who, it was undoubted, were of much service to the peoP ig measur e was every point of v i ew . I n po i nt o f f act, th i s ..: was neither mor e nor l ess th an a boon--a premium . 11 ' Catholicism ; it was the expedient of incompetent polite cians to obviate the very mischiefs which their previotlei incompetency had caused. The Noble Earl talked of b ig great affection for the Protestant Establishme o l but the way he took to show his affection V a very suspicious one. Th e p o w e r s g i ven t o th e , Commission to wat c h ov e r, n ot o n ly th e t em po ral' but the spiritu a l a ff a i rs o f th e c h urc h, were si ne as to gall th e f ee li ngs o f ever y i n di v id ua l w h o h a d a t heart to see the tenets, which he felt to be the true tenets Co 0 : 1 veyed to others. Th e duty of a Prot e sta n t GovernmeA: was to add to the number of Protestants, not diminis h them. In every place a Protestant minister should b e established, even if but one C a th o li c cou ld b e persua de d to join the true faith. As to the discontinuance io non-appointment of a minister to any place because tbe' happened to have been no service previously performedl there within a limited period, this would operate most lrr juriously to the interests of religion. He would mentil , as an instance, that since the year 1807, th ere be been no less than sixteen churches, and sixteen (Abet places of worship erected in the diocese of Cork and Rosef in places where worship had not previously been pee' ' formed. Theproposed measure would entirely put a stop a rt ; any such great and good works as these. The N o bl e Lo also read a passage of a letter from the Bishop of which tended to support his proposition. The Protests°, religion should be disseminated, not repressed. It 011 not a principle of that faith that one r e ligion w as as goo , as another. It was the belief of faithful Protestants tht i their creed was the true creed, and it therefore became ea, such as aspired to the name to spread their faith as enuea as possible, not to cripple it. He (Lord Roden) felt it tol e his duty to pretest most strenuously against this usprotestat% measure, tbe provisions of which were most uncalled for, 80 most tyrannical. The Ministers of William the Third made the most strenuous exertions in support of the Protesta ol faith. The Ministers of William the Fourth seemed eV erting their utmost efforts in its suppression. While opposing this measure—which he trusted the House woul d never pass—he must declare, that neither himself nor eb e clergy and other Protestants were opposed to all refor° of the Church of Ireland: but the reform they desiret was that which would tend to spiritualise she Churc . , still more than at present. He trusted that the 110 0. 7 0 , would extend their protection to the Irish clergy, W 1 had been, and still were, suffering the greatest privations; but who, among all this, laboured at their one g re at ole ject, the support and advancement of their Master's faial No class of men bad shown themselves m ore worthy t), admiration and support th an th e c l ergy o f Ireland. lii°; though not opposed to reform, he and they were oppose, to their exti nc ti on , to t h e suppression of truth and rep' gion, to the tax, as proposed, on the clergy: they Wa l ' opposed to the doing away with the ten P ro tests!, Bishops, be cause t h ey k new that t h e p l ace would be fill ed up with ten Catholic Bishops—(Hear, hear)---n would, of cou rse , l en d th e i r b es t aid to th e ext i nct i o n ° the Protestant faith. He was opposed to it on principl e ' and not from any p ar ty f e eling. He could l a y hi s ban, on his heart and say, that, as an honest man , be wee opp o s e d t o thi s measure on conscientiou s mot i ves , an d' l t as a partisan. H e would conclude by mov i ng , a s amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time the day six months." The amendment being put, The Earl of WICKLOW should support the meage r ' s because he felt, that, in s o d o i ng , h e s h ou ld best self , the true inter e sts o f th e P ro t es t ant faith.—( Hear, hear t y In so doing he was actuated by no feeling that el measure was called for by any mis con d uct on the WI ° the clergy of Ir e l a nd.—(Hea r , h ear .) O n th e co otraf; he must express his firm and conscientious opinion ib g the clergy of Ireland had acted throughout in a nte°_ % , which entitled them to the highest a d m i rat i on and rel,.,ni The uniform good conduct of the c l ergy i n I re l an d ' in no point been exceeded by th a t o f t h e E ng li s h c lel, notwithstanding the di ffi culties a n d d angers w ith we l c h they bad so long been surrounded. Nor did he tb ll . l o there were any grounds for this measure i n pu bli c c lartel e No doubt there had been a st r o ng c l amour ag ainst payment of tithes, but this wa s a su bj ec t no t t ouc h e d 0 1: ° 0 in the Bill.—(Hear.) The only point introduced la f, measure, against which there had been any great clam o o was the payment of church cess. With regard to te r landed property of the Church, there was no ge O f clamour against thi s th an aga i ns t any o th er clascriPti° l landed property. B ut the m easure was WWI for or s 111 efil4rt:tiwilollll.rb nortte:enis aarelleteSueb orhanrhitgs;liusi tesidetrriEite ehern,ttca edinubtnih.tunbn'acbathiameehindtgbtemenonto:shlvieeigoetof.otgovrixatiarh..inrorhteoteebbeeb°ll.rtr: o:r.uYei:cts'iflill lb It: : tir i si i ) s efot t i r bi.i a dna, t reb i tg o h, n aeai par too present occasi o n Once, in prefers! 1 " doubt that the ent distribution ' l l !'OPTies —would Ny that the apply t ench of the clerl a beneficial ar 'ste n of the hisho Lii44,lte!ill'eePeeiliel;..ibariwatreetellermhifloteuin.:,,,de,iroaiynber'ci,neicotWitillihtbfhtnua:eturstr t ePhsnrEoae (l) 3iersse r siweast e °ttt.la]ii: banthe course n erefore, that the ee n ran I amens of th ; e t c Made to the a le t Y, it would th e ,but Its s at e , *lit of the g ,i444l :o 'lbil:e lo,e t: t e4 l7 o l 4 : : kku ."e l kt t l e htli reb :e t s A : n o o f bt u e n ef hj tfi t e_ee ti oUc ce r fi dtu na e P ib li o : j.s B l l i° g ii tole ihi lion 1 it :40441 t tiutetp es net Itp et :1111:m b :tree. n?f o nreot o,ou l t ,rro h toemaeffodh e icaeloen o otn idnt u hsba I t to h • ► n t il s il u ti: et ::::l; th i 1 r :t r e y:o n ::: tte,; t b eneficial t °t O 1 (b ah I I 11 31 4111111 44 44e41111tg.ttil'tleilii%111111" , , l1-‘vlaet'll •l jt-::b.:lltel:4 4 4°"fill . e r :trhil i tina.tcelY i ihihitthObl e nurthej:e.i tn neereez vtae-uheffilreYtdßptempoo°:.' objected, impede atdba(asdnhnui 7lhLen u de :I I I t° be be ' I l L z ielooo t :u p e e ld rf us r ho Irk ed :eans and 4 ,, ;i t. " large, and r e 'mown upon relisidered this dotbe recollecte Rouse. If, i What became eat of the nun 'a sh c ertainly ol to • 11 4 .„ require si t ,2_"ament. 11‘,!.gg the incoa referring of the bee. _ ring the 1 ra ratoo: a g r eed tc t 8, and th e , 4 cala ted to lutistWish to ret ettZee gen er al h of it Whi c h a t 'as e t: ait Pike, 1) ho 441 had b etht i t e en ‘ 4 ted W ould itte b der B Yilter e, the elit ' on a ll he ra 4 tali r • A %ite r "' lati the h , ioti ett f or —Aatio toti 0f e the ado! 6 4 1 0 1444 : er 13t1 :41 t 0 that v the clef overn Mei le4 he ii eor i i t i tt ed to w ishd l ia e r , e th e th e p the 44 . tait te4 °l binati, Co th at t mmissi o tie e e r a t. by u g h t sit t ""ieh h h eben t e at 4 t "ed P e begge ` of l i te r ePriet ( 11 r r sees 4.louey 50 7 a :!' ref tt go N ut 4 fenc e r h i _ e ,ACe e d Pr :eedei " 3 ,001 he P tensW:retha: nay -- t keot, , Pro °Pri et 4 Would Ip por .__la of / re un7 th e 13i y ou p it Iv 1° Ite d it " a llity• Wo uld b e , 1 ha: ll ,f t hus eta mo n , tih, H 's dut y to " d Itty 4. Wit6 refer t ki e 4cli ng to i e n n t t . g "ti• lie rel i t ti c , - rtained at 1 4t W as much , ' 1 .1 10 " 4 t ry were ° liti cei m of party fl tiith t , question I lt e ieu I° 4 also of , t „ e : 4 oPpost • ' 4 --tt7 l, h at it r 'bolt at e W ith re The 13. 41 clueiv e g• lah e o of t!'et'illieut te te:11041e ;be e ti P b ,keedi,° he co p fr-ot th cc itfesi e d e elern. 'laity He e x 4 of thi s p omed ecei ebt ,O . cler g , tf i de r,..sti t i aft ; 4 mi:e t° t he ea: 'Po sta _ e e of th etlii;, e tic d had f eral) , h. Thi laai nk ,„ A ° ‘ h °c l Y fo land — h 44 w bee tl t ith tedent exi sted 14 the ma 12 1, ,0t ov7strated in 3 t l of it hi 'to e , o ,Would h k et _, th e B in rty ° l e night at itetio another d that the rev tl ib tulti ou g h t , hel 14 i ntY, if otat t e Y d ? h h . r e I t ,tY th e Ile eoi u In eallurt itwt; eption .Prof vtusestantist