The Sun. — London, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

tan's of Ireland, if this Dill passed, was rather remarkable. They had certainly hesrd the same threat from other quar ters ; but that the intimation should have proceeded fratn the,Hons and*Learned Gentleman did much surprise him. He could scarcely have expected to hear that the Orange men of Ireland were about to throw themselves into the arms of those who had hitherto been their bitterest oppo nents, and become ac ive agitators for the repeal of the Union between England and Ireland. He was sure there was no fear of the Protestants believing that it would be their interest to dissolve the Union between the two coun tries, in order to have sitting in Dublin a Parliament of Catholics, or nearly so (for such, certainly, would be a Parliament returned by a population, four-fifths of which were Catholics), and whose first act would most probably be the total abolition of the Protestant religion.—(Loud cheers.) He should give his humble support to the reso lutions proposed by his Majesty's Minist ers , not a l one be cause they were beneficial to the interests of the inhabitants of Ireland, but because he believed they would promote the interests of the clergy themselves.—( Hear.) Sir J. HAMMER felt it his duty, however reluctantly, to oppose the measure. He could not but regard the Bill as a violation of the coronation oath of the King--(Hear) --as a violation of the Act of Union—( Hear, hear)—and as a gross violation of the most sacred rights of property.— (Hsar, bear.) He wanted words to express the light in which he regarded this Bill, and he rose to give it all the opposition which was in the power of so young and un known a Member. He should like to know on what principle the Noble Lord would justify the imposition of this graduated tax. When lie heard the Noble Lord de clare a few nights hack, that there could not be a more dangerous principle than that of a graduated property tax —(Hear, hear)—that it would lead to the equalization of all property—be did not know how the Noble Lord would justify this proposition, except by arguments which he knew he should disagree with before he heard them.— (Loud laughter.) He acknowledged the necessity o f taking some steps for the security of the Established Church in Ireland, but to a Bill like this he could never agree. He looked forward with dread to the consequences. He nould not Bey that it would lead to a state of society such as that which prevailed when Archbishop Sharpe was murdered—(oh, oh)—but it would lead to such a state of rancorous feeling as could not but grieve every man who wished well to his country. Mr. SHELL said that he was the worst enemy of the Union who relied on it in sustainment of the establishment, and he was the worst enemy of the English who associated it with the Irish Church. It was a junction of the fresh and living with the decomposed and dead, which did not vivify the one, but contaminated and imparted mortality to the other. The Member for the University of Dublin had used some menacing ihtimations. He had threatened the Government with the anger of the Irish Protestants, and hinted that they might throw their allegiance off. Surely the Hon. Gentleman, the Representative of the stifiordina tion and peaceful hahitsof a learned end tranquil body, did not mean to say that Protestant loyalty was the result of Protestant monopoly—that the devotedness to England of that respectable body was of a mercenary character, and that their attachment to their Sove reign was derived from the meanest of all motives, and that was little else than the sordid product of pecuniary calculation. He (Mr. Shed) had given notice of an amendment involving the great question of the right of the state to legislate for the church; but another gentleman having given a similar notice before him, he thought it doe to courtesy to give tray to him. The mea sures of the Government, besides, rested on the right of appropriation, and the principle was implied. He should apply himself to that question. It was plain to him that the property of a corporation rested on a title as distinct from that of an individual as the nature of an individual was distinct from a corporation, which was the mere creature of the low, and owed its entire existence to it. Passing from theory to authority, the highest was to be found in favour of church reform. Paley lays it down that the chances being equal that the religion of the majority is as good as that of the magistrate, the magis trate ought to consult the religion of the peop'e, and not his two. Warburton says, that the church exists only for the benefit of the state. " Hence," he says, "in this alliance may be seen why the episcopal is the established church of England and the Presbyterian in Scotland, and the equity of the conversion. Hence the duration of the alliance. When the church loses its superiority of extent the alliance becomes void ; the united church being no longer able to perform its part of the convention, the state becomes disengaged, and a new alliance is of course con tracted with the now prevailing church." He expresses himself still more strongly in a note to Clarendon's " Re hellion," where, observing on the demand of the Par liatnent for the alienation of church 1 ends, he says that " the state may resume what the state ori ginally gave." But what has been the practice of all Europe? Peter the Great seized all the property-of the Greek church, and its functionaries are now paid from the treasury. The Emperor Joseph seized all the church property in his dominions. In Prussia, and all the Ger man States, the clergy were paid out of the public coffers. Arthur Young, in his " Travels through Italy" says the tithes have been abolished in Tuscany, the estates of the priests, with a slight land-tax, have been found adequate to all the purposes of religion, and almost univenally through the Iteli to States, the property of the church is considered as the properly of the State. In Adam Smith's chapter "on the Sovereign," in his " Wealth of Nations," he oars " In several Pi oteatant countries, particularly the Protestant cantons of Swim 'rland, the revenue which anciently belonged to the Roman Catholic church—the tithes and church land—has teen found a fund sufficient, not only to afford competent salaries to the established clergy, but to defray, with little or no addition, all the other expenses of the state. The Magistrates of the powerful canton of Berne, in particular, have accumu lated, out of the savings of this fund, a very large fund, supposed to amount to several millions.—( Hear, hear.) Here was a series of strong examples amounting to autho rity. Was all this spoliation ? Had these changes been followed by the invasion of private property ? Had convul sions ensued ? Those who predict would do well to leek back. The French revolution would probably be referred .to. But what took place before it? The property of the Knights Templar had been seized. It was a constant custom to apply the revenues of bishoprics to state purposes. This was not spoliation before—was it after the revolution ? It was remarkable that Abbe Maury, in resisting the seizure of the French church property, hail relied upon it that it wac the property of the poor. But coma at England. He should commence with a very recent example. The revenue of the church of Durham had lately been applied to the establishment of a University.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Was this an ecclesiastical purpose? Had math,- metica any thing to do with mysteries, algebra with theology, ebymistry with the church establishment? Alchymy had Indeed " converso in praium Deo." This was a strong case. The consent of the prebends was nothing. They could not consent and bar their successors, and plunder Piot corporation, if the principles of churchmen were well founded. But go back to the fountain hi-ad of English legislation. Edward I. determined to tax the clergy. Pope Bonifice issued a bull, setting forth strong conser vative doctrines—the . entire argument on spoliat on may be found in this . famous document. The British King being put by excommunication out of the pale of the eborch, put the clergy out of the pale of the law. The Latter gave way, and paidthe tax. In Rymer's " Fmtlera" will be found the forma recognition of Bishops in the time of Edward the Second, that the temporalities of the see came from and belonged to the Crown. In the Feign of Edward 111. Wickliffe appeared. You account him the precursor of the Reformation, and behold in his mind the dawn of that light that afterwards grew to the full splendour of day. He translated the Bible, and Called upon the clergy to obey its precepts. He insisted on the doctrine which the Irish Catholics now maintain— that the church was under the control of the Legislature, and its possessions might lie appropriated. That charge it set forth in the 9th article that was exhibited against him. In the 15th of Richard 11. was passed the statute providing that a certain portion of the tithes should be given out of impropriate benefices to the poor. This istetute was renewed in the 4th of Henry IV. In the sixth year of his reign the Commons addressed the King, and entreated him to-seize a part of -the church revenues. 'The Archbishop of Canterbury was present when the ,address was presented, and, on his observing that the Piergy spent their days and nightsin praying for the weal of the state, the Speaker eaid,,with a smile, "He feared that his Grace's prayers would make but a slender sup ly."-(A laugh.) Come to the Reformation. The l eign of Henry VIII. is too notorious to to quire com ment; but in the succeeding reign the bishopric of Dur ham was aeieed by the Crown, and the Act confiscating the lands belonging to charities was passed. In the reign of 113:y, the right of the Legislature to seize church prop rty was recognised, and the titles of the pur chasers of the monastic estates were confirmed. Every one knew that E.iz theth had possessed herself of the re. venues of several bishoprics ; but observe the effect of the first statute of her reign. The whale Cathobo-hierarchy were ejected, with the exception o f the,Biahop of Llandaff, who was called " the calamity of his See." There was a direct transfer of the property of one church to that of another church, riot at lib, but against the consent of the incumbents; for they Were all stripped of their authority, of their means of life, and thrown on the world. James 1. possessed himself, o ith one grasp, of- the entire tithes of Scotland. He should turn to the church history of that country. His first extract shoal be from Robertso lll9 third book. He says " that in December, 1561, a con armtion of estates was held chiefly on account of ecclesias tical affairs. After much contention, the following plan was approved of by a majority of voices, and acquiesced in even by the Popish clergy themselves. An exact account of ecclesiastical benefices through the kingdom was appointed to he taken. The present incumbents, to whatever party they adhered, were allowed to keep possession, twc-thirds of their whole revenue were reserved for their own use, the remainder was annexed to the Crown; and out of that the Queen undertook to assign a sufficient maintenance for the Protestant clerey."—(Hear.) It was of great importance to consider the doctrines of the great Refor, niers of the time, the fathers of the Scotch church. In Spotswood's history of that church, their tenets would be found. An ecclesiastical counsel appointed for the pur pose, reported to the Parliament a form of doctrine and of discipline. The words in Spotswood he should ex tract:—" 'lhe fifth head, concerning the previson of mi nisters, and distribution of the rents tind possessions justly appertaining to the church ;" after providing for the clergyman and his widow, the disciples of John Knox go on thus :—" There rest two sorts of people, who must be provided for out of the patrimony of the church—to wit, the poor and the teacher of youth. The poor must be provided for in every parish—(Loud cries of " Hear")— , for it is a shameful thing that they should be universally contemned and despised. The poor widows, the father less, the impotent, maimed persons, the aged, and every one that may not work, or such persons as are fallen by occasion into decay, ought to be pro vided for." In page 164, of Spotswood, the fol lowing is stated to be the doctrine of the church, as expressed in a second rescript :—" Two sor's of men, that is, the preachers of the word and the poor, besides schools, must be sustained from the rents of the church, and because not only ministers, but also the poor and schools must he sustained upon tithes, we think it more expedient that deacons and common treasurers of the church he appointed to receive the whole rents appertain ing thereto than the ministers themselves." It is deserving of remark, that they rest their arguments on the canon of the church giving the quarta pars to the poor.— (Hear.) Such were the principles laid down at the Re. formation in Scotland ; and what eloquent lessens does the history of that country present to st ttesmen, if they would open their hearts to the philosophy which teaches by example. From 1666 to 1689 what events took place ! The efforts made by the Government to inflict episcopacy on the people, who repudia'ed the imposition, produced di taster, bloodshed, insurrection, multifarious crime. The covenant is sworn at Lanark—the b :ale of Petland•hils is fought—the Scotch are defeated-10 are hanged on the same gibbet, 35 are hanged at their own doors. Tortures follow—Macall is tormented, and dies in a paroxysm of heroism and devotion. The cruelties of Lauderdale succeed the Highlanders are called from their savage hills, and quartered on the western counties Sharpe is murdered in open day, and pierced in the arms of his daughter, who shrieks in vain for mercy the battle of Bothwell-bridge is fought—a reign of terror commences—courtsmartial, high courts of novel judicature, are established blood flowing in torrents a country covered with soldiers and banditti misery unspeakable fatnine, pestilence, and anguish are beheld on every side—at last a great event befals ; the revolution takes place : and on the 22d of June, 1689, the following Act of Parliament is passed :—" Act Abolishing Episcopacy.—Whereas the estates of this kingdom declared that prelacy is and bath been a great and insupportable grievance to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people—(Cheers)—and therefore ought to be abolished, our Savereit4n Lord and Lad) do hereby abolish episco pacy ; and the King and Queen's Majesty do declare, that they will settle by law that church government in this kingdom which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people..'—(Hear, hear.) He had gone through a great al of citation, and should limit himself to two references more. They should pass across the Atlantic. In Canada, a case of most peculiar and powerful illustration was pre sented. By treaty, on the cession of that province, the Roman Catholic church was declared to be the established one. The revenues of the church were made payable to the Catholic clergy. That treaty was confirmed by the 14th of George 111. We I, what was done? The Pro testants were exempted from the payment of tithes on those estates which they purchased from Roman Catholics. The mere sale was sufficient to discharge the property from all ecclesiastical impost if it passed to the hands of a Protestant. This was not accounted spoliation—this was considered quite legitimate and just. The feelings of Protestants were not to be outraged by a payment to a Roman Catholic establishment. There was no plunder here. If this, then, was wise and just on the banks of the St. Laurence, how did the principle change on the banks of..the Shannon? Did it depend on the latitude, or was it supposed that the Catholic millions of Ireland were less sensitive to wrong, and less alive to hun:iliation than the Protestants who were located in the Canadian forests ?—( Hear.) But having thus sought for examples through the world, it might be asked whether he should find none in lii own countty? The precedent of 1735 was universally known. Ttie Irish Parliament pissed a resolution against the tithe of agistment, and that resolution was turned into an Act of Parliament at the time of the Coital in 1800. Th it Act bad since been violated, and the tithe composition deprived the lri.h gentry of a privilege which they had made matter of stipulation.—(Sir R. Peel—No no ) He conceived that the tithe of agistment was virtually imposed by the Com position Act, because all land was now brought within the Act, and pasturage was formerly exempt. I3ut the great point was this, that the Legislature had in Ireland directly interfered with the Church prop rty, and stripped the clergy at once of a large share of their profits. Those accumulated facts est .blished beyond all doubt the con stant interference in almost every county with ecclesiasti cal possessions, and it only remained that the Legislature should, in the present circumstances of the country, act boldly and frankly on the principle which must obviously toff .rd the basis of their enactments. A compromise among themselves would avail nothing. Mr. HALCOMB wished to make a few observatione. The proposed measure was intended to remove two al legod • grievances-1. The payment of first fruits-2. the payment of vestry cess. To this it was to he answered that the first fruits only amounted to 321/. it year on an average of the last 31 years, and that the vestry cess applica ble to church purposes wasnot more than 17,6001. per an num, liblintreh the total sum thus raised was 60,0001. per annum. The vestry cso was entirely paid out of the land, whether it were held by Protestant or Catholic; and if the House were prepared to abolish it, was it prepares to adopt a resolution which said that the land shou:d he relieved from the burden, in or der that it may be imposed upon the poorer clergy? To follow such a course would establish a precedent, not only injurious to the church of Ireland, hut most dangerous to the church of England, and would exercise a power over church property now for the first time asserted. The repeal of the Union would succeed as a necessary consequence, effected by that danee rous system of ag tation hitherto so constantly pursued. The Hon. Member contended, after much consideration and patient inquiry, that church property was exempted from the power of the House, as far as related to direct taxation, and that the King could not consent to any suck Bill of spoliation without a breach of his coronation oath, by which he solemnly undertook to preserve the bishops and clergy all their rights and possessions. Mr.; WARRE was surprised at the opinions be had heard to-night respecting the violation of the King's co ronation oath, if he should consent to this measure. It seemed to him that there was no pretence for using any such argument. If he wanted authority to justify him in his opinion, he might find it in the sentiments expressed by the Protestant Bishop of Llandaff, who, in writing to a friend in 1805, said, when mentioning this subject, "the coronation oath is a confirmation of the promises made by the King to the people. The obligation is broken when it is disregarded, though both the Patliament and the people claim its performance; it is relaxed when the people declare, through their representatives in Parliament, that they do not require the performance of it." With respect to the church, he trusted that he should not he thought a lax churchman, if he expressed his concurrence with Locke,' in saying that a church was a certain number of people who agreed together in a certain opinion. Else where Mr. Locke had called it " a convention of men." It seemed to him that this was the proper time for intro ducing a measure of church reform into Ireland. He should, therefore, support this Bill. . _ Mr. GILLON said the church establishment was a human instituion, and as such must require change. Church establishments had been began with Constantine; they had b en marked in their progress with the existence of tithe-proctors, and the cour,e of these persons had, in all countries, occasioned the tears of the wi.:ow and the orphan, and might now he traced in the blood of Ireland, which was yet reeking with the sliughter of her citizens. It was unjust to tax a whole country to support doctrines which its population disavowed ; and it was against all reason to suppose that seven millions and a half of Irish men should willingly continue to pay tithes for the sup port of . a church to which in sentiment they were opposed. The attempt to make them continue this payment was ab surd, as well as unjust, and must fail. To enforce it, a standing army was necessary. There could be no reduc tion of the burdens of this country — no reduction of the establishments, so long as they were determined to collect the tithes of Ireland. He wished for a reduction of the establishments—it was what the people expected ; and, as one of the most certain - anemia of obtaining that end, he moved, as an amendment to the question now before the House, a resolution to the effect, that, after the death of the present incumbents, the revenues of the church of Ireland should be thrown into the general mass of the public property. Mr. MACAULAY observed that there were two kinds of opposition to this measure. First, those who thought that the measure went too far, and next, those who were of opinion that it did not go fir enough. When the mea sure was first proposed, the Hon. Member for Clare (?) said that it was satisfactory as far as it went, but he was sorry that it did not go far enough ; but be admitted, at the same time, that perhaps it would not have beenjudi cious to carry it f u rther, as a more extended change mi ght have been successfully resisted. Now that was the answer to the objections of those who thought that the measure did not go far enough. He was glad that the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary had withdrawn the motion of which h e h a d g i ven no ti ce f o r to- n ight, and he wished that it was possible to prevail with some other Hon. Members to follow that example. Whatever might Ire his opinion of the abstract questions mooted by some Hon. Gentlemen, his wish was to carry this measure, and he feared that, by rendering it stronger than it was at pr. seta, they would be but increasing the difficulties now thrown in the way of its progress. With that feeling, he should have no difficulty whatever in moving the previous ques. tion upon the amendment just proposed. Some persons were of opinion that the Bill went too far, and not only that it went too far, but that the King could not give his assent to it without violating his coronation oath. The same argument bad been used against the passing of the B:11 for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill ; but he was happy to sty, in both instances, without effect. Nor, in fact, did it deserve to have any effect. What was the oath? —that the King would maintain for the church " all such rights as d o or by law shall appertain to the Church." But what was the other part of the King's oath ?--, That he would govern his people according to the statutes agreed to in Parliament." That could not mean such statutes only as were then passed; and if so, teen it kit the matter open to the King's power of agreeing to legislative measures that might pass both Houses of Parliament. That oath was not intended to guard against legislative enactments properly made in Parliament, but against measures like those adopted in the time of James 11., to guard against the King unjustly exercising his prerogative to the de struction of the interests of the church. Otherwise every new Act of Parliament, altering the way in which the people were goverted, would he an act of perjury. The doctrine—the worship—the government, and the dis cipline of the clitirch were to be protected. This Bill att ,eked none of . thein. They all remained the same as formerly. It was true that the number of the sees was to be altered, but surely no one would say that the sees were a part of the church government. But if they were, then there were precedents to show that that was not esteemed a matter included in the oath. The sees of Lichfield and Coventry had been unite t. That union h id never been deemed to be a violation of the King's oath. The parishes of London, alter the great fire, had been reduced in nurn'er to 51, and in the city of London an Act had been passed rr r aranting to the clerey a stated sum of money in lieu of tithes. Many local Acts of that description were constantly paesed, and yet no one thought that that had been a dis uniting of the church. But then it was said that the right of property was attacked by this measure. If so, then in deed the controversy was important. He could not con • ceive that there was any necessity that could justify them in infringing the right of property. That right was the great source of law, of civilization, and of morality. We owed it to the security of property that we were not naked savages, like our remote ancestors—to it we owed all the advantages we enjoyed, and all the liberty we boasted of possessing. All wise men knew that the insti tution of property had produced anomalies and evils, but then they knew that for the sake of the advantages con nected with that institution, those anomates ought wil lingly and cliesrfully to he borne. The anomalies in the church of Ireland were not greater than sonic others, nor even in some respects so great. There was nothing more convenient—nothing that could be easier—than putting the livings of the church under the general head of pro perty. But let them; well consider the abuse which the institution of property itself might be made liable to. He did not by any means deny that livings were of the nature of property ; but incumbents, it must be recol lected, were public functionaries, and were bound by certain obligations. They did not,i at the time of enter ing on their livings, assume that which was their own by right, and fur their exclusive advantage, but what was also designed for the good of religion. At a recent date, an Act bad been passed, under the auspices of one of the first men of his day—the head of the church party in this country—the late Mr. Perceval, which ordained that all nonresident clergy should keep curates, the minimum of salary being fixed on the same principles as the minimum now stated. It had been stated, that the interference authorized by this Bill was enough to create a civil war; and yet this part of it was precisely the same as that introduced by Spencer Perceval. The fact was, that this was a kind of mixed property.— being more thin salary, and less than estate. In his opinion, there never could be a more sweeping confiscation thin the abolition of the half-pay of retired officers—a confiscation which he would ever most strenuously resist ; yet it was well known that it was subjected to regulations, always of a mild and modified character he admi.ted, but s till it was subject. And though with nobler aims and higher objects, he contended that these individuals were also subject to the measures of the Legislature, which were not framed to take any thing trona them—not to reduce them to distress, but merely for the purpose of extinguish ing that which could not wiss:y be extinguished in any other manner, the (Ohm now lying on the establishment. The only part of the Bill which they ventured so strongly to attack was teat which affected the livings of existing incumbents, but he should be surprised if any one should attack the proposed diminution of Bishops on the ground of any violation of prilerty. Take the see of Waterford. Was that to be held up as a soldiery? Who was robbed ? Was the late Bi-hop ? He was safe. Was the future? Where would he his right to weat he bad not got—or where was the rational min that would give one suvereign for it? What the robbery then was, or on whom committed, he was unable to tell.—(Cheers.) In this measure he denied there was anything like sacrilege. Surely it would not be said that the identity of the church was destroyed be the re iuction of ten Bishops from the establishment ? Teat was a sophism unworthy of regard. Or that the church remained so lone as its emoluments, when all its doctrines were changed? They would not say with him of That they preferred the gold to the temple, which sanctified the gold." Tee Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford might wish him to go into the subject of Founders' Wills, and recapitulate those names of which the Universities might well he proud— men wino would have burned off their hands rather than teat the endowments which they left for the extension of the Catholic religion should be turned to purposes of so widely different a nature. But he should not do so. This measure be warmly supported, because he thought it c ll culated to administer to the peace of Ireland—because it was the beginning and not the end of a series—(Lotel cheers)—of judicious measures in the church. It had been.contended that it was not sufficiently favourable to the Protestant interest, and mode no allowance :or the ex pansion of that faith. Ireland was but half the size of Eng land, and yet she had a church equally efficient. If that church expanded—if it extended its.lf as it had done in Eng land, still the machinery was amply sufficient for it. He confessed he did not entertain such cheering hopes of this expansive force as others indulged in ; fur how was it that it had slumbered so long?—(Cheers.) That church had been established for centuries—supported by wealth—protected by poorer ; penal I twa and disa••ilities of every kind anti for every circumstance surrounded it, and yet not one-fourth were Protestants, nor more than one-half of that fourth churchnien.--(Cheers.) He knew nothing in history more remarkable—nothing which pre sented a stronger contract th an t h e astonishing strides which Protestantism had made in the 16th century, anu the sluggishness which had since characterized it.— (Cheers.) Surely this furnished matter for solemn re attion on the part of those to whom the interests oh the Protestant religion were committed. He believed that truth would prevail over error ; that she was still on tire side of Protestantism ; but there was a question whether it trail not been encumbered by their help.—(Cheers.) He did not believe that the secret of the strength of tee Irish church wag to be found in wealth, or they would not find a P res byterian in Ulster, or a C a th o li c i n C onnaug h t . I t toaitiln etoc9n'uit public f ee li ng —i t was t i me to remove all real grievances—to restore the church to its true state —to its primitive purity—and so consolidate and extend the real interests of the Protestant establishment. Mr. H. BuLwEit and S r R Lanus rose together. The former gendeman gave way, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS proceeded to say that from the Revolution to the Union the Protestant church was the only link, between this country and Ireland. The question, however, at present was, not whether they were to support the cause of the Protestant church in Ireland, but whether there should be an Ecclesiastical Commission appointed under the proposed resolutions. To agree to this would he in a great measure to deprive the Crown of its superin tendence over the church of Ireland ; and to declare that that superintendence should henceforth be exercised through the medium of persons who were not Counsellors of the . King. Was it fitting that one of the highest func tions of the Crown should be thus delegated ? Although professedly an Ecclesiastical Commission, a majority of the members would he laymen, members of the Protestant church. One of the powers to be possessed by this Com mission was that of suspending the worship of the church wherever they might think it proper to do so. That was a power not at present possessed by the Crown. There were other powers to be granted to this Commission which ought not to be taken out of the hands of the Arch bishops and other dignitaries of the church. Mr. FINCH said that the speech of the Hon. Member for Leeds convinced him that his Majesty's Ministers were not qualified to undertake the reform of the Irish church. The friends of the church of Ireland were not opposed to an arrangement of the revenues of that church. If Par liament thought the revenues of the Bishops too large, let them be diminished ; but let not the number of bishoprics be cut down. If the principle of abstaining from a spoliation of the church property were not rigidly adhered to, a revolutionary spirit would grow up which would sweep all before it. Lord ALTHORP observed, that when the Hon. Baronet (the Member for Oxford) remonstrated against devolving on the proposcd commissioners the powers at present vested in the Crown, he immediately afterwards proved that that was not the case, by stating that one of the pri vi'eges which it was proposed to give the commissioners— that of suspending the worship of the church wherever they thought proper—was a privilege not belonging to the Crown. In respect of patronage, the new commissioners would not be authorized to supersede the power of the Crown. The great object of the commission was, the better disposition of the church revenue. Sir R. PEEL said, that if every Hon. Member had confined himself to the first resolution, he might also h tve contented himself to follow the example of the Noble Lord in making only a short speech. The first resolu tion was only one of form, to the effect, that if any Biil should pass in the present session of Parliament. which might require the aid of a Commission, in that case a Commission should be appointed, and a salary attached to the office. By assenting to this resolution lie conceded nothing, and ii he should see no necessity for attaching a s dory to the office, and at present he confessed that he could see nn necessity for a salary thereto, he should feel that he bad still reserved to himself the power of negativing that salary.—(Hear, hear.) If they should have a Commission, he much doubted the propriety of making a distinction between the salaried and unsa laried Members, beeluse the latter would be liable to be called away to their Parliamentary and other duties, and the whole duties therefore would be vested in those lay commissioners who could be constantly on the spot, and w'm holding their commission at the pleasure of Government, with a large salary attached, could not be considered as quite independent. He should, therefore, by agreeing to the first resolution, make no compromise, but should reserve his right to oppose hereafter either the commission, or the salary, as he might see fitting. He thought it would be better to consider at once the main subject rather than allow this resolution to pass as a matter of form, and then begin a new debate. If that course were to be adopted, the debate of the last five hours and a half would he completely lost time. He should, therefore, state the point as it was raised by the second resolution. This resolution went to abolish at once church cess, and when once that resolution was agreed to, from that inoment the cess was at once abolished. Would it not be much wiser so to frame the resolution that it should not cease until a substitute should have been provided? The same result might happen as in the case when the idea of the extinction of tithes was so unfortunately held out. They were by this resolution deciding that hence forth church cto-s should cease. The substitute to he pro vided was by means of an imposition to be levied sepa rately upon the clergy of Ireland. It would have been convenient if the Noble Lord had made a distinction be tween vestry and church cess. He had calculated the as sessment at 60,0001 or 70,0001., and he had stated that the sum to be raised as a substitute must be 60,0001. or 70,0001. He should, however, saddle the church with only that portion which had been hitherto raised for church purposes. There were two vestries in Ireland— one to provide far the necessaries relating to divine wor ship, the other for other purposes. Just at this moment the Right Hon. Baronet was in terrupted in his speech by a stranger, genteelly attired in black, who had found his way into the body of the House, and proceeding up to the table said, " I beg your pardon, but I die of poison, by Lord Grey's orders." Mr. BERNAL—Mr. Sergeant, remove that person. Tne stranger, appealing to the House, continued--" I am a poor, unfortunate Irishman. My name is Dillon. For seeking for justice I am poisoned by the orders of Lord Grey." lie was then removed, in custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in continuation, said that as Mi nisters had felt the necessity of an extensive Church reform, surely it would have been right to ascertain what portion of this 70,0001. was collected for Church pur poses. If they did not know this amount, ought not the House in the first instance to grant an inquiry, before proceeding to legislate? Was it right to go, even through the form of these resolutions without some preliminary consideration? How was the sum, to be raised from the clergy, to be disposed of? He knew they were not going to give any thing to the poor by these resolutions— (Loud cheers)—and the immediate occupiers of the soil cauld derive no benefit from them.—(Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon. Member for Leeds had no reference whatever to these resolutions. The only point urged by the Hon. Member for Leeds rested upon expediency, for he contended that Government had as much right to touch this property as to repeal any tax. The Hon. Gentleman said that every other state had interfered with church pro perty, and then triumph mntly asked, why should not we do the same? But the House could not fail to remark the authoriti , s cited by the Hon. Gentleman. The first was that considerate legislator and profound ecclesiastical lawyer Peter the Great—(Laughter)--and the next was Joseph 11. Now with resp-ct to Peter the Great, his system was well known, and as to Joseph 11. he thought it would not be disputed that his reforms were not well canceived. Yet these were to be the precedents on which the House was to act. But now to return to the second resolution. Hon. Members who took his view of the question thought that there ought to be a preliminary resoaition declaratory of the amount of the tax, but his Mejes , y's Ministers proposed nothing of the kind. The effect of the second resolution was to relieve the land from charges to which it was now subject, and to lay those charges on the property of the clergy, who by law were not liable to bear the burden.-- (Cheers.) But still further by the greatest possible injus tice this tax was made to apply to existing interests— kßepeared cheers.) Fur his own part, he was ready to agr e e to the proposition for abolishing the firstfruits, if it were accompanied with this special qualification, that ex isting interests should be secured. That was the only point to which he meant to apply himself. He would put it to the House to consider the situation of a person holding a benefice, taken on the implied credit that it was not to be subject to the charge ? Here, for instance, they might see a man who had contributed his quota to the firstfruits, and he would ask the House whether it was consistent either with equity or justice, that such a man should have his interests affected by a measure of this description ? How many cleugytnen were there in Ireland, who, cats sessed large nominal incomes, yet received but a mere trifle for the support of themselves and their families ! He himself knew a case, where a clergyman was entitled to receive from 1,3001. to 1,4001. a year from his benefice, but got now not more than 3001. a year-- (Hear) -- and the whole of that small sum would be swept away by this tax. The only condition upon which he had originally agreed to the general ptoposition brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers was that ex isting interests should not be disturbed. However, if Ministers deviated from the original grounds on which they called for his support he could not possibly con cur in any such course. He had agreed with them in t linking that sonar arrangement was necessary to relieve the occupying tenant from the vestry cess, and that that cess should be considered as levied' for ecclesiastical purposes, but be wished that the amount of the tax should be specified, and all the circumstances relating to it accurately defined. The reason why he w ished the vestry cess abandoned was, because he desired that all collisions la,tween the occu pying tenant and the clergyman should be avoided. Ile was disposed to go to a certain length in the hope that corresponding concessions would be made by the Noble Lord and his colleagues, but in this he was greatly di sa ppointed. The Right lion. Baronet then referred to tee repo t of the Tithe Committee, in which it was stated that it might be a matter o f cons id erat i on, l oo k ing to the inconvenience of payi n g th e fi rst year ' s i ncome , as to whether a substitute might not be adopted by an an nual tax on all benefices hereafter fuelling vacant. He in sisted that from thie passnge in the report, it was quite evident that the measure was to have a prospective effect, and not touch existing interests. The Hon. Member for Leeds had slightly adverted to some few topics connected with this question, as it he feared to approach them too closely. Et qu Desperat tractata niteseere posse relinquit." He (Sir R. Peel) maintained that though we bad a re- formed church, the change of creed which had taken place afforded no justification whatever for touching the eccle siisticil property. But then, it was said by the Hon. Member for Leeds that this could not be looked upon as church property, but that it might be compared—to what ? Why of all other things to the half-pay of an officer. Now if any thing like human could be taken to exist between a likeness of things present with those which were remote, this must be allowed to be one of the most witty similitudes that had ever yet ema nated from the imagination of man. (Loud laugh ter.) According to the principle of the comparison, if it was right to tax the incomes of the clergyman, so would it likewise be right to tax the income of the half-pay officer, a proposition to which he thought the half pay officer would not be very ready to agree.— (A laugh.) But was it possible that the people at large could imagine that the House was occupied in devising a plan for taxing the clergy of Ireland, instead of bringing forward one for their relief, after the dire privations they had experienced for some time past? He ventured to say that if the question were put to 99 men out of every 100 among the whole population of England, they would think that the House of Commons was deliberating on some mode of relief for the clergy of Ireland, instead of raising a tax upon their precarious incomes. There were many cases in which clergymen in Ireland had not received one shilling for the last three years, but still more, in which they had received nothing for the last two years and a half. Instead, however, of relieving the clergy, it was now proposed to relieve the land. When the Noble Lord (Althorp) talked, last year, about the extinction of tithes, he (Sir R. Peel) objected to the phrase, and well knew that the Noble Lord could not be aware of the effect it was likely to produce on so excitable a people as the peasantry of Ireland. All he implored the House to look at now was, the grievous wrong which this measure would do to the existing interests. Let Hon. Members only look at the utterly destitute situation of many of the clergy, who were obliged to subsist on eleemo synary contributions. As the discussion upon this ques tion must necessarily be adjourned, he hoped that in the interval his Majesty's Government would be induced to bring forward some proposition to remedy the evil of which he complained. He trusted that the Noble Lord and his colleagues would never sanction a principle which he must characterize as paltry, unprofitable injustice. Lord J. RUSSELL said, the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said that the House should not legislate with respect to church cess until the amount was ascer tained. Now he (Lord J. Russell) understood the amount had been ascertained, and it was found to amnunt to between 60,000/. and 50 000/. But then it was said that they should legislate on church property precisely on the same principle as they legislated with respect to the property of in tividuals, at least so far as regarded the pre sent proprietors. It should be recollected, however, that the incomes of the clergy were not held for the benefit of individu but were held for the purposes they were ori• ginally granted—namely, the promotion of piety and religion. But the Right Honourable Baronet insisted that transferring the burden of church cess to the present incumbents was a violation of all principle. When once the principle was laid down that it was expedient to abolish church cess, he thought every one must concur in feeling how desirable it was that the abolition should be complete, and take effect immediately. If it were done gradually, upon the dealt of the present incumbents, this inconvenience and anomaly would arise —that church cess would be abolished in some parishes, whilst in others the inhabitants would continue to pay it for many years. As to the present distress of the Irish clergy, which had been so leeliogly urged by the Right Hon. Baronet, the answer to that appeal was, that the distress of the Irish clergy had come under the consi deration of his Majesty's Goverum-nt, and that they would bring forward a measure for the relief of the Irish clergy.— ( Hear, hear.) He contended, however, that Minicers were providing for the relief of the Irish clergy, and adding to their security, by taking away the causes of the collision between the clergyman and the Irish peasant. It was im possible to deny that a great outcry existed on this sebject —an outcry, not arising, as he thought, from the burden of tithes, for he believed that the amount paid in tithes did not exceed one forty-fifth of the produce of the land. The odium, however, was so great, that if the Irish esta blished church was left in its ple:ent position, it would be exp ised to the greatest danger ; and he went further, for he thought that, if the church of Ireland was placed in a more secure position, the church of England would be endangered. In conclusion, the Noble Lord observed that the plan proposed for the reform of the Irish church did not go further than was necessary to provide for the stability of the Irish church.—(Hear.) Mr. GOULBURN rose amidst mingled cries of "Ques tion," and 6 . Go on." He stated his readiness either to follow the Noble Lord, who had just sat down, or to re serve his observations until to•morrow evening. Mr. SHAW suggested the first resolution should now be read, and that the second resolution, on which an amendment would be moved, should be discussed to morrow. Lord ALTHORP said he had taken the same view of the matter as that suggested by the Hon. and Learned Hember for the Dublin University. He would, therefore, accede to his suggestion, and consent to the adjournment of the debits on the second resolution until to-morrow. The first resolution was then read, and agreed to. After wh:ch the House resumed, and the CHAIRMAN re ported the resolution to the House, and obtained leave to sit again this day. Before the rising of the House the Sergeant appeared at the table, and stated that the individual who was discovered in the body of the House, was in custody, and had been visited by a medical man, who pronounced him insane. Mr. Lavies (a surgeon) was then called in, and reported that he had visited the individual in question, who stated his name to be Dillon; that he was evidently labouring under mental derangement, and that it would not be quite safe to let him go at large. The SPEAKER then humanely suggested that the unfortunate individual should be de tsin_•d until the sitting of the House this day, and that he would take care and have him properly provided for in the intervall The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 1. On the Earl of SHAFTESBURY taking the chair a little before five o'clock, several private Bills were brought up arid read a first time. The Bishop of WORCESTER, presented a petition from a parish in Worcestershire, praying for the better observance of the Sabbath. Lord GOWER presented petitions from the Methodists of Stoke-on Trent, complaining of the disabilities under which they laboured, and praying for the better observance of the Sabbath. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition from St. Bride's, praying for the better observance of the S ibbath Day, and a petition from several Welchmen re siding in London, praying for the removal of the abuses in the Welch Church. On the motion of the Noble Marquis, the petition was read by the Clerk. Lord KING said that he regretted the absence of a Rev. Prelate, who, a few evenings ago, had made state ments which were not founded in fact, and which, if the Rev. Prelate were present, he could show were utterly false. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that in the ab sence of the Rev. Prelate, he would take upon himself to say, that the statement which had been made by him was true.—(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of BRISTOL said that he was sure the Rev. Prelate would be able to substantiate the statement he had made. The Nohle Lord (King) was continually making attacks upon the church, and was no sooner knocked down, than he seemed to gather strength by the fall.—( Hear, heir.) The Bishop of BRISTOL said that lie rose to present a petition from the clergy of the deanery of Bristol, who had consulted together upon a subject which appeared to them of the most vital importance, namely, the in. troduction of the Irish Church Refarm Bill. They were alarmed at hearing that a Bill had been introduced into the House of Commons, the principles of which they stated were utterly inconsistent with the prin ciples of the Established Church, and at variance with the Coronation Oath. He agreed with them in those opinions, and deprecated the introduction of a measure which would tend to lead to such a violation.—(Hear, hear.) The Etrl of ELDON said, with respect to the mea sure to which the Right Rev. Prelate alluded, he hoped the last act of his life would ba to oppose it to the very utmost, as a measure which was desructive to the princi ples he had through the whole course of his life supported. He would rather go out from that House, than give his consent to such a measure. Lotd SUFFIELD had several petitions to present to their Lordships on the subject of negro slavery. He would take that opportunity of stating to their Lord ships the meaning which he and the petitioners put on the word " limn, diate," as regarded the question. Some misapprehension on the meaning which he put on that word had gone abroad, and he begged to say that it meant, as was expressed in one of the petitions, not im mediate emancipation, but that immediate steps for that object might be taken. The petitions also prayed that it might be unconditional —on that word also there might be some quibbling--he begged to say that it only meant that lal% the slaves might be emancipated with out any lean' put upon them. that T o e mDeuok of t he ir of BU L o C r d K s l h N i pG, shouldHA lI s ai d move it would j h o e h b e n 0: 1 Dictionary be laid on the table ; then there need b e , du oi doubt or difficulty on any words used e ither by I " Lord, or any of the petitioners to that House. tßhae L r oioinr House sEheeLtt that tr eeß shouldO thou gh tß O U always wouldiwtHawysa was afk oer t p ht u he t eo p i ctpo:trovt eu t i h sn c et 1 1 1 4 e el full attendance of their Lordships to come forward!v,/ petitions on that subject, upon which it was well kne.17:0,1 felt strongly; would it not be better at once to go on the important subject which was especially sPn inw Liili that night, which every one of their Lordships t i o • Let grant was very pressing ?—(Hear, hear , hear.) nios Noble Lord bring forward the subject on a °l— Ai when their Lordships would be prepared upon it• there had been so much dispute upon words, he ball. ' b ih r n e a c di o , iupsrrs,h,evaintdode provided, hhaeantdexcellentimmediate found, ifhrmroaemraynt meant h nv i s c ot l a ; t mt h : e p i b r ree set L o rd b ntt b i° tee and Prior had gone wrong in sa • more iininviog He also found that there was no such word in the -- , 1 4; lish language as unconditional. He found une°4l.- tionable, which meant absent, not limited by any te r He hoped the Noble Lord would now be aw are of the of those words, and so save the time of the H ouse in (0 ") Lord SUFFIELD did not wish to provoke ail ‘, l ,the m h hi t e iyesd s o t pi t ai l l i ta j tec e h c ee : aNt o no f do bp slavery, lureeosEceananr dl ti b aht titelottrpih:helteiha:beoaoindisishtoiesofednot thtooebf t the bo i s n o i c r i n a n a o l g b , or i tn i i t u m n a nt nts of the country. The petitions were • or _ e ,; ui on n ef is ro co m rt O by ld , Oldham, numerously signet; from Lan i t i b iy e i r d t° l o; En wn, and from an le named Busted, of Newcastle-u on- Ty, 10 ' - ne sta ting e e t he atrocities which he had observed in a P residence— West Indies. Earl GREY did not intend to enter in', m et discussion on the meaning of the word 01* diate—he certainly understood it in the %V in it was explained by the Noble Lord on a late e t. ' os ly , However, dgriteeeewndito th him hoped that the House would u nsei lo a that di mint „ h c e us w ,io is n h ...... thr A th la e tg r i e i s ) l . l ) ould be 7 1 frog The E irl of ROSEBERY presented a tietitieom of . to Killrenan, Argyleshire, against the present sr church patronage in Scotland. ' Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition of Disney, in Yorkshire, praying for a better observitectlf4 the Sabbath. He would take that opportunity of mould that to the Bill introduced into the other Hou se ue - not in a T ny way give his support. d otal Lord EYNHAM presented a petition from the — of Meath, praying for the repeal of the Union. Ws The Bi , hop a LONDON presented peti tion. several parishes in London, praying for the better op v ince of the. Sabbath. In consequence of Whil l f t oul ti fallen from the Noble Baron on this subject , he ,:ipar say that be knew nothing of the Bill alluded to htl" 0 0,1 the public papers ; but be would say that the tradeeked who, from religious motives or otherwise, wished t heir. the Sabbath as a holyday, was entitled t (l , o ,gbt Lordships' protection. He would say that he - the measure went too far. nobl e Lord ELLENBOROUGH hoped that either the gable Baron or the Rev. Prelate would introduce a reams id' Bill on the subject, for as for the present Bill, it was possible it could receive the sanction of either Ilou ee 'f le• Earl GREY presented petitions tor the abolition o very, and the abolition of county cess. itie ° from rhe pl A y l m ar o q u u t i h s , o p f ra L y A in N g S ti l? e o t r o N us E e to pre r s e e g n u t l e a d te s ti rb i ore of labour in factories. - IRISH COERCIVE BILL. by the Earl GREY rose and read the amendment mad e Commons in the Irish Bill whi c h t oo k the trial 01 cal offences from under the jurisdiction of courtsmalll;ete Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that if there good reasons when the 1111 was first introduce te j, for their Lordships to suppoae that juries were intiu ll a u tse and that the powers of the common law were Wi t , t he dent, the Noble Earl must show than a differenc e ' er ihe al better had taken place before he could call uP" ° .,, t lis l to agree to the amendment. If he could not eh% s ytta the state of the country was better now than 1 " then, and called upon them to support the amend ree d n a ' t el must have been in the wrong when he first intro t he the Bill. When a Bill somewhat sitnila e _ A to weeb present was introduced in 1829, there exist an bed more serious agitaaion than existed months.nowB-.-' existed at any period during the last twelve , 0 0 (!fear, hear.) The election for Clare, then , u h r es , to view the system of organization wbie• isted in Ireland—the military organizael ° w•hi% hitt been established by the Ca, holly. it's`lciat")n tbinl; the Government of day thatdid lone lot _ it was necessary to introduce so s vere a 04 as the Noble Earl had brought forward,e beelecold thought they might h ave confidence in juror', a ° ( g e ar, trust in the common p o w ers o f the law' sbu vi bear, hear.) It the Noble Eat 1 cum" fall, that that justice which, when he first introduced theus,al he said could not be appealed to, could no w be t a r , , in, he would agree to the amendment of the COllll9--' eneg The Earl of ELDON thought that they wer e pai ost in the consideration of a cons:itutional question/ t:'-coiat inportant to the country. Necessity justified what it t oe pellet!, but his Majesty's Ministers were much t a if they had induced the House to agree to courtscree;il, fur the trial of certain offences, on the ground 01 ee f aitY if that necessity did not exist - , for nothing but °eet-rciiglf could justify such a provision. He felt somewhat which upon this subject, on account of the position in to t he that House was by this measure placed with reaalq,Ljarlu country. The men who had been opposed to the "- and Aet had been represented as enemies of civil line ; e en' and of the rights which all man in this countrybseNe titled to enjoy. He warned the Noble Earl to j ts ar how soon that sort of language might be altered ial:osa the pLcation.—(Hear.) He was really ashamed to see ttb,; Noble Earl was now made the subject of abu se t ' ir t ° ega r '' out the country. The country papers said, with regard to that measure of Reform, which they Ca lled a r e a , 0 0 lion of the old law of the country, but whieb itNa s more a restitution of the old law of the country Ib3naasoce a testitution of the principles of the constitution of ' ir j to —(Hear)—the countiy papers said, with regoloW that measure, something of tae same kind thattb So repeated with regard to this measure —they s aid ' o pia o matter what the House of Lords say, or what th e "CO' of the House of Lords is, we will• go to the House m bo ld mons and get all that altered." The Noble F:a el c b take heed of this. There were various ways i a 'll,:ilihai Bill might be brought into Parliament. Th i " - a ' pass e ' been brought into the House of Lords, and ha" through that House upon the responsibility of there alone tern. If the Bill was not wanted, the MinisteordP were responsible. He would not stand before his° 60; arid be abused as a man who would give up the cOir. coo t% o f lion of his country, when he could say to that did not consent to this Bill, but ou the responsibilitioac those who told us that Ireland could not be saved n a gli t it." If the whole people of England could be or them within a distance to hear him, he should declare t a ro tbe that lie would rather suffer death than take awaY fr `•: t ale to subject the right to trial by jury, and make him 11 1 ' t Iha! be tried by courtstnartial, if he had not thoug a nd such a measure was absolutely necessary for the sa fe i ' let u , ) protection of the people of Ireland.—(llear,le 11•14 Under there circutnstances, he must pre.s the ra ga sir e for an answer to the question, whether these. me al ea', were necessary now? To pledge that House t° ll itb° ° l sures, and then in this way to abandon t heio, % .1 0 0 any apparent reason whatever, was to do tha t tend to the destruction of that House and of the c° , e dge tion. lie hoped that the House would never bej to lie in that manner again. When a Noble Lomb t es now saw in his place, had come down to P arlian' Minister on a similar occasion, he had done souli eces' itP absolute pressure of necessity, and, under that nthan e at had got a Bill read three times in one night. 1 : wet! was when the mischief was Si) immediate that fo 0010 necessarily sacrificed. He had no object bu t t al c a l a o duly; and he would not allow himself to be e s _ t oiou enemy of his country because he had only done b et es of a re appeared to he his duty, upon the representation sponsible Minister. Earl GREY—My Lords, no one is more PurrwilliPgttibso6l, myself to give credit to the Noble Earl for the fo' his motiyes—for his regaid to the consti:ution %coati', the sound reason with which he desires that all' lai° shall be govermd. I subscribe to the position lie,,,Uaiotto; down, that this wile a measure of nec essity--i e t " 0 9 .. 4,130 1 ' duc e d as a measure of necessity, an d, therefioon'ioitsee the usual formality of the appointment of a rer i of Inquiry, as it was thought that the circtonsta;, such as to carry with them its justificatio f n ; ,,,e a j e: such the satisfaction of seeing that %ie. , ' o 30 3 adopted in this House almost uninitnoraa le where ts el necessity a emitted by considerable ma•r" ie aca 0e aa ea", l # —(lhar, hear, hear.) I subscr ibe also in .0 ` to the proposition, not th at what necessity ,1 ; vea e .ie c oulP• . necessity justifi , s, but that what necessity ~aoae sity limits, This measure, which went, to 0 a , subject of part of his legal rights, I introduceda,We'xraieil most painful feelings ; and if ivh it I have dune 4 . 1 0 0 ,. inc to the severe iefi ctions that the Noble Ea o 0 the . P o o P inmates, I shall console myself with that it was a painful discharge of that du ty