The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-23 00:00:00

ANALYTICAL COURSE OF :I.I.I.THEMATICS, BY MR. J. R. YOUNG. I. TTLEMENTS OF GEOMETRY ; containing a New and B.". 1 Universal Treatise on the Doctrine of Proportion, together with Notes, in which are pointed out and corrected several hn poetant Errors that have hitherto remained unnoticed in the Writings of Geometers. Bvo. Bs. His observations on the theory of parallel lines, the labour he has bestowed ou the doctrine of proportion, as well as his corrections of many errors of preceding geometers, and supply ing their defects, together with his minute attention to accuracy throughout, may be justly considered as rendering his perform ance valuable, especially to the learner."—Philosophical &sena engine, March, 18e8. " In the notes, which he has appended to the volume, is much valuable matter, even for those who have advanced still further in these studies. On the theory of parallel lines, which has not a little perplexed geometers of alt ages, there is a very able and elaborate commentary."—The Times, November 2, 1327. " In perspicuity Eliclid has no rival, except, perhaps, in that part of his work which treats of geometrical proportion. This is abstruse-, and,subtle, and intricate. The doctrine, of propor tion, es connected with f.eometry, must necessarily be so.— Hence Legendre has excluded the consideration of it from his ,Elemcnts, leaving all knowledge of the subject to he acquired from numerical proportion. I. his is a defect which Mr. Young has ably supplied. Indeed, we have never seen a Work so free from pretension, and of such great merit. yarious fallacies latent in the reasonings of some celebrated mathematicians, both of ancient and modern date e are pointe out and discussed in a tone of calm moderation, which we re et to say is not al ways employed in the 'smeatifie world. Monthly Magazine, September, 15.7.. " This is a work of valuable information, the conception of a most enlightened mind, and executed with a simplicity 'which cannot but carry the important truths it speaks of home to the conviction of every understanding. In the notes appended to the work, Mr. Young endeavours to point out, in his own words, 'some remarkable errors and inconsistencies into which modern geometers have fallen, particularly in reference to the theory of parallel lines, and the doctrine or proportion.' This volume is but the first part of the work. The second is to be devoted to the Geometry of Planes and Solids, with Notes, and an Appen dix on the 'Symmetrical Polyedrons of Legendre. It' Mr. Young acquits himself as successfully of the second und.ertakiug, as he has of the one before us, he wid bestow an invaluable he. nefit on the student."—Weekly Times, December, 1827. " Mr. J. 11, Young, who has distinguished himself es the author of a useful elementary treatise on Algebra, has just pub lished a work of the same beneficial description, Elements of Geometry,' with Notes. The great advantage which students will derive from this work is, thatl the converse of every geome trical proposition (where demonstration is possible) is given. — This has never been systematically den:: before. Several other improvements are introduced (especially with regard to the doctrine of Proportion), and many errors of former geometers corrected."—Sanday Tires.', February 10, 1828. 11. An ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON ALGEBRA, Theoretical and Practical, with attempts to simplify some of the more difficult Parts of the Science, particularly the Denten etration of the Binomial theorem, in its most general form; the Solution of Equations of the higiier orders ; the Summation of Infinite Series; &c., Svo. boards, 10s. 6d. " A new and ingenious general method of solving Equations bag been recently discovered by Messrs. H. Atkinson, Holdred, and Horner, independently of each other. For the best prac tical view of this new method and its applications, consult the. ' Elementary Treatise on Algebra,' by Mr. J. R. Young, a work which deserves our cordial recommendation."--Dr. Gregory's edition of 14 utton's Mathematics, vol. i. p. 261. " For the " Summation of Infinite Series," the author gives a new and ingenious method, which is very easy and extensive in its applicatiou."—Newcastle Magazine, November, 1825. 111. ELEMENTS OF PLANE AND SPHERICAL TRIGONOMETRY, with its Applications to the Principles of Navigation and Nautical Astronomy, with the necessary Lo garithmic and Trigonometrical Tables; by J. It. Young:7s. cloth. To which is added, some Original Researches in Spherical Geometry ; by 'l'. S. Davies, Esq., F.R.S.E., F.R.A.S. &c. IV. MATHEMATICAL TABLES, comprehending the Logarithms of all Numbers from 1 to 36,000 ; also the Natural and Logarithmic Sines and Tangents; computed to seven places of Decimals, and arranged on an improved plan; with several other Tables, useful in Navigation and Nautical Astronomy, and in other departments of Practical Mathematics; by J. R. Young; 6s. cloth. V. AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON THE COM PUTATION OF LOGARITHMS. Intended as a Supplement to the various Books on Algebra. 12mo. 2s. 6d. See Dr. Gregory's edition of Hutton's Mathematics, vol. i. p. 157, where a particular reference is made to this little work. VI. ELEMENTS OF ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY ; comprehending the Doctrine of the Conic Sections, and the ge neral Theory of Curves and Surfaces of the second order, with a variety of local Problems on Lines and Surfaces. Intended for the use of Mathematical Students in Schools and Universi ties. 9s. cloth. " If works like the preSent be introduced generally into our schools and colleges, the Continent will not long boast of its immense superiority over the country of Newton, in every 'branch of modern analytical science." — The Atlas, July2,s, 1830. " We have to notice these excellent productions, as clear guides to the higher branches of science. They do infinite credit to Mr. Young; and no works of the same class can be snore fit to be put into the hands of students."—Literary Ga zette, May 28, 1831. VII. ELEMENTS OF THE DIFFERENTIAL CAL CULUS; comprehending the General Theory of Curve Sur faces and of Curves of Double Curvature. Ss. in cloth. " The work is divided into three sections, and each section • is subdivided into chapters of a moderate length. The first section treats of the differentiation of functions in general; the second contains the application of the differential calculus to the theory of plane curves; and the third unfolds the gene ral theory of curve surfaces and of curves of double curvature. In the first the author introduces the most valuable theorems and formulae of the celebrated analysts, Euler, Lagrange, De moivre, and Cotes. In the second, he have given a correct ex planation of what the French have termed consecutive curves. The third contains the most beautiful theorems of Euler, Monge, and Dupin, relative to the curvature of surfaces in general, together with a chapter on twisted surfacer, a subject Hitherto confined to foreign writers. The whole forms a more simple, consistent, and comprehensive view of the differential calculus, and its various applications, than any hitherto pub lished. " But the work does not merit attention merely on account of arrangement, and the judicious selection which it contains from the writings of others. It has also claims to originality. What the author has adopted from other writers, he has ren dered much more simple. The chapter on maxima and minima presents considerable improverhents in various parts of the in vestigation. In surveying the cases in which Taylor's theorem fails, Mr. Young has shown that it does not fail where the coefficients become imaginary, as is asserted by Lacroix and his followers, but that these fel:lug, cases are always indi cated by the co-efficients becoming infinite. In one of the pro • blems on this subject be has detected a false solution by La grange, which has been transcribed by Gamier and several others, merely on the faith of a great name. * * * " The whose Elements of the Differential Calculus, com prehending all that is roost valuable in the large works of the most celebrated Analysts are contained in a duodecimo volume, beautifully printed on a fine paper and neatly bound in cloth. It appears to be in every respect well fitted for a Class Book, and can scarcely fad to be very generally adopted."—Presby terian Review, Sept. 1831. " There are no affected changes of method : there is no parade of original plan or of novelty of principle; and yet there is much original matter, much original reasoning, and, what is of more value than all questions about originality in an elementary treatise, there is a perspicuity, a unity of me thod prevailing in all its parts, that reuders it. more than any book we have seen peculiary adapted to instruction. It is not, however, as an elegant and perspicuous develope ment of the first principles of the Calculus, merely, that we have admired, and therefore recommended Mr. Young's little work; we have alsO found much to commend in it of a more profound character; much that we look for in vain in larger works, and indeed in all English books. "The paralogisms of some other writers, distinguished ones too, are pointed out in the preface, and in the body of the work; and many steps which have hitherto been deemed unquestionable have been shown by Mr. Young to he altogether fallacious. We wonder, indeed, when we see them pointed out, why they did not occur to ourserves nor to anybody else till now ; and we look upon the aptitude displ a y e d i n th ese d e t ec ti ons t o b e hi g hly characteristic of a mind which looks with a laudable anxiety to the purity of the fundamental principles of science."—Philoso phical Maciazine, October, 1831. VIII. ELEMENTS OF THE INTEGRAL CALCULUS; with its applications to Geometry, and to the Summatiou of In finite Series, &c. 9s: in cloth. " The volume before us forms the third of an Analytical Course, which commences with the 'ELEMENTS OF ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY! More elegant Text-books do not exist in the English Language, and we trust they will speedily be adopted in our Mathematical Seminaries. The existence of such auxi liaries will, of itself, we hope, prove an inducement to the culti vation of Arialvtical Science; for, to the want of such Elemen tary Works, the indifferen ce hitherto manifested in this country on the subject is, we apprehend, chiefly to be ascribed. Mr. Young has brought the science within the reach of every intelli gent student, and, in so 'doing, has contributed to the advance ment of Mathematical -Learning in Great Britain."—Presby terian Review., January, IEO2, " We remember the tone when such a work as this would have been invaluable, and we do not think that any late publi cation has superseded the necessity of it."—Spectator, Septem ber, 24, 1831. IX. ELEMENTS OF MECHANICS; comprehending the Theory of Equilibrium and of Motion, and the first Principles of Physical Astronomy, together with a variety of Statical and Dynamical Problems,. illustrates' by numerous Engravings ; by J. R. Young. 10s. 63. in- cloth. " Mr. Young is already favourably known to the public by his writings e and the " Treatise on Mechanics," which we now propose briefly to, notice, will a dd cons id era bly t o hi s re put a ti on as the author of esementary works of science. "To read the works of Laplace, Ivory, Somerville, &c. a knowledge of the methods employed by these writers is previ ously required, and renders such preparatory works as those of Mr. Young absoletely necessary."—Presbyterian Review, July 1832. Pubdihed by J. 'Sauter, 73, St. Paul's Church-yard, London; sold by Piirk.er and Co., Oxford ; E, Johnson, Cambsidge; White and CO.. Ediaburgh ; W. Jackson, New York; and by all other booksellers. bfloutaitrc A-ottri. Empowered by Act of Parliament 3d rfm,,,s, ./ ' ECONOMIC LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, NO. 34, BP.IDGE-STREET, BLACKFRIARS, LONDON. Established 1823. The Right lion. Taos. FRANKLANO LEWIS, M. P. Chairman. lIENitY FRED. STEPHENSON, Esq.. Deputy Chairman. Resident Direvi'or, JOHN KNOWLES, Esq., F.R.S. Agent for Liverpool, T. 0. COOPER. Medical Referee for Liverpool, D .ROBERTSON. THIS Society has for its basis, F -ONOM Y COMBINED WITH SECURITY—the t us of Assurances for young and middle aged lives being m•h lower than those-of any other Offic e which giVes" ato sto the Assured; and a full &tatemeut of its allairs is an ally made to the Share-holders and Poliev-holders, who have a coritroul over the Society. • Three-fourths of the profits- are now divided among those Assured on an equable scale, for the whole term (if lie after the Policies shall have been in force four years , and ,eventually the whole of the for will be so divided: . • Endowments for children are granted, and Assurances on Joint Lives, S urvivorshi , is, Survivorship Annuities, as v;e;I as every species of lif e mi A ingency, at rates proportional to the nature of the rists, which are as low as possible compatible with security to the Assui ed. Assurances are also effected, either by paying small Pre miums at first, and increasing them every five years, or by pay ing a high I).re/ilium at first, subject to periodical abatements, and, ultimately, the payments to cease altogether. In fine, persons may be Assured in any way which may lie best adapted• to their circumstances or wishes.. By Order of the Board of Directors; T. 0. COOPER, Agent. Empzriat Vaztia4rent. HOUSE OF LORDS, WICONESDAY, JULY 17 (Contiztued from our last number.) CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL. - Earl GREY moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill. In the beginning of the session his Majesty, in his most gracious speech, in adverting to the condition of the English and ish church, recommended Parliament to approach the consideration of those important subjects with calmness and deliberation. His Majesty said—" In your deliberations on these important subjects, it cannot be necessary for me to impress upon you the duty of carefully attending to the secu rity of the church established by law in these realms, and to the true interests of religion." In that spirit of salutary caution did his Majesty, in his paternal benevolence, wish them to con sider the subject. With respect to the church of Ireland more particularly, his Majesty said, "I recommend to you, in con junction with such other amendinents 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 commutation, the possessors of land may be enabled to free themselves front the burden of an annual payment." To this last recommenda tion he (Lord Grey), iu the first place, intended to call the attention of their lordships, and in doing so he could oot avoid saving a few words on the arguments founded on a pretended violation of the Act of Union in the introduction of the pre sent measure. It was acknowledged that the church was esta blished by law, but he had yet to learn that the Act of Union precluded the legislature from making such alterations in the general distribution of the church temporalities as might be ap plicable to and consistent with the interests of both those churches. Was the Act of Union to bind down the legislature against effecting ever any alteration which might tend to the benefit of the church itself? It was this necessity which his Majesty felt when, on the advice of his ministers, he ordered them to introduce the present measure to the other House of Parliament. This necessary work would now no longer be de layed, and it was to his serious regret that - it had been so long delayed. He had referred to some authorities, but if other and stronger reasons were necessary fur the adjustment of this question, he might cite the vast majorities which had occurred in the other House of Parliament in favour of such a step. (Cries of "Oa, oh!" and "No.") If any noble lords thought him out of order, they ought to rise .and state their opinions, and not interrupt him in that unusual manner. (Cries of ideas.) With respect to _the - proceedings of the other house of Parlia ment, he must be allowed to say that they were entitled at least . to some consideration frurn that house, and they were important on the present occasion,. inasmuch as they displayed the almost unanimous feeling of the country. On the division which took place on the second reading of the first bill in that house, there were 137 ayes and 45 noes, leaving a majority of more than 4 to 1. On the second reading of the new bill, on the 6thof May (for the first was withdrawn in consequence of an informality) there appeared ayes 317, noes 78, leaving a majority of 4 to I. After the bill had gonathrough committee, the last division, on the question that the bill do pass, showed 274 ayes and 91 odes, a majority of nearly 3 to L In this last division it would be re collected that not only those voted who thought the bill went too far, but many also voted upon the principle that it did not go far enough, and was a pure delusion. Here, then, was a case almost unexampled ill Parliamentary history, that while the progress of the bill was so much contested, the majorities in fa vour of it were never less than three to one, and in some in stances four to one. The object to be accomplished was two fold—the removal of an injurious tax which pressed heavily on the people, occaslbning great complaint and animosity, and which, more than any other cause, promoted the spirit of insu bordination and violence which existed in Ireland; the other was a more equal distribution of the temporalities of the church. The first object included the abolition of the church cess; the second, the augmentation of small livings. To such objects were the provisions of the present bill directed, and their im portance could not, he believed, be denied by any one. Here, again, he could refer to high authorities; for the primate of Ireland and the clergy of the diocess of Armagh had admitted, in petitions presented to the house, tht necessity of the aboli tion of the vestry cess, and stated that they would not object to such a diminution as was essential to the churgh establishment. The next object for which the bill prdfeslef to provide was the augmentation of small livings; and he (Earl Giev) would ask their lordships whether it could be denied that this object was of an immense importance? He thought it could not be denied that it would be completely consistent that some portion of the revenues of the church, at present so unequally distri buted, should be applied (and from such an application it could not surely be said any violence was perpetrated) to augment the stipends of those who had labourious duties to perform, and yet were suffering in penury and with incomes hardly sufficient to maintain a decent existence. (Hear.) This was an evil for which a remedy was demanded even by the enemies of the church, and such a remedy was recommended by its best friends. (Hear.) The last object of the bill was the building of churches and glebe-houses, in addition to which, of course, provision was contained in the bill for effecting necessary and proper repairs. It must be obvious to their lordships that such a provision was so immediately necessary, with a view to the best interests of the chuch, that it would be superfluous for him (Earl Grey) to endeavour to persuade their lordships to coincide in that which, seemed to be so established a proposition. he would then, in the first place, call their lordship's attention to that proposition which seemed. most likely to be most warmly contested in the present instance,—he alluded to the sale of perpetuities held by tenants under bishops' leases. This proposition in the bill he could not think would be opposed as an act of spoliation. No thing would be taken from the church—on the contrary, all the revenues which it now enjo d in this respect would be fully secured to them. It never coo be much, if at all objected to, for it was clear that, with the remaining revenues of the church, the bishops of Ireland would be amply and sufficiently pro vided for, not only for the proper and fit execution of their duties, but also to maintain themselves in that situation and• condition entitling them to that respect (Earl Grey) should wish to see continued towards them.i e was at a loss to conceive any cause of opposition to this part of the bill, and though he would admit it would be an alienation from the church, vet the alienation was to be applied to church pro perty. Re was aware that a great deal of dispute had arisen upon this point, and that it had been stated that by limiting this propeHtion . the 'best principle:of the .bill had been sacrificed. In alienating, in the manner proposed, the property affected by the bill, it could not be said that there was any departdre from principle, or anythin g approaching to wrong or injustice, and he had examples and precedents to quote in support of that opi nion. It could not be forgotten by their lnrdships that two years ago a bill had passed through their lordships' house, under the sanction of a right rev, prelate, and which another right rev. prelate supported, by which part of the property of the chapter of Durham was sold for the purpose of establishing a college in that diocese. (Hear, hear.) He (Earl Grey) had subscribed to the propriety of such an application of the revenues, and to the benevolence of the object in view, and no man gave more credit than he did to the right rev. prelate for the liberality he had manifested upon that occasion; and he would further state, that, as in this instance, the property of the church might, without any breach cf the coronation oath, be yielded up with immense advantage to the church itself, by the promotion of good, moral, and religious education of the community. (Hear.) It was proposed by the bill, that as soon as certain bishoprics should fail vacant, they should be united to other sees by which means the number of bishoprics in Ireland would lie reduced front the present number, namely, 22, to 12. He thought that nothing could be offered against and in opposition to this re duction, provided it should be found to be expedient (Hear.) With reference to the number of bishops, he must remind their lordships that in Ireland their number had never been uniform up to the time of the union. The number had once been no less than 33, and from that had fallen below the number at which they at present stood, and had been altered both in prin ciples and modes. The present number of Irish bishops, how ever, was 22, and these sees consisted of several unions of dioceses made at different times, under different circumstances, and by different parties. The noble earl then mentioned other in stances of the kind, and proceeded to say thatfrom these precedents it appeared that the bishoprics of Ireland could be united and held ince/amend= in the same way as is proposed in the bill by the au thority of the crown without the interference of the legislature. He had already said that the number of bishops had been higher as well as lower than at present. The number now, it was known, amounted to twenty-two, while in the reign of James I. the number was eighteen, comprising four archbishops and fourteen bishops, and of that number it was worth attention, that many of the unions of sees then existing were the same as it was proposed to make in the present bill. The 43d clause of the bill proposed, in the first place, to unite the dioceses of Killmore and Ardagh, both of which were held together from the year 1603 to 17'27, with the exception of a short interval in the years 1693 and 1694. The dioceses of Cork and Cloyne were united from the year,l4ol to thy year 1553, and the sees of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross were united from the year 1638 to the year 16%3. It was proposed by the bill to unite the dioceses of Derry and Itaphoe. Now, those dioceses were held by the same bishop from the year 1605 to the year 1610; and with them was also united the bishopric of Clogher. It was proposed in the bill to unite the diocess of Down and Connor with Oro more. Dromore had been formerly annexed to the diocess of Down and Connor from 1606 to hill, and, subsequently, after the restoration, from ldflO to 1667. It was proposed by the bill to unite the diocese of Waterford and Lismure with Cashel and Emly. These dioceses had been united at two different periods, from the y ear 1552 to 1569, and from 1592 to 1607. It appear. ed, then. that of the unions proposed to be established by the bill, five had hitherto existed; and with that evidence before them, he would say. that the expediency of the measure being . 'once proved, they had a - perfect right, without the infraction or contravention of any principle wnatever, to pass a measure for the due regulation of the number of bishoprics in Ireland. He would now come to the question of sees. The question was could 10 bishops he taken from the number now existing in Ire land without detriment to the interests of the Irish established church, or without detriment to the spiritual wants of those per sons who were she objects of the care of that church.? In ad dressing himself to that part of the subject he thought that in common with their lordships he should derive some advantage from comparing the number of bishops in England with the duties which they had to perform, with the number of bishops in Ireland and the duties which they had to • discharge. In England there were, in all, 26,—namely, 2 archbishops, and '24 bishops. He is ould just state the number of benefices that were under their charge, as it was given in a return laid before the House of Commons in 1833, premisiug that he believed it was rather short of the number that had been returned to the eccle siastical cemmissioners. By that return the total number of be nefices under the charge and superintendence of the bishops in England was 10,5:53. It appeared, then, that in England they had 26 bishops for administering a church with 8,000,000 of mem bers. Now, in Ireland there were 22 bishops, and according to the last census of the population of Ireland, taken in 1831, the amount of the whole population of that country was 7,781,536. Now, he believed that the total amount of the members of the established church in Ireland could be fairly stated at not fnore than 1,000,000 of persans. They had therefore in Ireland 22 bishops to superintend the spiritual wants of 1,000,060, while in England 26 bishops performed the same duty for a population of not less than 8,060,0 W. If the number of bishops in Ireland were reduced to the number proposed by the bill, each bishop there would have only 83,000 persons and 121 benefices to at tend to, which was less than one-fourth of the amount of popula tion that each bishop in England had to superintend, and scarcely more than one-fourth of the benefices that were under his charge. He was ready to adroit that the present arrangement of toe dioceses in England might be improved, and he believed that that arrangement might he amended, - and that the dioceses might be better distributed in this country, so as to reduce the amount of labour where it was too great. upon some bishops, and to increase it where it was at present too small upon others. But he conceived that twenty-six bishops,. if properly distri- Nted, were amply sufficient to attend to the spiritual wants of the members of the church in this country, and he had never heard it contended that they were too few. He did not think that the income of the bishops in Ireland should be reduced, in any instance, below £4,000 a-year, which was the minimum fixed by the bill. The Measure in that respect did not aim at perfect equality; at the acme time he thought that means should be taken to remove that immense disparity in value which was to be observed between different sees, pot only in Ireland but in England, and which was the cause of no small odium and imputation being frequentiy cast upon the bishops in both coun tries. Ile would now come to a much disputed _ part of this measure—he meant the tax which it proposed to im pose upon all future incumbents of livings in Ireland. The bill, without diverting the revenues of the church to any purposes that were not ecclesiastical, proposed to apply a por tion of them to purposes which had bug been contempiated by Persons - ishose .station and authority, when he should naine them to the house, would show that they were not likely to act Midas feelings or upon principles adverse to the interests of the established church in Ireland. Ile would beg, in the tirst place, to state, that in the year 1832 the evils of the churCh cess .in Ireland were so strongly felt, and the dangers arising from it were so imminent, that at a meeting which was then held of the clergy of the diocess of Derry, a resolution was carried, recommending the abolition - of the church cess, and that provision should be made for it out of the church funds, including a new valUation of • the first fruits. — Their lordships were aware, that by the 10th of Henry VIII. it was provided, that every clergyman in Ireland, in charge of a benefice, should keep, or cause to be kept, a school in that benefice, defraying the cost out of his stipend. Their lordships would observe, that there was no stipulation made as to the amount to be paid by the clergyman. Since the passing of that statute every clergyman in Ireland on his induction to a benefice was obliged to take an oath that he would keep or cause to be kept a school in his .parish, as prescribed by the statute in question. Now, let them see how far that obligation had been complied with. In the year 1787 it was recommended from the throne thsa some regular and comprehensive plan for the general improvement of education should be established in Ireland, and Mr. Orde, the then Secretary for Ireland, in proposing a measure with thatview, stated in 'his speech on that occasion that since the passing of the 10th of Henry VIII. scarcely any minister had coniplied with the terms of the act, but that a contribution of 40s. from each minister towards the maintainance of a- school had been uniformly considered by them as a compliance with the oblig,iition imposed upon them by the oath they had taken. Mr. Orde then said that, taking 408. as an amount to guide them, he would propose that, to wards the maintenance of schools throughout the country, a contribution cif 40s. should be levied on all livings not worth more than £l5O a-year ; that upon all worth £2OO, and not worth £3OO a-year, £3 per annum should be imposed: and that 6d. in the £1 should be levied on all livings with more than £3OO a-year. Here, then, was a direct proposition to tax the clergy. Their lordships were well aware that the first fruits were origi nally a tax of one year's income, (and were still supposed to be such,) imposed on the incumbent's induction to a benefice, and which, by law, was payable by instalments. The tax was first levied by the Pope, not for church purposes in England, but for the maintenance of the temporal authority of the Pope else where. • After the reformation, the right to levy this tax was transferred to the Crown by an act of the legislature, which; according to Blackstone, considered the tax due to the King : of England, inasmuch as he had become head of the church, in stead of the Pope. Under this title the first fruits were held by the successors of Henry VIII., down to the period when it was converted exclusively to church purposes, as " Queen Anne's bounty." Originally, then, the first fruits was a tax raised not for church purposes, but for temporal objects; and not until the period referred to, when it was very properly set aside for the augmentation of small livings, and the building of churches and glebe-houses, did the first fruits cease -to be part of the re venue of the state, applicable to public purposes. - The first fruits were grauted by Queen Anne for the augmentation of small liv ingsin England, and for the building of churches and glebe houses in Ireland. The fund clearly arose from a tax on the clergy, and the new tax was proposed as a substitution for the first fruits. The principal objects of the measure, as he had stated in the outset, were the abolition of vestry cess, the augmentation of small living's, and the abolition of first fruits. The means by which he proposed to carry these objects into effect were the sale of the perpetuities of bishops' lands, the consolidation of the revenues of the bishops, and a tax on incumbencies. • The sum to be provided in order to effect the before-mentioned ob jects he calculated at £136,500 per annum. The items of that charge were as follow:—Church cess, £60,000; augmentation of livings, £46,500; building churches, £20,000; glebe-houses, £lo,otk : total, £136,500. It could not be pretended that all the objects to be obtained by this expenditure were not church purposes. Church cess emb'raced a variety of matters directly connected with the celebration of religious worship. • The num ber of livings nom £3O to £2OO being 465, it was calculated that to raise them to the latter sum the average augmeutatiini Would be £lOO, which gave a total of £46,500 fur the whole; £20,000 would be devoted to building and repairing churches, estimated on the average' of the last three years; and a sum of £lO,OOO to the erection of glebe-houses—a very necessary expenditure,- in asmuch as not one-half of the benefices in Ireland were pro vided with glebes. Some additional expense would be incurred by the commission, but he trusted not much , and the amoun t being uncertain, it had not been included in the estimate. To meet these expenses there would be the proceeds of a sale of the perpetuities of bishops' leases, of the consolida tion of the bishops' incomes, and of the tax on incumben cies. The annual value of fines of all descriptions on bishops' leases was estimated at £lOO,OOO. This sum was cal -1 culated as one-fifth of the value of the beneficial interest of the tenant, which latter, therefore, amounted' to £500,000. Taking the perpetuity at two years' purchase, it probably might be sold for more, but as there was to be a deduction of 4 per cent. on the purchase-money, he would cut off against this any value that might be obtained above the two years' purchase, which might therefore be taken as producing the net sum of £1,000,0` 1 ;O. The funds, therefore, to meet the charge before stated would be--Interest of £1,000,000 of the produce of perpetiiities, taken at 4 per cent Produce of the suppressed Bishop tics Tax on those which remained Tax on Incumbents Repayments for 15 years Immediate reduction on the. Bishopric of Derry.... Future reduction of the same Bishopric..... Future reduction of Armagh £40,000 50,780 4,6(X) 41,&;0 8,000 4,160 2,000 4,500 £155,840 Making in the whole Of this, however, there would be immediatly avail able only, fiom the Bishopric of Waterford.. 4,000 Repayments Derry (This was to be available from the Ist of Feb rury, 1834) Making in the whole 16,160 To this might be added whatever might be realized from the early sale of perpetuities. All benefices under £3OO a-year wo,ulclhe exempt from this tax. This would reduce the number Of taxed - benefices to 691 out of 1456; and as the tax was to be on a graduated scale it would not impose any grievous burden on any of them. The great object was to raise the small livings to a scale which wouid afford the means of something like adequate payment to those who were the active labourers ita the chtirch. It was on these grounds that he proposed this measure to their lordships, not as an innovation on the rights of the church, but for the sake of the church itself. Some objection had been made to the constitution of the board of commissioners. These were the Primate, the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Lord Chief Justices, four bishope, and three commissioners to be added by the Crown. It was not, however, to be aseumed:that these three consmissoners must necessarily be laymen. They might be laymen or prelates; but even supposing they were to be laymen, he would hope that, abused as his Majesty's ministers had been with respect to this .bill, taunted as they had been with recommending a violation of the Kin - grs coronation oath, they would last be suspected of recommending persons for appointment as members of this board of commississioners who could be disposed to use their power 'to the injury of the church. • The authority of• the board was defined by the act. They had authority to apply the funds, to authorize the building of churches, and the purchase of glebes, and to apply the funds for such other services as the church cess bad been applied to. He could.not see' how it was in the power of the imagination of man to object to such a dis posal of church • property, as not being . for church purposes. I'he bill which was now before their lordships was not a new thought of ministers : it was in perfect accordance .with the principles cn which they had declared they would act from the moment of their entrance into office. A noble lord had said that he saw in this bill the symptoms and the consequences of that line of policy which ministers had adopted. The policy thus alluded to was, of course, the conduct which they had fol lowed on the question of reform. From that policy ministers would not shrink. Their opinions had been well known on that question long before their acceptance of office: They came into office avowing the necessity of having a reform—a necessity which was felt and acknowledged even by many of those who thought that the measure of reform proposed went too far. Whatever may be the blame cast upon his Majesty's minis ters for the course they have pursued, I am convinced that justice will be done, sooner or later, to the views which they have taken, and to the efforts which they have made to carry the principle of reform to many of•those great abuses to which re:brm was applicable.. He thanked their lordships for the attention with, which they had listened to his statements. Ile • had now explained the motives and objects which had influenced him in bringing forward the present measure. He trusted that he had done so without using a single expression that was cal culated to excite a hostilefeeling ; for he could assure their lordships that it was no less his wish than his duty to discuss this important subject with that calmness and deliberation which ought to prevail in all discussions in their lordships' house. He would not trespass further upon theii time, but would con clude by moving that the bill be now read a second time. (The noble earl then sat down amidst great cheering.) The Earl of RODEN moved as an amendment, that this bill be read a second time this day six months. The Earl of WICKLOW supported the bill. The Bishop of DUItHAM was accustomed to look to the pre amble of the bill, not only for the 'Object. of the measure, but the grounds upon which it was proposed. On the present occasion he found nothing in the preamble, except a broad decla ration that it would be exedient and' convenient to do what the bill proposed to effect. lie would not object to the= - systenrc taXafien, if it were not .confined exclusively to the clergy. , It . was preferable to the suppression of bishoprics, and on this ac count—that taxation did not destroy property. It might be very oppressive and unjust,—it might amount almost to confiscation, —but still it did nut in itself destroy property. The very idea of taxation implied the existence of property to ta - S, antiwhen a tax was removed the property remained entire in the hands of its owners. - When they once passed this measure, it would not. be in the power of the legislature to prevent - other similar mea sures, which would go much further. (Hear.) Considering that the measure deeply affected the -best interests of the country, and those of the church in particular, it was impossible he could support it ; and if their ltirdo)ips divided upon it, he must be under the necessity of votifig,egainst the bill. The Earl of LIMERICK said that he had the misfortune to be a member of the 1 - louse of Leads in Ireland at the union, when a noble and learned lord had warned that house of the conse quences of placing Ireland under a foreign legislature.- He owned he did trust. to the honour and generosity of this coun try. They were told that property was not safe; that the Pro testant religion would be subverted; that if they agreed to the uuiou, the land would be. safe, the church would he preserved, and no zealots from Rome would shake them and drive them from their position. (Hear.) -What had happened since? They had been told that they were left a security in the Protestant. boroughs of Ireland. hat was the case at present? Only one, he thou g ht, of those boroughs was not now in the hands of the Roman Catholics. (Hear.) They had been told there were too many bishops. Why not say at once they did not want one ? AVhat use were they ? The Catholics were ready to undertake the cure of souls:- (Hear.) Certain conditions had been an nexed to the measure of Catholic emancipation, not one of which had been observed. That bill contained precautions against the assumption of the title by Catholic bishops; and what was now doing ? They were reducing the number of Protestant bishops. Was the Protestant church safer for that? Was the property of the church safer? Ministers had been pledged to give their reasons for the introduction of this measuie, and be found that, having by their own measures. broup,lit Ireland almost into e state of barbarism, they had been forced to do something to counteract the evils created by themselves. It was allowed on all hands that the church never was in a more pure (or improv ed, we did not-collect which) state than at the present moment. Ile hoped he had not said any thing irritating, for he approved of the mode in which the measure had been introduced to the house by the noble earl. The Marquis Cor. YNGIIAM said that no rean.was more firmly and devotedly attached to the Protestant church than he was, and he felt-as anxious to do all he could to serve her as he did to avoid doing any thing to injure-her. Although this measure had been called an act of spoliation, it ought to be regarded as a boon. (Hear.) Ile saw no vested rights done away with. The Earl of WINCIIII.SEA could assure their*lordships, with the greatest -sincerity; that- it was with no slight reluctance •he resolved to take his scat within theSe walls again, and to f orego his resolution to take no part in their deliberutione till THE LIVERPOOL STAN DARD. the period when their lordships', by the just and unanimous voice of their deluded countrymen, were placed in a situation' to assert the legal . and constitutional independence which be longed to them. The bill, in his opinion, was an arbitrary and despotic bill, and a measure calculated to destroy the Protest ant. interest in Ireland. ." The Bishop of ROCHESTER opposed the bill; he objected to the clergy being called un.apart from the rest of the community to pay for the repairs, &c. of churches. It would be quite as reus.mahle to ask thee LOrd Chancellor and the judges to re build Westminster-hall, if it happened to be burnt down. From the Moment the clerk at the table should in reference to this bill here pronounce the words "le Roi le vent," his Majesty would have publicly violated the engagements of the coronation oath. The noble earl on the other side had last year stated, that with out the assistance of the clergy neither the resident nobility and gentry, nor the magistracy and civil force, could have succeeded iu repressing disturbance in Ireland. He trusted that even if this measure became law, the clergy-would evince their Chris tian feeling by persisting in well doing, although doubtless they might be held excusable for taking less interest in the public ;;welfare under a state of things by which they were oppressed and deprived of their just rights and .privileges. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the power of the clergy to promote the public peace would be lessened by a measure which deprived them of the ability to interfere with effect, or even to protect themselves. - The - Bishop of EXETER moved that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow. Earl Gm y, knowing that many noble lords were anxious to speak on the question, acceded to the proposition, but expressed a hope that the discussion might be brought to a close to-morrow. The motion for an adjournment of the debate was agreed to, , and the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY, JULY 17. The ,eallery was opened at a quarter-past twelve. P Mr. LUMPTRE presented a petition from Thomas Atcheson, formerly a captain in the Artillery, stating that he had en tered the Royal Artillery in 1804, and discharged his duty with an unblemished character • that he was discharging his military duties at Malta, 1823, when he received, through the military authorities, a requisition of the Roman Catholic Church to toll a bell and fire from patteraroes, used by the churches and mo nastei ies, a description of salute peculiar to the worship of the Host at mass, and the processions of the images of the tutelar saints, under the directions and signals of the priests conduct ing the worship; that he was engaged to serve his Majesty . under the obligations of a Protestant oath and worship, enjoined on the acceptance of his commission, which oath denounced these ceremonies as idolatrous; that the petitioner addressed a letter to his commanding officer, respectfully stating his objections to carry these religious ceremonies into effect; and that the conse quence was, that the duty was performed by the garrison gunner, without any censure being passed upon the petitioner, either by the commanding officer or the lieutenant-governor of Malta, but that after a lapse of eight months he-was brought to trial on a charge of disobedience, in not carrying into effect an order to fire signals at Fort Angelo, and for writing .a letter to his commanding officer of remonstrance, and that on this chirge he was dismissed the service. The petition prayed the house to adopt means for investigating the transaction, in order to obtain a revision of the sentence. A discussion ensued on this petition which was ordered to lie on the table. After re ceiving other petitions the Speaker adjourned the house at three o'clock. The Speaker resumed the chair at a few minutes after five o'clock. STAFFORD BRIBERY BILL. Sir T. FREEMANTLE brought up the report on this bill, and it was ordered to be printed. The hon. baronet „ b gave notice of his intention to move, on the 6th of August, for leave to bring in a bill for disfranchising the borough of Stafford. (Hear, hear.) EAST INDIA BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, and passed the several clauses from the 58th to the 88th, with the exception of the 75th, which was postponed. On the 89th clause, which provides for the extinction of sla very being read, Mr. C. GRANT said he had an amendment of some importance to propose to this clause. As it stood at present it contained positive enactments for the extinction of slavery; but as positive enactments on such a subject might cause considerable difficulty, in consequence of slavery in the East Indies depending in some degree on the distinction of castes, and the rights of families, he should propose that " the Governor-General. in council should be required forthwith to frame laws and regulations for the ex tinction of slavery, due regard being paid to the laws of marriage, and the rights and authorities of fathers and heads of families, and to report such laws and regulations to the court of directors before the Ist of January, 1 835 , and every succeeding year ; and that the court of directors should within 14 days of their receipt lay them before Parliament." Sir R. INGLIS thought that the amended clause might be still more amended, not only in reference to the religious, but also with respect to the temporal interests involved in it. After some further, discussion, the clause as amended was agreed to. Upon the 90th clause being put from the chair, Mr. 0' CoNNELL opposed it, upon the principle that its object was the establishment of a state religion in India. Mr. STANLEY characterised the opposition to proceeding with this clause as frivolous and vexatious, and said that no new principle was involved in it; the simple question being, whether India should be governed by one bishop and three archdeacons, or three bishops and two archdeacons. The proposed arrange ment would only occasion an additional expense to the country of £lOO per annum. After' a few words from Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Grant, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. Stanley, it was agreed that the chairman should report progress. The house accordingly resumed, the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday. Mr. Monaay gave notice of a motion to bring in a bill to re peal the Foreign Enlistment act. On the motion of Mr. WARBURTON, the production of certain papers connected with the Deccan prize money was ordered. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at two o'clock, HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY, JULY 18. The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition from a clergy man cf Abingdon,. Berkshire, against certain parts of the labour rate bill. CHURCH TEMPORALITIES ( } I 2 IIELAND) BILL. The Bishop of EXETER moved t e resumption of the ad journed debate on the above bill. Lord CARBEny immediately rose to address their lordships. It evidently appeared, and their lordships must admit the fact, that there nad been in Ireland, for some time back, a systematic conspiracy against the acknowledged rights of the church. These violent proceedings had led to the present bill ; and he would say, that the principle of the bill, as it now stood; was the most dangerous that could be conceived with reference to the safety and security of the Protestant Church of Ireland. After entering into some figure statements in opposition to those made by Earl Grey on the preceding evening, but which we could. not collect, the noble lord concluded by saying, that greatly as he objected to the bill, yet, as It was a measure of vital importance, he IN as not disposed to vote against its going into committee. The Bishop of EXETER, acting on the most solemn grounds, hut feeling considerable difficulty when he found an individual possessing the knowledge and experience of the noble baron snaking such a statement, came forward to assert those princi ples which he felt it to be his duty to avow in the face of that necessity. Considering the feelings that operated on the mind of that noble person, it was impossible not to see that he (the Bishop of Exeter) incurred a most heavy responsibility in pur suing this course; that responsibility he was, however, contented to bear. In discussing this question, he felt it to be his impera tive duty to cast aside all personal considerations; to view it on its abstract merits alone, because he believed that the interests of the church of God . and the interests of truth were at stake. There was, he might be permitted to observe, a right insisted on elsewhere,—a right always admitted, and which ought to be admitted,—that was the right to consider and decide on certain subjects solely for themselves, without the intervention of that house; he alluded to the right which the other house possessed to regulate and apportion the amount of any tax that was to be imposed by the legislatUre. He lamented that a different principle should have been acted on in the present instance, because a decision had here been come to with reference to the property of men who were not represented in the place where Vol decision was carried. There was not one of their own body present to feel with 'them or act with them. He well knew the grounds on which that right was claimed by. the other house—a right which' they most anxiously maintained, and which he certainly never wished to see abandoned. They claimed it as the representives of the people, and, as taxation must fall on the whole body of the realm, as their constituents must bear the burden, they insisted on the right of imposing that burden. In this instance, however, a contrary principle prevailed—a very small portion of the community was called on to bear a very heavy burden. Yet the very principle on which the other house of parliament rested its claim rendered it proper and necessary that some means should have been adopted by which those who were taxed under this measure should have been represented. Such a measure might easily have been found if ministers thought fit to have adopted the principle. If they had proceeded by resolution, rather than by bill, then their lordships might have considered this tax in all its bearings, and they might have been enabled to discuss this Matter with the other house, either by way of conference, or ire some.other mode, as to secure the concurrence of all parties. The noble earl had stated the objects of the bill to be three : let, the abolition of the vestry cess; 2d, the augmentations of small livings; and, 3d, the building and repairing r of churches. WitTi - reS'peet to the vestry cess, lie should find it necessary to trouble their lordships at some length. The noble earl had last night, in an elaborate display of figures, attempted to show that sufficient funds would be provided for meeting all the ex penses incidental to the new arrangement. Now, he would contend that those funds would be devoured by the demand oc casioned on account of the vestry cess. After denying the accuracy of Earl Grey's statement by a reference to the actual value of church property, and the probable amount that the sale of it would realize, the Rev. Prelate said, that the result would be that all the funds.pointed out by the noble lord, and which he had considerably overstated, would not be sufficient to provide even for the vestry cess; that would devour ;not only the tax laid on the clergy, but all the other funds that had been enumerated. He should now take a view of the bill itself. It appealed to him to he constructed on a very peculiar principle. To say that it was a delusion would be hard, for he did not think that it would delude,any one. (Hear, hear.) It was made up of a series of improved propositions,—the very title of the bill showed that. It was called "An act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the church in Ireland." Now, how did that title agree with the contents of the measure ? Let their lordships look to the bill on their table " to alter and amend the live relating to real property," and let them suppose that all which that bill was to effect was merely to take off the legacy duty, and charge it on the land. .(Hear, hear.) The. inconsistency would be evident, but such an inconsistency would not be greater than that which was manifest if they cons pared the title of this bill with its provisions. The preamble of the bill said, "whereas it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of first fruits in Ireland, and the substitution of an annual tax in lieu therebf." Now, it appeared that these first fruits did net amount to more than £3OO a-year, which was pay abe by a great numberof persons; and he did think it extraor dinary that any body of men should arrive at the opinion that it was expedient to do away an impost of that trifling amount for the purpose of substituting a tax of £50,000 or £60,000 a-year. (Hear.) The noble earl thought that there was a full ation for the abolition of first fruits. They were paid originally to the Pope, for temporal purposes; the new head of the church in this country succeeded the Pope in demanding th it-contribution, and now, it appeared, the legislature claimed the'rits,ht of dealing with it in their turn. (Hear, hear.) He d:ew that inference; he did not charge the noble earl with having drawn it (hear, hear;) but such was the inference which he thought he was justified in drawing. He was well aware of the case which had been cited of the establishment of the University of Dublin, and agreed in the opinion that that might at 'firsfsight form a distinct precedent of the transfer of church property to lay purposes; but it must not be forgotten that a portion of the revenues of the church, as well observed by the right reverend prelate, (the Bishop of Durham,) were set ;past for promoting the ativancement of teaming. About twenty or thirty years ago, the schools in that university were increased, end in comequeuce.a p.ortion. of these revenues were devoted to the extension - of - their foundations ; but this proceeding Nz„, -0% surely offered no precedent for the appropriation of the church revenues to any other than church purposes. It was evi dent, therefore, any the measure before the house rested on no precedent whatever, and must stand or fall by its own merits. The preamble of the bill asserted that it was " expedient that compulsdry assessments by vestries should be abolished in cer tain cases. Now, he by no means objected to this proposition. He, indeed, would be a -bold man who should say, that under all the circumstances the assessment by . vestries in Ireland should be maintained. He would not aspire to such rashness of assertion; in fact, he was an advocate for the reduction of the assessment, and warmly supported the expediency of putting an end to it in many cases; but then he would say that it was absolutely necessary that the amount of the reduction should be provided for in some other way than was pointed out in the bill. I3ut by whom should it be provided? By the landed pro prietors, for the vestry cess was strictly a charge upon the land; and he contended that the landed proprietors were bound, in justice and equity, to pay the rate proposed to be imposed by the bill before the house. When imposed upon the land it was a just assessment, but when transferred to the clergy; as the present bill proposed to do, it was the greatest piece of injustice and fraud that could be perpetrated. He had, indeed, hoped that the landlords of Ireland themselves, when the exigency presented itself, would have come forward with honourable ea gerness to disclaim the disgrace and the shame of partaking of the profits drawn from the church. It would be almost a shame that they should refuse to defray the charge from their very opulent purses, and throw it upon men who at the moment he was speaking in too many instances did not even possess a home. (Heat.) He was perfectly convinced they would not, at least, do so from any base or sordid motives; and would frankly own that there was nothing in the character of the Irish landlords which ought to subject them to such a charge. If the evidence before the committees of both houses were looked to, it would be seen that the conduct of the Protestant clergy was exhibited in the most gratifying light. Major Wood, who was frequently in the prosecution of his avocation in close con tact with them, had borne the highest testimony to their cha racter, and stated that while all other branches of the higher classes of society had deserted the Irish • population, the Pro testant clergy had remained to render their good offices, and that had it not been for their philanthropic exertions every trace of education and civilization would have been . wanting. He asked, then, were these meritorious men to be treated in the way in which the present bill proposed to them ? They had in their favour the testimony even of Dr. Doyle himself; the tes timony also of the Bishop of Limerick and of the - Roman Catho lic priest Father O'Leary. The right rev. prelate then referred to an opinion, we undersood deliveted by Father O'Leary, respecting the Protestant clergy of Ireland, by which it repre sented that the interest o? the people of that country was espe cially directed to uphold the existence of that clergy. This opinion was given in 1787, since which time the character of the Protestant clergy had been much elevated in the estimation of the great body of the people. After such evidence, would their lordships consent to burden the clergy of Ireland with the onus of the abolition of the vestry cuss? It ought to be borne in mind that this charge on the clergy would be more than equivalent to the highest property tax that ever the wildest politi cal theorist had ventured to propose. If restricted to the land lords, five farthings per cent. per annum might be adequate to meet the whole charge. The rental of the lands in Ireland ex ceeded £12,000,000 if.' annum, and according to the valuation to which he had adverted, the £63,000 might be made up without touching the clergy at all. The real question was, whether the house would consent to impoveish the clergy by levying this tax upon them? But there was another consideration connected with the question—that was, the uniform residence of the clergy in Ire land. The acts of benevolence they exercised when they were resident were well ascertained, and even when not resident their general kindness was conspicuous. EYery one who heard him could not fail to bear evidence to the beneficial influence the Protestant clergy exercised over the Irish people, and to the at tention they paid to their interests. Mr. Leslie Foster had given some evidence as to the effects of the vestry cess, and when asked whether it was regarded generally as a grievance, had said "that where it was not necessary to build new churches, the amount of cess, was very trifling—something like one penny and a fraction per acre; but where it was necessary to build new churches, ,an additional rate was imposed, varying from 2d., 3d., and 4d. to Is. per acre, and in the latter case he thought it had excited dis satisfaction. Mr. Leslie Foster also spoke of the generous con duct of the noble marquis below (the Marquis of Lansdowne, we believe) in his character of landlord, to which also other wit nesses deposed. He (the Bishop of Exeter) begged also to refer to the evidence of another estimable witness, Colonel Currie, the agent of a noble duke (the Duke of Devonshire) whom he did not see in his place. Col. Currie expressed before the committee his opinion to be, that if the church-rate were paid by the landlord, it would remove all cause of complaint on the part of the tenants. It was stated on the best authorities, that not less than two-thirds of the whole landed property in Ireland was held by absentees, and this fact was an ingredient to be taken into account upon the present occasion. lie must also quote another evidence on the subject of vestry cess, viz.,—Dr. Murray, the Roman Catho lic Archbishop of _Dublin. Dr. Murray had in his evidence said, that if the church-rates, instead of being made a charge upon the occupying tenants, were charged upon. the landlords, he was induced to think it likely that dissatisfaction would cease. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would admit that this evidence ap plied to the state of things existing in Ireland some years ago, but these admissions lost nothing by the lapse of time, but were equally valuable on the present occasion, for they admitted the point of right and justice. The right rev, prelate proceeded to observe, that from the report of a select committee appointed by the House of Commons in 1830, to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland, it would be found that this committee -ex pressed their opinion that it was the duty of the government and the legislature to consider what means should be devised for diminishing the great mass of suffering, by providing for the better management of estates in Ireland, and by the regu lation of the relation between landlord and tenant. (Hear.) It might be said, that in the bill now before their lordships other objects were contemplated besides the vestry cess, and for thoae so much was to be taken away from the church. Those objects were the augmentation of small livings, and to secure the efficient performance of the service of the church and its stability. Of these points he thought he had disposed, for he had shown that there would he no funds for carrying any of these objects into effect; on the contrary, all the funds under the bill were taken to supply the place of the vestry cess; but even supposing there might be a surplus, he must remind their lordships that a tax was to be imposed on the clergy. It was commonly supposed, nay, had been often asserted, and was generally believed, that the property of the bishops of Ireland was in fact property which had been transferred by acts of Par liament from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant bishops, and it was argued, therefore, that an act of Parliament could again make the transfer. The fact, however, was, that no such transfer had ever been made, nor were there any such acts of Parliament. In truth, when Henry Viii. threw off his alle giance to the Pope, his example had been folloWed by almost all the prelates of that day, with the exception of some few whose memories he (the Bishop of Exeter) honoured as having suffi cient principle to resist. The Archbishop of Armagh and some of his suffragans did so resist, but the majority of the bishops did conform, and by their hypocrisy retained the possession of their sees ; and how had they used them ? They leased out their lands, and acted in such a way as tended to enrich them selves and relatives, while they impoverished the reformed church. This had been alluded to by a rev. prelate, D. Jeremy Taylor. That rev. writer complained, that, at the time in question, the episcopal sees were so wasted that they were utterly incapable of maintaining the bishops appointed to them. That had been one of the chief causes of the unions of sees that then took place. In consequence of that, adopting a suggestion that had been made originally by Cranmer, Lord Strafford had a com mission issued for the purpose .of devising means for making suitable proviiion for the maintenance of the bishops in Ireland. The result of that commission was, that a large portion of the lands in the north of Ireland, forfeited in the rebellions of Tyrone and others, was appropriated to the support of the bishops there. Their lordships were aware that, at that period, the whole of the north of Ireland was forfeited to the Crowu, which made the foundation of the great Protestant settlement of Ulster. It was on that occasion that so many of the ancestors of noble lords, now sitting in that house, received from their sovereign those vast properties which their descendants now held in the north of Ireland ; and the bishops of the province of Ulster were then also enriched from the same source. He was sure, there fore, that their lordships would see that the bishops of Ulster had the same undoubted right to the property which they had derived from that source, as those noble lords had to the pro perty which they had in the same way obtained in the north of ' Ireland, and that, if their lordships should be ill-advised enough to shake the opinion as to the right of property pos sessed by the bishops there, they would not merely be phin derers of the property of the church, they would be destroy ers of their own. (" Hear, hear ! " from the opposition.) He did not believe that their lordships would be either. But it was not merely in the north of Ireland that the re venues of the bishops did not constitute a property that had been strictly and literally transferred to them from the hands of the Roman Catholic bishops, but was property,with which they had been endowed by a Protestant King . . That endowment had also been extended to parts of the south of Ireland. It so happened that by the 14th and 15th of Charles 11., which was well known as the Act of Settlement in Ireland, a large portion of the forfeited property was given to the southern bishops in Ireland. The right rev. prelate having read the 102 d. clause of the act, to the effect he had stated, went on to say that their lordships would see that the rights of those bishops were placed exactly upon the same footing as the rights of the noble lords who inherited property under that act. It somewhat re markably happened, that by the very preceding' c:ause of ,this act, the 101st, a large property in the touth of Ireland was set tled upon the ancestor of one of their lordships. a he.right rev. prelata here read the clause, which settled a large poi Lion of the forfeited lands in the south of Ireland upon Sir W. Petty, his heirs and successors. He proceeded to say that their lords) - lips would perceive that the noble marquis (Lansdowne), one of the authors of the present measure, and one of those that recom mended the sequestration of the property of the bishops in that part of the country, was himself possessed of lands there, the right to which rested upon exactly the mine foundation. (Hear, hear.) • He would venture to advise that noble niarquis—Lbut no—he would recall the word—he would not presume to advise him what to do, but he would state wbat he himself would do were he placed under similar circumstances, and were this measure carried. He would, under such circumstances, sell all his pro perty in that part of Ireland, being well assured that the same fate -which he himself had dealt to the property of the bishops there would ultimately await his own. (Cheers from the opposition.) The noble earl bad told them that it was right and proper, not merely for the purpose of procuring funds to, meet the de mands now provided for by the vestry cess, butalso for the sake of the church of Ireland itself, that the number of the Inehops there should be diminished. The preamble of the bill had a very modest statement on that point. It said, " Whereas the number of bishops in Ireland maybe conveniently diminished." Conveniently ! to whom, and for what? He could very well understand that it might be convenient to those noble lords, and to those right hon, gentlemen, who were endeavouring to ac complish that which it would be impossible to accomplish, namely, to satisfy the cravings of a clamorous and greedy fac tion, by yieldingio its menaces, and treading in its footatepS. (Cheers from the opposition.) To them it might he convenient to propose such a measure with regard to the church of Ireland; but could it be convenient to do so on the part of the fa ithful counsellors of a Protestant King, which their lordships were? (Hear, hear) Could it be "convenient" to those who were entitled to give advice to their Sovereign, and who were bound to give him just and proper advice, to advise that Sovereign, who had sworn in the most solemn manner to maintain to the utmost of his power the Protestant religion as by law esta blished, to preserve to all and every bishop 'his existing rights and privileges, and to maintain inviolate the settlement of the Protestant church it Ireland,—could itbe "convenient," he re peated, to the hereditary advisers of such a Sovereign to, join with those who had recommended him to give his assent to a measure that went to sacrifice the interests of that church ? In addition to what he had already stated, another considera tion remained, which could not but be regarded with the deepest concern in coming to a determination on the present measure. What, he asked, would and must-be the feelings both of Pro testants and Roman .Catholics in Ireland if the legislature should think fit to pass it? Was it possible that the Protestant religion should be regarded by ail parties otherwise than as having lost time countenance and favour of the legislature ? Would it not appear that their lordships no longer regarded the established church as an object worthy of support and pious respect? (Hear.) Let it.be home in mind that the feelings of Roman Catholics were now very different fi can what they were wont to be. 'flint class of persons etsbibited a port, and 1 X 3 3 , 1.833 - . assumed a tone oNefiance us as were wholly unkno wt ; amongst them a few ?ears ago. TNionian Catholic "churc h ' ' was now spoken or, although no long period had elapsed sinca its heads were content to describe themselves as " prelates of the Roman Catholic communion in Ireland." The Roman Catholic bishops so designated themselves when they approached the throne to return thanks to the father of his present for a measure of kindness and liberality, which might be con sidered as involving a complete tolerance of persons of that persuasion. But all that was now very much changed, and not only was the Roman Catholic religion described as "the Ro man Catholic church in Ireland ;" but Dr. Doyle spoke o f it as " the church" in Ireland, and of the Protestant bishop s as. being no bishops at all, or bishops merely in name. A •work by Dr. Doyle, which was used as a class-book in the stu d y of canon law in the college of Maynooth (a seminary mainta ined st the expense of a Protestant state) was dedicated--to w hom did their lordships think ?—to "the Most Rev. Father in Goa Patrick Curtis, Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ire land." A class-book in the science of logic, also used in the same seminary, spoke of the illustrious Bishop Berkley as " Hibernia pact° episcopus." Here were sufficient evidences ofas sumption and denunciation on the part of the Roman Catholics. He would now say one word as to the commissioners who were to be appointed under this bill. Three of these might be lay! men, and most probably would be so; but, whoever they might he, they were to have the, power of nomination to the cure of souls. This was not only without example, but was contrary to ail principle. If he were dispoied to take a lower view of it, he might ask whether there was an instance of forming a corpora m], eight out of eleven of whose members were removable at pleasure ? This, however, was so trifling a part of the bill, com pared with those other parts to which he had referred, that he did not feel it necessary to waste their lordships' time by dwell ing further on it. By the way, in alluding to the revenu es of Irish church, it was now put beyond any question Of U doubt that the most egregiously erroneous statements had been made as -to the amount of those revenues. Could those re- venues be considered enormous which did not give an averago income of EU) a-year to every clergyman of the Irish church? What was the oath. which Catholics were called on to take by' the Relief Bill before they could take a seat in Parliament' It had these woods—"and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present church establishment, as settled by law, within these realms; and I do solemnly , swear that I never will never exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the United Kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words oft his oath, without any evasion, equivocation,_ or mental reservation whatsoever." Now, any man who took such an oath as that, and who was honest and meant to observe what he swore, would studiously abstain from doing that which would subvert or tend to subvert or injure the Protestant establishment. Yet, after such a solemn test, he would beg their lordships to consir der what had been the estimate made of its obligation by many of those who bad taken it. He would not refer more particu larly to the language used in another place; but their lordships must have observed, through the ordinary channels of commu nication, how lightly some individuals seemed to think of the obligation which they had undertaken by the oath he had read, and how strongly disposed they seemed to set that oath at nought. It seemed to be the opinion of those individuals, that as long as they did not interfere with the articles of the Protestant faith, they kept their oath, though they could not be ignorant that it was intended by those who drew up that oath,s that it should not only prevent those who took it from acting injuriously to the established church, but that it also bound them to act with kindness towards that church. This consideration brought him to a topic of a very grave cha racter,—he meant the duty incumbent upon each of their lord ships to uphold the Protestant religion, and more especially the duty incumbent them, as legislators in a Protestant state, to consider the obligation which their Sovereign contracted at his coronation. If, unhappily, the illustrious individual who would on this occasion have to decide this point for himself, and who, their lordships were bound to believe, as he unfeignedly did believe, would decide it on the purest principles according to the dictates of his own conscience, should decide it differently from his opinion, it would be his duty to submit in silence ; but at present he thought that it was incumbent upon them, as legislators and peers of parliament, to bear in mind what it was their duty to do in respect to that oath in tendering to his Majesty the present bill. He felt that it was his own duty—he felt also that it was the duty of all their lordships, to abstain most entirely from pressing on his Majesty, or, indeed, from offering to his acceptance, any measure which was imagined not to be in accordance with the obligations which his Majesty contracted at his coronation. (hear, hear.) If their lord ships should think that the tendency of any measure was to shake the security of the Protestant church establishment and to weaken the influence of the Protestant religion in this coun try,—it they should think that the tendency of any measure before them was to violate that which his Majesty had sworn to preserve inviolate,—namely, the present settlement of the church of Ireland, with the doctrine, discipline, and go vernment thereof,—he was certain that there was not one of them but would join with him in saying that it was their com mon duty to abstain from voting in favour of such a measure. Let them for a moment consider the nature of the distinction which had been attempted to be drawn between the King in his legislative and his executive capacity, on which was founded the untenable assumption, that the coronation oath bound him not in his former, but in his latter capacity. Now, he held that the constitution did not recognize this double capacity of the kingly office. He held that the notion of a monarchy—that is, an absolute monarchy—as contra-distinguished from the limited monarchy ofEngland, implied that the whole government of the country was vested in the King; and that the notions of a limited monarchy implied that the King could exercise no royal functions unless with the advice of his Parliament and responsi ble councillors. This, he need not tell them, was the usage of the British government. In the exercise of his higher duties, as a branch of the legislature, the King is aided by both houses of Parliament in establishing and settling the law of the land, just as the privy council were his advisers in the case of pro clamations, and so on with the other royal functions, placing it beyond doubt that it was absurd to believe that the corona tion oath bound the King in one capacity while it loosed him in another. That such was not the case he thought was evident from a consideration of the origin and tendencir of the corona tion oath. It was perhaps hardly necessary . for him to remind them of the remarkable tact that the coronation oath of Edward the Confessor was in force till the reign of William III; and that it was mentioned, eo nomine, in the coronation oath of James 11. The oath was contained in the Leges Edouardi, c. 1, entitled, De Regis officio et de Jure et appendicibus Corona Regni Britannia. Now, those laws distinctly showed the duty and office of the King, enjoining him to fear God and honour him above all things ; that he should reverence the holy church and defend it against its enemies ; that he make good laws and pre serve approved customs (hear;) that he ought to distribute justice, and to take the counsel of his nobles prelates, and wise men. (Hear.) If words had any meaning, did it not follow that that part of the oath which bound the King to make " good laws and preserve approved customs" applied to the King in his legis lative capacity ? and if so, was it not absurd to assert that the oath bound him in his executive, but loosed him in his legislative cape city. The ith of Edward 1., c. 1, called the' statute of St. Alban's, a.ter confirming the charter of forests and magna charta, states, that the King should not give his assent to any laws "contrary to his coronation oath ;" that is, that he was bound by his oath in his legislative capacity. Then, in the next reign, they would find in the 15th of Edward IL, this principle most explicitly asserted. That statute was a repeal of other statutes which - Edward had passed in favour of the Despensers; and it stated, that these acts should be repealed because, among other rea sons, it was contrary to his Majesty's coronation-oath, that hound him, at the risk of his soul, to make good laws, (juntas leyes,) and to extirpate bad ones. (Hear.) The same principle was also asserted in the reign of that illustrious prince Edward 111. But, without fatiguing them with more instances, from the statute-book, he would briefly refer them to the proceedings of the legislature at the time of the union with Scotland. He need not remind them that great apprehensions were, at the time, entertained by the people of Scotland, lest the measure should prove detrimental to the interests of the church of Scotland, the legislature of England being "essentially of the prelatic. persuasion." The assembly of the church of Scotland accord ingly petitioned that the rights of that church might be pre-, served entire ' • and in obedience to that petition, an act was passed, which did insure the integrity, of those rights. But the Assembly was not satisfied, for they requested the security of —what? Why, a coronation oath, (hear!) and that security was conferred on them. (Hear!) But this was not all, for the members of the "prelatic persuasion," in their manner, also entertained apprehensions for the integrity of the established Church; new that Presbyterian peers and commoners were likely to become members of the united legislature; and they, in their turn, demanded the security of the coronation oath for the in- terests of the church of England, and that security— Lord PLUNKETT,—The church of England and Ireland, " The Bishop of EXETER thanked the learned lord. The church of Ireland was included. He was not surprised at the friendly remonstrance, knowing that that learned lord agreed with hint, that the coronation oath applied to the King in his legislative capacity. ("No, no," from Lord Plunkett.) No ! he was in deed astonished by the denial. Unless the learned lord was most grossly misrepresented, he (on the 10th June, 1820,) Uls referring to Lord Kenyon's letter to George 111., in reference to the coronation oath, in. which that eminent judge told hiS sovereign that that oath was merely meant to protect the Pro testant constitution of this country from the designs of Popery' jest as the declaration of Charles 11. bound both houses of Par liament, stated " that be considered this opinion of Lord Ken yon as that of a sound lawyer and, honest counsellor i but that. he conceived that cases might arise in which the King might feel himself bound by his coronation oath to refuse his assent to the nets of his Pailiamente for example, were that Parlia ment to demand his assent to a bill for abolishing the hierarchy of the established church (loud cries of " hear, hear," from the opposition) ;' that in such cases his coronation oath would pre elude his assent in his legislative capacity, as it was binding 0- tween his conscience and his God. (Cheers from the s ame quarter.) It was this emphatic language made him believe that the learned lord like himself conceived the coronation oath to bind the King in his legislative no less than his executive cepa' city. if he was wrong, the learned lord would, of course, set him right. The .right rev. prelate concluded with thanki n g lordships for the attention 1 ith which they had heard hieati He was ashamed at having detained them at such length , el l could only say that he should not trespass on their forbearan ce at such length.. in future. • Lord PLUNKETT said that he would not attempt to follow the right rev. prelate through the wide range of argumEnt which he hail taken. The right rev. prelate had certainly introduced jet ° the discussion a vast quantity of matter of a very subduing r il e t ; tore, in every, sense of the word, (" Hear," and alaugh.) right rev. prelate said that the predictions which had been tee"; of the good consequences that would result from Catholic ceeni cipaiiou had not been verified. Their lordships Would do wed to recollect the period at which those predictions were made , the manner in which the, eneasuie of relief had been delay ei r and thence they might deduce a lesson of experience. I hei, lordships might. learn from that example the folly of delae i t a measure the efficiency of which depended upon its being. vi c l ar tingly- and timeously granted, and he hoped that they would D re. that circumstance in mind in considering the present naeas,e,er It would appear from the statements of the right rev. prel:',,o, and of a noble lord who spoke last night, that there wa s a ci,t.'.ol sniracy at work in Ireland against the church. He belie be there were persons who would be delighted to pull down , Protestant church in that country. (" Hear," from the ea se sition.) He would make a present of that declaration to Oleo, who cheered him. In his opinion it Was essential to the seiciii'y of the Protestant church that some measure should be sP ee ro of adopted for the purpose of strengthening it, and making it Pow against the machinations of its enemies. Last nigh t a noble o f lord who generally supposed himself to be the represen ts, tro t the Protestants'of Ireland in that house, but whom he d id fle then ate in his place—(` s Hear,' from the. Earl of Boden•) i o. wa s glad,that the 'noble lord knew himself by his dese ei P t er (A laugh.) Ii Wire the truth that the noble lord sometim es r l . e a suaded himself that an. (he Protestantism of Ireland was CCU lest in his own person. (A laugh.) The noble lord stitteerriot night that there was a conspiracy existing in Ireland a n t hat the Protestant church, and he even went so far as - to saY O. O ) , government were parties to it. (The Earl of Roden t ' f The noble lord certainly said that it was the intention o. L estment to overthrow the Protestant afi ero The Earl of Roeuer.—l said that the tendency of this ra g , was to overthrow the Protestant