The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

ELECTION PETITIONS.

Petitions against the return of members were
presented from Dublin (city), Lisburne, and Bury
St. Edmund's, and were referred to the General
Committee of Elections.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL.
Sir G. GREY, in moving, by way of amendment,
to defer the second reading for six months, observed
that, while the bill proposed to reduce the maximum
imprisonment from six months to two, it empowered
magistrates clothed with summary jurisdiction to add
the punishment of whipping, and that this would be
the only instance. in which whipping would be in-
flicted, without the intervention of a jury, upon
adult males. He thought the law as it now stood
operated beneficially.
Mr. DILLWYN defended the bill.
Upon a division the second reading was negatived
by 221 to 86, and the bill consequently thrown out.

MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND).
Mr. FAGAN, in moving the second reading of the
Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill, gave a succinct
history of the question from the date of the impo-
sition of the tax in the reign of Charles 11. He then
adverted to the funds at the disposal of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners (103,0001. a year), which
were, he said, annually increasing, and he contended
that, although the expenditure was wasteful, there was

THE PRESS.

an ample surplus out of which to pay this charge
(12,500/. a year) of ministers' money. The principle,
he maintained, had been conceded when Sir John
Young's Act passed in 1854, although that measure
was a compromise.
Mr. NAPIER moved to defer the second reading for
six months. The principle of the bill, he argued,
violated the rights of property and contravened the
settlement of the Irish Church question contained in
the Church Temporalities Act, which was under-
stood to be final and complete, and it had hitherto
been resisted by every Government. He insisted
that ministers' money was a tax upon property, and
that it belonged to the united Church by as good a
title as that by which any landed proprietor held his
estate ; and that a Roman Catholic taking property
liable to the tax took it subject to the charge. Was
the debtor to be relieved, h• asked, because he
was a Roman Catholic, and the creditor a Protestant ?
Some of the proprietors subject to this charge, how-
ever, were wealthy Protestants. He protested
against the application of what was termed the sur-
plus of the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to this tax ; that fund was subject
to certain trusts, and the first claimant upc.n Church
property was the Church itself. He cont .nded that
Sir John Young's Act was an equitable adjustment
of the question, and that the funds of tho Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners were insufficient for the pur-
poses to which they were properly applicable. If we
really have a united Church, let the same rule that
Church property is sacred property be applied to
the Irish Church as to that of England.
Sir G. GREY said the real practical question was,
whether, when the objects in the contemplation of
Parliament at the time when the Ecclesiastical Corn.
mission was established had been satisfactorily
provided for, it would not be better that the charge
upon the towns subject to it should not be paid out
of the funds in the hands of the Commissioners,
thereby contributing to the efficiency of the Estab•
lished Church in those towns, than to prolong a series
of litigation and nourish a spirit of ?
ment, he insisted, had adopted the principle of this
bill in the Act of 1855, under which the greater
portion of the tax had been actually paid by the
Ecclesiasdcal Commissioners, the funds in whose
hands, be believed, had augmented to an amount
amply sufficient to defray this tax. .

Mr. WiirrestnE said it was a poor argument in
favour of this measure that, having conceded some-
thing, everything must be given up. The tax was
originally imposed by a lawful authority and for a
good purpose, and why, he asked, was this charge
upon property, which had never been abused, to be
repealed? With the measure, in his belief, was
bound up the maintenance of church rates in Eng-
land, of the annuity tax in Scotland, and the appro-
priation of the whole ecclesiastical properties in
Ireland. The right hon. gentleman then, in an
able speech, reviewed the manner in which this
question had been dealt with by Mr. Horsman, and
complained that the Irish Government had encou-
raged agitation respecting it, instead of enforcing the
payment of the tax, which if they hail been firm, he
said, would have been paid. It was only a debt
which those who had justly incurred it did not wish
to pay.
Mr. HORSMAN vindicated the course be had taken
with reference to this question, and the pledge given
by the Government in the last Parliament, which,
he contended, was perfectly consistent with the sup-
port they gave to this bill.
Sir F. THESIGER said he called this a question of
property, for Lord Palmerston in 1851 had distinctly
given that character to it ; and the Churches of
England and Ireland being, by the Act of Union,
inseparably bound up together, the question con-
cerned the rights of both. This tax was originally
laid upon property, and no proposition had ever been
entertained by any Government for the repeal of this
tax without a substitute being suggested. This had
been admitted by Sir J. Young, whose act recognised
this as a charge upon property, removing all objec-
tions to it for the sake of making it a permanent tax.
The principle of this bill, if carried out, must extend
to other subjects ; the consequence of passing it
would be to establish the principle that property
was no longer to be held sacred and inviolable.

Lord J. Russell, observed that it appeared to him
that the measure could he justified upon one simple
ground. The Act of Iti33 took away a church revenue
amounting to 70,000/. a year, and charged it upon
another fund, on the ground that the church cess
was vexatious and oppressive and kept up hostility
to the Established Church, and it appeared to him
that this impost of 12,0001. a year was liable to the
same object►on, being vexatious and oppressive.
The only question then was, whether the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners had sufficient funds at their

disposal to meet this charge, and he was of opinion
that they had.
Mr. WALPOLF. reminded Lord J. Russell that the
conclusion to which he had come was diametrically
opposed to that upon the subject of church rates,
and expressed his confidence that the principle of

499

this bill, if acted upon, would lead into difficulties
which Lord John would be the first to lament. He
thought, if this bill passed, it would furnish a power-
ful argument to those who wished to repeal the
Maynooth grant, and he maintained that until the
trusts attached to the funds of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners were satisfied there would be no sur-
plus applicable to this charge.
Lord PALMERSTON trusted that the house would
consider this question upon its owl' merits, and not
be led to combine it with other measures. All must
admit, lie said, that this tax was objectionable, and
attempts had been made to mitigate its evils. He
believed the bill of 1851 had introduced a great im-
provement by placing the reduced stipends of the
clergymen upon the funds of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners. But experience had shown that the ex-
periment had not completely succeeded. Those funds
were amply sufficient to bear the charge of 12,000/.
a year, and, with the view of putting an end to heart-
burnings and dissension, he thought it was expedient
to place it permanently on those funds.
Upon a division the second reading was carried by
313 to 174.