The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS.

On the motion for the second reading of the Aggravated Assaults
Bill,

Sir Geo. Grey said he saw no necessity for an alteration in the ex-
isting law for the punishment of aggravated assaults on women and
children. and therefore moved that the i ill be read a second time that
day six months.

Mr. Diliwyn expressed surprise and regret at the course taken by
the Government, and stated his intention of dividing the house upon
his measure.
The house then divided; the numbers were—
For the second reading ..
Against it .. • *..

Majority 135
MINISTERS' MONEY IN IRELAND.

Mr. Fagan moved the second reading of the Ministers' Money
(Ireland) Bill, and entered at great length into a history of the tax.
Ha expressed his gratification at the acknowledgement of the princi-
ple of the measure by the noble lord at the head of the government,
and declared that the government would gain popularity in Ireland.
Mr. Napier moved that the bill be read a second time that day six
months. The principle of the measure had b3en opposed by the
Government of Lord John Russell, Lord Aberdeen, and Lord Pal-
merston, and kis opposition to it was based upon the grounds that it
violated the first principles of property, and contravened the provisions
of the Caurch Temporalties Mt. The tax originally imposed upon
Protestants and Protestant property, a d the Chnro, had as good a
title to it as any gentleman in that house ta his private property. Yet
the noble lord had agreed that the tax ought to be abolished, and the
debt was not to be paid because the debtors were Roman Catholics
and the creditors Protestants. Psoperty was let subject to thq tax, and
there was no grievance, therefore, upon which they were called to legis-
late. But the noble lord had discovered that in Cork, which contribute I
about one-sixth of the ministers' money, there was likely to be a con-
test about the tax, and therefore the whole of the vested property
was to go by the board, , Sir John Young's bill, which was supported
by Sir George Grey, was aocepted as a settlement of the question, but
when the right hon. gentleman came into office, a bill was prop sed
to repeal that act, and the protests against it were set aside by the
Government.

Sir George Grey referred to the report of the committee of 1854, to
show that not only was ministers' money not a valuable property of
the church at that time, but that it was regarded as an odious
imposition by the payers and the clergymen who received it, even if
the objects of the Ecclesiastical Commission had not bean fully
carried out. He thought it woul ibe better to appropriate a portion
of the funds placed io their hands to the support of ministers rather
Clan to retain an impost 'which give rise to continual litigation,
bickerirags, awl heart burningsat variance with the pact and good
will which this religion taught' them to p-omote. The Act of 1854
exonerated from payment all houses below RIO annual value, end
this billhad merely for its object the extension of the exemption to
houses above that value. He urged the necessity fOr, tgs termination
of litigation which did discredit to thecoantry, when the import ince
of the object contended for was considered.

Hr. Whiteside contended that the ,arguments of Sir G. Grey pro-
vided no sat!sf.cUon to sat asid3 iffit-Oblgati-n of the payment of
ministers' money. He referred to the introduction of Sir'John
Young's act, and the support given to it by the noble lqrd, who was
th.n the Home Secre• ary, or the right iron, gentleman, *the then
*lnn:l*y to the Lord liietttenant, remarking that Sir John Young
lutrOduced it as a measure of settlemen+, and laid down at the time the
principle, that no minister should abolish the tax without providing a
substitute. He then argued the justice of the continuance of thetas,
and stated that he woald not obje3t to its redempt on, though ha
objected to the principle of suddenly abolishing it. H e ateittruted he
change in the opinions of the Government on the subject, to the hint
given before the dissolut!on, of the strength that would be gained by
favouring interests which returned so many representatives to Parlia-
ment. The co.nmissieners had not the fqnds to make up for the loss
of this tax, and they were to be asked to get money where they could,
because the conscience; of certain Roman Catholics interfered to pre-
vent the payment of this debt.

Mr. Horsman, while complimenting the member for Enniskillsn on
the vividness of his imagination, and the shortness of his memory
which di twilit:led him for an historian, said he did not think if
the hon. .zember's memory had not been very bad, that he
would have ventured to stand up in opposition to the measure
of th ember for Cork ; for, though the question had been

az't•ited for twenty years, it never secured any Parliamentary
initrortamx till the member for the D ,blin University, and
the innmher for Enniskillen—these members of Lord Derby's
giver= Ist—undertook to settle the unhappy agitation. The hon.
gentleman p^n •ceded at great length to state the various proce,:dings
which he had taken in reference to the question o ii iisters' ion :ey,
and defended the course which the Governmen. h vi .1, ng r i their
daty;to take in reference to the motion of the me mbar for Cork.
Mr. Blake supported the measure.

Si,' F. Thesiger thought that the noble lord at the t°A of the
Government should boldl have taken the settlement of the
question in hand himself, rather than have placed himself
behind the member for Cork. The abolition• of ministers' money
had teen designated the precursor of the abolition of the Established
Church in Ireland, and he warned the house that in (Jelling with the
question before th.qn they were dealing with a great principle. The
Government having given way on that point, they might ba called
upon to act consistently with the principle involved, and give up the
Maynooth grant and Church rates. He felt, under the circumstances,
that it was his duty to give his vote for the amendment of the member
for the University of Dublin.
The Attorney-General for Ireland supported the measure of the
abolition of the tax, and denied that it was Church property, but
rather a tax Imposed by act of Parliament.

Lord John Russell considered that the difficulty of Sir John Young's
act rather arose from the difficulties of the question than from any
imperfection in the act. He concurred in the remarks that the collec-
tion of the £12,000 of ministers' money was vexatious and oppressive,
and he thought that the amount of the increase of the funds of the
Ecclesiastical Commission Biwa the levying of the tax, which
exceeded by a large amount the total realised by the tax, might be
applied,to the purpose for which it was levied.

Mr. Vyalrole fesred that the adoption of the motion would lead to
demands to have the principle extended to Maynooth.
Lord Palmerston stated that, in courtesy, the bill had been left in
the hands of the hon. member who had identified himself wth it, but
the government were prepared to take the same responsibility, and
give the same support, as if it were a government measure. He
denied that the government resorted to the support of the bill to
gain strength, and declared that they had no need for such unworthy
stratagems.

The house then divldwd
For the second reading.. . ...
Against it.

Majority .. •• . . 139
The bill was accordingly read a second time.
The other bnginess was then disposed off. and the house adjourned
shortly before one o'clock.