The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-11 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF GREECE.

Mr. HUSKISSON rose to ask his Right Hon.
Friend (the Secretary of State), if there would be
any objection to furnish some Supplementary Papers,
which seemed neussary to the full elucidation of the
question concerning Greece ? The first paper he
proposed to move for was," A letter from the Reis
Effendi, slated December 10th, 1829;" and the
grounds on which he moved for this paper were
these:—At the close of 1828, the Ambassadors of
the Allied Powers were obliged to withdraw them-
selves from Constantinople, on account of the refusal
of the Porte to accede to the stipulations of the
Treaty of the 6th of July. In,consequence of their
withdrawal, all diplomatic relations .ceased between
the Porte and the Powers patties to that treaty. So
anxious were the Turks to get the diplomatic rela-
tions renewed, that the Reis Effendi wrote to the
Duke of Wellington, and sent the letter to England.
The Duke of Wellington returned an answer, in
strict conformity with the communication made by
the AmbasSadors, and stated as the wounds of not
renewing the diplomatic relations, that the Porte had
not complied with the stipulations of the Treaty of
July 6th. The Right Hon. Gentleman wished to
show that the letter from the Reis Effendi had re-
ceived a different construction from his Majesty's
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from that put
on it by the Plenipotentiaries; and this difference of
construction was important in itself and led to im-
portant consequences. The Ambassadors had de-
clared that they would not go back to Constantinople
till the stipulations of the Treaty of the tith
of July were: complied with ; but instead of
the Porte agreeing to grant an amnesty, it refused
the mediation of the Allied Powers. The Ambas-
sadors had stated that to renew the diplomatic rela-
tions, the acceptance of the mediation of the Allied
Powers, and the granting of the Amnesty, were in-
dispensible conditions. The letter of the Reis Effendi,
after they left Constantinople, was interpreted by
them to be a refusal to accede to these terms; and
that letter, it was indispensible, in his opinion, should
be laid on the table. Of all the, important transac-
tions relative to Greece, none was, perhaps, more
important than the return of the Ambassadors to
Constantinople. It was declared that no diplomatic
relations should be renewed with the Porte untii it
acceded to the conditious of the Treaty; but they
were renewed, though the Ottoman Porte did not
accede to those conditions, as was well known, till
after the Russians had got to Constantinople. The
Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by_ moving " An
Address to the Crown, for the letter from the Reis
Effendi, dated December 10, 1828; fora copy of a
letter from the Ambassadors to the Minister of the
Netherlands at Constantinople, dated December
25, of the same year ; a copy of what the Drago-
man communicated as the answer of the Reis Effendi,
on receiving the information contained in that letter;
and another communication from the Reis Effendi,
sent in July, 1829."
Sir ROBERT PEEL seconded the motion. He
should lie ready to discuss all the merits of the case
on a proper occasion, when due notice had been
given. With respect to the production of papers,
it was always the wish of his Majesty's Government
to give every useful paper, which did not compro-
mise the interest of this country or of other countries.
It would be recollected, that during the time when
those negociations were going on, a contest ensued
between Russia and the Porte; that was now at an
end; and he should be unwilling to produce any
paper which might tend to renew unpleasant feel-
ings,or exasperate the unpleasant feelings whit')
yet existed. There was one paper which his Right
Hon. Friend had moved for, which had been.referred
to the Protocol, though not among the papers pre-
sented to Parliament, which he thought might,:if
produced, be of some detriment to other countries.
To the production of the other papers, moved for
by his Right Hon. Friend, he had no objection.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to have any
papers which might throw further light on the quis-
tion of fixing the boundaries of Greece. He hicd
then in his possession a letter from General Churclh,
giving it as his opinion, that the Greeks would never
give up Acarnania without bloodshed.
• Lord PALMERSTON requested to be informed
by the Right Hon. Baronet what steps had been
'taken (if any) to reconcile the Ottoman Porte sod
Russia ?
*ig kriLL, in answer, gated, that what bad

been done might be seen in the answer to the eis
Effendi, by the Duke of Wellington.
Lord PALMER STON wished to know whether
Turkey might not have expected to receive military
assistance from this country ?
Sir R. PEEL said that Tuikey never had any
reason to expect that we would give her military
assistance, or undertake any offensive operation,
;vhatever in her defence. With respect to the
papers moved for, there was one communication
from the Reis Effendi which was of so extraordi-
nary a character, and which he had withdrawn him-
self, that he hoped it wool,' not be moved for. That
paper was certainly hi existence, but as it was with-
drawn by the Reis Effendi. himself, and as its pro-
duction would produce exasperation, he hoped his
Right Hon. Friend would not require its production.

Mr. HUSKISSON wag itnderstood to say that
he would hot. press for that paper, and the address
for the other papers was then agreed to.

REPEAL OF THE VESTRY ACTS (IRELAND).

Mr. O'CONNELL rose for leave to bring in a
Bill to repeal so much of the several Statutes in
force in Ireland, as enable Parish Vestries to assess
Rates for the re-building and enlarging of Churches
and Chapels ; and also for the repairing of the
Chancel of Churches ; and also for providing things
necessary for the celebration of Divine Service
there. His motion was limited to repeal the Sta-
tutes ; and it did not apply to the Common Law,
which he proposed to leave as it was. It would be
advantageous, not merely to Catholics, but to all
the Protestant population of Ireland, as the peti-
tions in favour of a repeal of the Vestry Acts from
several Protestants showed.. In Ireland, the mass
of the people being Catholics, were called on to pay
rates to the Protestant Church ; and there was this
anomaly between the two countries—in England
the mass of the population being Protestants, were
not obliged to build churches ; but in Ireland, where
the great mass were Catholics, they were compelled
to build churches for the Protestants. The object
of his Bill would be therefore to place the people of
Ireland on the same footing as the people of Eng 7
land with respect to the building and repairing of
churches—that is, to place the people of Ireland
under the protection of the common law with respect
to that subject, in the same manner as the people of
England now are protected. At the 'present me•
merit no new church could be erected in England
without the authority of an Act of Parliament ; and
his object was to extend the benefit of that protec-
tion to Ireland. At one time, indeed, it was supposed
that a right existed to assess parishes in England for
the erection of new churches; but the question, about
a century ago, was tried with respect to the parish of
St. Anne, Soho, mad after a formal trial in the Court
of King's Bench, it was decided that the attempt
was illegal, and that no such power existed. So
much for the law on the subject of the building of
-new churches in England. Then with respect to
the repairs of churches—originally the tithes were
given by the Common Law to the Bishops and
Clergy absolutely, under the condition that they
were out of the produce to execute all the repairs
which the churches and cathedrals might require—
the sum to be set apart for that purpose being one-
fourth of their income. It was afterwards decided
by Act of Parliament that the repairs of the churches
were to be assessed on the Protestants and Catho-
lics equally,being inhabitants of the parish, and that
the clergyman was not required to repair any portion
of the church except the chancel, out of the produce
of the tithes. He did not mean to say that the
people of Ireland were not to keep the churches in
repair, hut that they were, as in England, to have a
vote in the regulation of that assessment; which
was to be applied to the repairs, and that they should
understand their nature and extent. Another por-
tion of the laws he wished altered was to be found
in the 7th of George the Third, by which parishes in
Ireland were subjected to the necessity of pro-
viding every thing considered necessary for the per-
formance of divine service, and the ornament of the
Church, He thought the language of the Statute
much too vaette and indefinite, and he, therefore,
wished to repeal it, and to render the parishioners
merely liable to be assessed for things necessary for
the performance of Divine Service. Having thus
stated the objects of his Bill, he could not avoid
remarking how small a number of Members; and
particularly of Irish Members, who thought fit. to
be present on the occasion. The subject was one
of the most overwhelming interest to all those Mem-
bers who had constituents, but he- believed that
since the Union upwards of four-fifths of the Mem-
bers had no constituents to represent. Why
the law was altered, or why the law of England
was not to be the law of Ireland, he had yet to
understand. There was no justification for it in the
conductof the people, for at the time of the Refor-
mation Ireland was studded with churches, all of
them well attended by the people; and if the Pro-
testant priesthood had neglected their duties,alr hough
in possession of kip andincreasing tithes,it was to
them, and not to the Catholic people, that the deca-
dence in the attendance atpublic worship must be at-
tributed. It wus curious to observe the manner in
which the change in the condition of the Catholics with
respect to their power of eontrouling the exper-
di ture on churches had been brought about. By the 2d
Geo. 1., Catholics and Protestants had an equal
right to vote ,for the repairs and decorations of
churches, and a majority of Catholics bud it in.their
power to negative any propositions for- that purpose;
by the 10th of George the First that power was
considerably curtailed; and by tile 12(11, under the
allegation that the Catholics had thrown impedi-
ments in the way of the repair of churches, the
power of voting for that purpose wad taken away
altogether. Again, by the 12th of George the
Third, the Archbishop and Bishops of a See had it
in their pc aver to erect a new church in whatever
parish they thought proper, and to saddle the in-
habitants with the expenccs. Here, then, was the
difference between the- state of England and of Ire-
land. In England the churches must be built by the
authority of an Act of Parliament: -In Ireland they
were erected by the authority of the Bishops; thus
presenting the extraordinary spectacle of the Mini-
sters of the richest church in the World taxing the
poorest people on earth for the erection of places
for their public worship. In the absence of the ex-
pedient for the erection of new churches, another
plan had been adopted for the support of the
churches of the Protestant Establishment; this was
the Episcopal union of parishes ; a system carried
to such an extent, that it was by no means un-
usual for one parish to be joined with another
full ten miles of F, and to that church the pa-
rishioners might betake themselves for the pur-
pose of hearing divine service, and at all events
they were bound to pay for all the expences of
reputing and ornamenting it.. They had to pay
for the organ-blower and the organ-player, and the
sexton and the sextoness, and the church-cleaner,
and the bell-ringer, and the clock-winder, and the
whole of those officers connected with the -Irish
Church Establishment. His object, he repeated,
was to place the people of Ireland in thesame con-
dition as time people of England. ' He asked 110
more. • He asked for the Catholic of Ireland, the
benefits of the English law: The PrOtestant in
Ireland when compelled to pay for the support of
his church, gets value for his money. The Ca-
tholic gets no value_ for_his expenditure; and lie
asked, in the name of justice and of religion, that
the Catholic should be put in possession of the
power to claim an account of-what has been or is to
be done, and that instead of being taxed to any ex-
tent, without the power of complaint, he should,
when called on to support tile expenses of the
church of his Protestant neighbour, be, like that
Protestant, possessed of a vote amid furnished with
an account of the nature of the expendifure. The
statements on this subject were hot new they were
to be found in the returns laid on the table of the
House, on tile motion of the Honourable Baronet,
the Member for Waterford (Sir J. Newport), in,
the year 11.1;25. Some of • the - items of the
church expenditure to be -found in these leturns
were almo,t incredible. Besides all the different
salaries jze had mentioned, there was in the parish

,Nt

of Wexford an additional salary paid to the bell-
ringer. For what now did the House suppose the
salary of the bell-ringer was to be raised ? Why,
because the bell was broken he Was paid an advance
of salary; When he had no belt to ring. The Right
lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulbnrn) had
promised, when these things formed the subject of
a motion brought forward by his Hon. Friend, to
introduce a Bill for the removal of all such abuses.
The Right lion. Gentleman did bring in a Bill.
But hoW did he, retnove them ? 'Why, the Bill
which he brought in exaggerated every evil which
it professed to remedy. Before that Bill was intro-
duced, the Catholic who complained of an illegal
item in an assessment for the repair of the church,
had it in his power, in a great measure, to confront
the disposition to abuse, because, if that (me item
proved illegal, the whole rate assessed must drop to
the ground—as a matter of course. Wherever,
therefore, the Catholics were in a situation to con-
test it, the illegal rates could be rendered void. The
Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman had removed all
the checks, and, left the Catholic nothing but hope-
less litigation. They were now left with a remedy
such as no Catholic, or lawyer advocating the cause
of the Catholics, would venture to put in force for
their relief. He arraigned this measure of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, therefore, before the English
House of Commons; and he called on them in the
name of justice and humanity, to relieve the people
from the burthensome conditions which it imposes.
The grievances to which the Catholics were sub-
jected for the support of Protestant churches could
scarcely be conceived in this country. In his own
pari•.h, in Ireland, the sum assessed for the expenses
of the church during the last year was 1,710/. ; and
that, too, in a parish where the incumbent received
2,0001. a year. There were three organists, who
received 135/. a year; then there,was a person who
received. 13/. 2s. .for tuning these organs; 191. 2s.
for a person to blow their bellows; for a clerk 80/.
a year; for two other clerks, 1401.; and to a per-
son who collected this 1,7101., a poundage of 10
per cent., which amounted to 170/.; and to the
Board of First Fruits, a certain sum for advances on
former occasions. These were some of the items
raised on the inhabitants of the parish, while the
incumbent received, as he said before, an income of
2,000/. a year. After enumerating various items of
expenditure in other parishes; the Hon. Gentleman
proceeded to say that he had called the Bill to which
he alluded the Bill of the Right Hon. .Gentle-
man opposite (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer), but he knew that he would be told it was
not his Bill, but that of the Law Officers of the
Crown for the dine being. No man could deny the
great talent and the extensive knowledge of the
Attorney-General of Ireland of that period (Lord
Plunkett). He paid his tribute to his abilities;
but while he did so, and while he, in common with
many others, felt regret to see his great powers ob-
scured and rendered useless in a corner of a Court
(the Common Pleas), over which he was never in-
tended to preside, still it was open to every man to
condemn, as it should be condemned, the provisions
of an Act which professed to improve the condition,
of the people, but which was in truth a mockery of
their sufferings. What was it that the people com-
plained of ? - Why, that they were called on to pay
for every thing which appertained to the ornament
of the church, or which was required by any rubric
or canon of the church of England. These were the
purposes for which the rates were levied ; and for
the better collection of those rates, and for 'the re-
moval of the abuses connected with their collection,
did the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman and the
Attorney-General provide. It provided for the people
of Ireland, not a remedy for the unjust imposition of
but thens for the support of the Protestant Church, but
an endless source of litigation. This litigatiiiretoo,
was not carried on against Protestants, but against
Catholics, who pretended to be Protestants for the
petty poWers with which it invested them, and who
at the hour of their death were always anxious to
take refuge again in the bosom of their church, if
they had warning enough of its approach to give
time for that purpose. It was a direct instance of
taxation to any extent, without requiring the
slightest consent on the part of those called on to
pay such taxes ; of a taxation levied to support ob-
servances enjoined by the canons of the church of
England, not of the church of Ireland; and without
any consent; as in England, on the part of those
who are. to. pay. Could any one after this complain
of taxation without representation ? He begged
the House to- look at the case stated in the petition
he had that night presented from Ardglass. There
were upwards of 2,500. Catholics compelled to
support the expences of a church which was attended
by only., we've Protestants, arid taxed to pay for all
its ornaments and appurtenances, without even a
specification of the items being furnished for their
information. Could, then, what he bad stated, be
considered an exaggeration ? Were • they in a
country governed by the same laws as England;
or were they not rather uncles the dominion'of those
who employed a Reis EffArdi, the personage of whom
they had heard so much that erening ? Even in
Greece, however, when oppressed by the utmost
despotism of Turkish intolerance, no such power
'was ever exercised. But then, the Bill of
the Right Hon. Gentleman gave a right of ap-
peal; and such an appeal as might fairly he desig-
nated a'rnere mockery of the sufferingi of the Cik-
tholies. 'ln the first place, they must give notice of
their intention, Within ten, or, 'at the utmost, four-
teen days, from the time of making the rate. Then
they must specify all the causes 'of that appeal, as
if it were possible for any peasant, or even lawyer,
to make an accurate specification of that kind.—
And all these, specifications, with all their technicali--
ties, were required to be signed in the hand-writing
of those who appealed. When this part of the
formalities was gone through, there remained
another still more grievous, namely, that the Catho-
lic who appealed against the rate, must inter into
two recognizances of one hundred pounds each, to
-abide the consequences of that appeal, and pay all
the costs which might be incurred in the event of a
failure. But the most extraordinary part remained
behind. When the appeal came on for hearing
before the Assistant Barrister, it was necessary he
should be satisfied that all these forms were com-
plied with, that is, the Judge who was to hear and
.determine the course, must be satisfied before he
entertained it, that all forms and technicalities Were
complied with—a regulation *aches he believed was
never heard of before in any coun:ry in the world.
The statute took away all real protection, and sub-
stituted this 'mockery :of •protection. The Bishops,
by this Statute, had controul over the property of
the Catholics, of the Protestants of the established
church, and of Dissenters. It gave en unlimited,
undefined power of taxation, first to the Protestants
as respected the Catholics, and 'then to the Bishops
as respected the Protestants. Another thing that
it did" was.. to. relieve the churchwardens who
committed a trespass from punishment. It
provided, that 'if rttitioris were brought' against
the churchwardens,
,for any thing done under
colour of the Act,an,aSsessment should be laid on the
parish to pay the damages. So that the person by
whom the action had been brought was compelled
to pay a share of the damages, which had been in-
flicted for- the evil which he had sustained ! He
would venture to appeal to the good sense and can-
dour of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
whether an Act of Parliament had ever passed which
was less deserving •of his support. He would do
that Right Hon. Gentleman the justice to expreits
his belief; that if 'that Right Hon. Gentleman h4d
applied his mind to the Act before. it had passed, he
would iieVerl'have consented to it. Ile heggel,
therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would
consider the subject and see if the lew could not Ile
repealed ; or, at.least, if the existing power ofta*-
tion might not be limited. The Hon. and Learntd
Member here read a letter,, which the Right Hen.
Gentleman when he was Chief Secretary for , Ise-
, land, inserted.in. the Dublin Gazette, particularizi tg
the various' things • which= the Pal Ish Vestries we re
to be called upon to furnith. This letter-had been
treated with a disrespect which ought not to have
Wen Shown towards it, and had been absolutely