The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-27 00:00:00

think that Ruch exclusion would be tant4.ri .unt to a d..elara-
("
ion that Parliament positively rtAvsed all interpo:iti9n.—
ear.) If, thorefore, I bad voted with the Hon. Gentleman,
" decid miglitt have done, I should form 111 y alit! irrevocably have
ed the question.
CI Mr. HUME—Not if you accede to the reform of the
nrch•

Sir R. PEEL—WeII, if the Hon. Member means by re-
form of the Church the aholitien of sinecures where gk!ch
exist if he mean the abolition of pluralities on the system
Pursued in England; if by reform of the Churc han equalization of incomes,
all I can say is hates all thmeat,at I
:shall most willingly agree, in as far as it will not into O'er,
wihurcth thh. e integrity of what still remains of the property of the
more than that I will not consent to. —( Hear. hear )
But I will not consent to the alienation of Church property.
--(Hear, hear.) I will not consent to any violation of the
prineiple of an Establishment—( Hear, hea )—but this I will
(le, that if you prove to me that in Ireland there are districts
wshere the working minister is badly paid, and that there are
either districts in which he Las too much, I will consent to
evalization, and I shall do so with no other v:.ess• than to
effect what will best conduce to the soititual and ,oral interests interests of the Church. I cannot
exclude from
rril consideration the whole circumstertces—l cannot ex-
clude from it the position 'if the clergy with respect to Go-
vernment—and I must say that the opinions we have heard
eexpressed by members of the Qovernment increase the diffi-
tilty,n.,(
enforce the law,
Hear.) My own cet;inion is that active interference
on the part of Government, backed by a determination to
would leo completely effectual,-_( Hear, hear.)
But at the same tirree, I cannot omit from my consideration
that if Governmeo'. does not entertain this opinion, and that
rxr:eaerirlLeg members
" rjf
it
(Hear, hea profess an opposite principle, it will be
d',fficult to enforce the rights of the Church._
-ie ) Independently of this, I must consider the in-
divil;ual 'scants of the Irish Clergy, and the permanent inte.
rests Church 'So much
e individual intereets of
the Clergy. For the general inte crest of the Church. I should
tae
that the new system admitted conversion into rent charge,
'tinder circumstances most likely to prejudice those interests.
ththe north of Ireland the landlords have already undertaken
e collection of tithes, so that it is in the south the new law
kvil principally operate. In the south the arrears are
duel I should then have contemporaneously a conver-
-1400 of composition into rent charge, and a general ap
Peal to the law. I retain all my objectio to the ,
Principles involved in this clause, namely, thenabandon-
tilltient of legal right, and a refusal to enforce the law ; but,
Zader conferring with those best qualified to judge, and having
re slit e°d°, pfipnodritnugn ity of conferring immediately with those in-
no one willing to take upon himself the re_
'',Ponsibility of rejection, I am placed in the painful situationi of
being obliged to select amongst the numerous existing. d ffi
enities the one i.rist pregnant with danger to the intetroesttshel-
-4nl desirous to protect. I cannot, therefore, consent_
total
exelnsion of the clause from the Bill—l canthneorteaflotroeg,ectohne-r
141/4ndoto the hope of a pecuniary provision. _ I,_ _
sent to the clause, thinking that the principle is not finally
determined by its adoption on the present occasion.
°
, Sir %r
SOMERVILLE had been so pointedly alluded to
Y the Right Hon. Baronet that he could not refrain from
one or two observations. His meaning was, that he hoped
that if this measure were passed, agitation would cease ; but
That if not,•although a member of Established Church, he
'would assist them in their agitation.
Mr. HARVEY said that th.e Right Hon Baronet asserted
that nothing would satisfy the opponents of the present Bill
but the substitution of the voluntary principle. He (Mr.
Harvey) never hnStrd of such a proposition, or that they could
see no improvtment except in the overthrow of the Eitablish-
lnent. Ilin• Right Honourable Baronet had an easier remedy
'—he would give the million, arid postpone the amelioration to
4 future day. They might fancy they were only giving one
luil ion. but he could prove the question involved four mil-
lions of public property. They were about to allow the
landlord twenty-five per cent for collection, and this, allow-
ing tithes to be worth twenty years' purchase, would give a
total of three millions.—( Hear, hear.) A Noble Lord, whose
speech could not be sufficiently praised, or at least some Mem-
ber of the Cabinet, had intimated that some plan might at a
future day be proposed for paying the Catholic Priests. He
(Mr. Nerve)) did not think that, although those gentlemen
tnight
via at first be coy, they would ultimately refuse such pro-
ion. Well, if such a project were to come forward, where
Wes the money to come from ? Not from the Protestant
elergY• No ; but, for sake of the peace of Ireland, for the
Purpose of putting down agitation, another demand would be
Theasiedrei,numpon the pocket of England. He had no hesitation in
his opposition to the Bill on various grounds, but his
rrincipal reason for opposing it was, that that was a gross de-
lusion to sup ose or to hope that it would procure peace for
rebind, andp therefore the money about to be given for the
purchase ofpeaCe would. be only thrown away.--( Hear, hear.)
;, generous people like the Irish should not be treated in
1,1":, manner in which it was proposed to treat them by this
-All It was an insult to suppose that they would be willing
thPasties to such a bargain as the Bill proposed. It. was not
e amount of the tithes to which the Irish. people objected so
ute
t, uas to the gross and mighty injustice
.of imposing...upon
Church- • the Church of a miserable minority, Imposing a
z instthe doctrines of which they did not concur, upon a
Mete who, under the most trying circumstances, so rigidly
adhered to the faith of their forefathers. He was the more
ibnvineed that this opinion was correct when he considered
e trivial amount of the tithes in Ireland. la England
the tithe, on an average, amounted to five shillings per acre.
whilst in Ireland it only averaged fifteen-pence, and was
(Ike under a shilling. In England the tithe sometimes
amounts to s. per acre. He did not see that the Catholics of
Ireland }radio tronger_ grounds in a pecuniary point of view,
nor indeed in any other than the English Dissenters had, for
refusing to pay tithes. Though the Catholic dissented from
.cEpiscopalian doctrines he was the discil of an Ehed
_hurch, and would do all in his power
tpoe establish Established
hia bliss
own.
This was not the case with the Dissenter, who was distinctly
_Disposed to all Church Establishments, no matter whether they
lamwee Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, or Presbyterian. Why,
ed as there no proposition made by Government, and as-
-s:heto by the other side, to pay the arrears of English tithe?
present proposition were agreed to, did Hon. Gentle-
ezu n imagine that the principle contained in it would not be
;?titagious, and extend to this country also. The English
Z_u_issenters, and the English people generally, would ask
illy the burthen of Irish tithe arrears should be thrown upon
theem* and what reason there was why they should not have
ear ;',,dvantages of a similar concession —( Hear, hear.) So
es ",',en from settling the question of tithes, the present Bill
forward establish a precedent of which those who brought it
evr",ard did not foresee the consequences. Ile would con-
prttoue by again expressing it as his firm conviction that the
_iu..PDand measure would be utterly inoperative as a final ad-
"truent of the question.—( Hear.)
yon
STANLEY said that the charge which his Right
yon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, made against the
when' Gentleman who last addressed the House, and those
that Itdopted the same views with the Hon. Gentleman, was
vra, ;was very easy for them to cavil with any course which
tittestaiuopted for the adjustment of this important and difficult
teren euenthat it was easy for them to take occasion of dif-
preo_e!, arid take technical and theoretical objections to any
tiento%l6on which had for its object the adjustment of a ques-
etd,i_ the solution of which was surrounded with great diffi-
for4lB.,, whilst at the same time they abstained from bringing
(cheer any feasible and practical proposition of their own.—
tithe -,st,' ) When the Hon. G, ntleman asserted that the
the 41 -ngl'ud amounted to five shillings per acre, and that
, rresrs ,„,. ,
;tads
eenitrni
eeto,:wsealaynd amounted to more taan two. millions, it
stsertie re ignoraricievhofeththeer
ssuubcjhects,tatements indicated toot'
or a reckless disregard of
itoNir nit with respect to all circumstances connected with the
lio,ht):l;he The
ii !;,rnounted to 2,400 0001.
Hon. Gentleman had stated that the arrears of
Mr.
the 4RVEY •
e ai,.s.,tio , Ks we understood,
Lord ST";
Than was, ,4NLEY said the argument of the Hon. Gentle-
full for tin"lat if Government agreed to give compensation in
Would , art if
3 of tithes due, that compensation being full
shoein4,lll°,l-1." tD 2,400,0001., and he illustrated the case by
ntily4nb tilat the compens ttion prop .sed to be given would
rdet or 'e,u,t to 2s. 6d. in the pound. Now, what vas the real
if Paid t"
ease? The lion. Gentleman states that the arrears
IVE;,in full by the Government, would amoui.t to 2,400,0001.
),, Titlat would exceed the whole amount of tithe due and
plan, for the whole four years, even on the lion. Gentle-
-I,,h4'S own showing. Now, what he ( Lord Stanley) and those
° 4greed t the measure proposed to meet, was the portion
of
0.. . o .
~ t' tithe only which remained unpaid as chargeable upon the
ii°i"cl'hiers.—( Hear) 0 f the whole of the arrears at present due,
this least one haf was payable by the landlords, and with
1,,,' Portion it was not proposed to deal. The half payable
tii, ,the tenant was the only portion with which it tees proposed
he del by the Bill; and even from this portion there was to
i,;, tUe'ucted ell the cases in which suits had already been
tesn'e,uted for the recovery. These things being taken into
p,s'.',"eration, the whole amount of the arrears could not by
/10,;litY amount to one-fourth of the sum named by the
reo-11', Member for Southwark. The Hon. Gentleman turned
y u °II the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, and said,
that are
one of those who support the measure on the ground
si,e, )t.lott see in it a likely prospect of adjusting the tithe ques-
vsith jid yet how singular, how extraordinaty it is, that you
loch Your ingenuity, did not contrive to incorporate some
forw4r2POSal uitli any of the measures which yeti brought
qe,,,lru_H)r the acljultment of the question." Surd). the Hoe.
viiia 07411. was in the House in 1835. Now, what provision
duesi b e in the present Bill which was nut in the Bill intro-
Coe of 3.7 his Right lion. Friend is 1835? Was the conver-
Was tithe into a rent charge rot contained in that Bill ?
ter., ult the deduction of 25 firer cent. included in the mea-
. e aria did •
aliet t it not also contain a similar provision with re-
ture, ° the arrears ?—( Loud cheers ) The then leading fea-
st bi,,etsntained in the present Bill ware conteinecl in the Bill
tier 'e.,',",!ght lion Ftiend ; arid that Bill, but for the opposi-
olw 17,,,. sti to it by lioneureble Gentlemen opposite, would
ins, e e the law o4' the Isnd e
.) The • -•— Repeated ant continued cheer
oe e• Honourable Member for Southwark accused those
id)l.;;st_ (Lord Stanley's) side of the House of defending the
corps of the Church, and countenancing its enormcus eine-
erre'__., Ile accused his Right Hen. Friend of admitting the
thots"rilY of reform, and yet of not endeavouring to marry
~itiiv_ !forms into effect. Now he (Lord Stanley), and those
or in wuern he acted, were not so vague either in profession
%.,tr'c.Prat,ice es the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for South-
( 1,,r,
~.`4 ere they content with vague generalities ? He
ha, manley), nn later than two years ago, moved a
itita 1,0 effect 'those objects, in which he entered very largely
fur s'etails, and it was very probable that the Hon. Member
feteeeuthwark was one of those by whose votes leave was re-
,teAs for the introduction of the Bill.—( Loud cheers.) The
beelt're which he then introduced was one which would have
kse._,Passed in another place ; but the House of Commons se)
`'Q to take it into consideration._. Renewed cheers.)
kr,..41 ,'Y ere hEs answers to the charges of dealing in vague
ailttes made by the Honottrablo Gentlemen Lgair.st Lis