The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF• LORDS, l'Enßueßy 21.
Sir A. GRANT and others brought up the Scotch
B.snkrupt Laws Continuation Bill.
Several other Bile were brought up.
Petitions were presented for Reform, agai,st slavery, and
in favour of reduction of taxation.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
Tavistock Chapel, Middlesex, praying for a goneral last ;
also another from Southampton, praying for the same
Lord ELLENBOROUGH postponed his mo:ic,n rela-
tive to the timber duty till to-morrow week.
TITHES.
Lord DACRE, seeing the Right Reverend Prints t.!
in his seat, took the opportunity of begging to know
whcthrr any, and what, progress had been made in
the Bill respecting the proposition on the commutation of
tither,. fie wished to know whether that Bill untein-
plated a composition or a commutation, because if it %vete
confined to a composition, he should bring in a Bill to elf ct

a commutation.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said the Bill
would preserve its original character of comrsition,
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from
the Lord 111Eyor, Aldermen, and Common Council, tray-
in; for an alteration in the bankrupt laws. The Noble
Lord observed that a misapprehension had gone abroad
with respect to what he had said on presenting a p,taion
siEtued by upwards four thousand five hundred pe•r-
sons. it had been considered he intended to ri fly: t
on the Commissloners of Bankruptcy. It such a state-
ment bad gone faith, it must have arisen from misap-
prehension, as lie never intended, nor bad he any founda-
tion for making such reflectim
The Bishop of LONDON moved the stenud reading of
his Bill respecting the Church Boildint Act. His Lord-
ship went at length into the details of the Bill, which was
ordered to be committed on Monday next.
GREECE.

Earl GREY seeing the Noble Earl (Aberdeen) in his
place, who was pleased to ask him a question the other
day whether any negociation was pending with respect to
the limits of Greece, wished to say that at the time the
cqauteisolni question n o
nw
tais, e askedsubj he
ect thoonuginhqtutiherryie had
,efo bee
found
ndtnhactotrrnini
hmeyhad-
not led hitherto to any thing like a negociation. What
they might produce hereafter he could not say:—
All he could state was, that he could not
consider the present obligations respecting the limits
immutable. They could not however be altered without
the consent of all parties. Ile now repeated, that if
these limits could be settled on a sure foundation, he thou„ht
it would lead to beneficial results.
The Earl of ABERDEEN expressed his satisfaction at
the answer of the Nokle Earl.
PORTUGAL.
Viscount STRANGFORD, in consequence of a wish
expressed by the Noble Viscount opposite, would postpone
his motion respecting Portugal until to-morrow week
Viscount GODERICH had certainly, that morning,
asked the Noble Viscount to postpone his motion, to
which the Noble Viscount bad answered, that he hoped
he (Lord Goderich) would not press his wish. His reply
was, that he would then be in his place. Consequently,
there he was, and quite ready for the discussion.
THE WICKLOW UNION.
Lord KING would bring under entice the report made
by the Archbishop of Dublin to the Lord Lieutenant and
Privy Council, in order to obtain their sanction to the
great union of Wicklow. No one could dispute that the
union of many parishes into one benefice was a great
abuse, and ought never to be unnecessarily allowed.—
When six, seven, eight, or ten benefices were joined in one
union, the number of resident gentlemen was curtailed,
and the only defence of the large revenue of the Established
Church was destroyed. Looking to the account of the
number of parishes and incumbents in Ireland, lie found
that 2450 parishes were united in such a manner that
they possessed only '7OO resident Clergymen,—brine, not a
third ; 1701 parishes were consolidated in 517 unions.
These may be called the Irish Consols. There were only
741 parishes with single residents. The unions conti-
nued only during the lives of the incumbents. On the
death of the incumbent the parishes could net be again
nnited without the authority of the Bishop, superintended
by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, to whom the
Bishop must submit his reasons. The union of 'Wick -
low coesisted of six parishes. He was far front saying
that it was the greatest abuse of the kind. There weic
many unions of ten parishes ; one of no fewer than thir-
teen. That might be called the magnum bonum or tl e
summum bonum of the Irish .Churches. In the diocese
of Clonfert, according to the returns made in 1824, there
was not a single instance of a parish held by a separate in-
cumbent. Every benefice in that diocese was a union ;
and the reason was that in that diocese the ancient
custom of the quatuor pars rem tined : that was,
the Bishop had a fourth of all the tithes in the diocese. la
that diocese the old usage remained of appropriating a
fourth of the tithes to the Bishop, a fourth to the poor,
a fourth to the incumbent, and a fourth to the Church.
The consequence was, that the unions in the diocese of
Clonfert were not so frequently disunited as they might
be; because it was evident that it must he much more
agreeable for the Bishop to receive his quatuor pars front
a small number of wealthy incumbents than from a larger
number of poorer ones. In the diocese of Killaloo, in
136 parishes, there were only 44 shepherds. In the dio-
cese of Dublin there were 60 single parishes, and 97 pa-
rishes in 25 unions. He now came to the particular
union of Wicklow. By the clause of the Act of the 7th
and Bth George IV., the diocesan, when he wishes to
unite several parishes, was compelled, within fourteen days
of his making an order for that purpose, to report to the
Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, and to give his rea-
sons for what he had done: and if those reasons were dis-
proved by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, the
order became void at once. The Noble Lord proceeded
to read the report which the Archbishop of Dublin made
respecting the union of Wicklow, and to point out the
statements in that report which he (Lord King) bad the
means of contradicting. In the first place, the Arch-
bishop spoke of the Vicar of Wicklow, the Rector of
Drumkeel, and the Vicar of Kilpool. Now there was
no Vicar of Wicklow. There was no parish of Wick-
low. The town of Wicklow was built in two pa-
rishes. The Archbishop stated, that the income
which the union would produce, would be—from the
parish of Wicklow, '787/. ; from the psi ish of Drumkeel,
69/. ; from the parish of Kilpool, 501.—making together
909/. Now Archdeacon Magee, in stating the revenue of
the whole union as the ground of a composition, estimated
it at 2,255/., besides the additional value of the glebe
laud ; making altogether 2,5001. The Archbishop statesi
the whole extent of the union to be 17,200 acres, great
part of which, he said, was far from Wicklow—nrountain,
moss, and barren heath, and thinly populated. The fact,
however, was, that the union contained 22,000 Irish, or
36,000 stature acres ; that it was thirt- en miles long from
north to south, and nine miles wide ; and that the po; ula-
tion was great, especially near the county town, which
contained from 3to 4,000 inhabitants. Upon the whole,
the union contained not less than 13,000 souls; of whom a
considerable proportion were Protestants. The Archbishop
stated, that there were churches and chapels of ease suffi-
cient, and that the remotest part of Kilpool was not more
than a mile from one of them. The tact was, that it was
three miles and a half Irish, or four miles and a half En-
glish. Then the most Rev. Prelate stated that the pa-
rishes of Drumkeel and Kilpool would not together afford
a sufficient income to a resident clergyman independent of
the union with the vicarage of Wicklow ; but the tithes
of the one amounted to 2891. a year, and the revenues of
the two together would amount to the sum of 395/. lls. 3d.
—a sum twice as large as that stated by a Right Rev. Pre-
late the other day as the average income of Fetglish liv-
ings. Was not that sufficient for an Irish rector ? This::
contradictions, their Lordships would observe, related
to the state of the revenues of the livings in one and the
same year. There was no alteration in the rates. The
report was presented to the Duke of Northumberland and
the Privy Council, and related to one year. And it would
be observed, that this union took place in a populous
parish, and one in which there was a great number of
Protestants, and the rectorial tithes amounted to 1,6,10/.
The fortunate person holding these united parishes wss a
near relation to the most Rev. Prelate, and the sait;e was
Rector of the parish of St. John, Dublin, and u Prebend of
St. Patrick's. He did not mean to enter upon the ch ch-
yatel disputes which the Rev. Gentleinarm had e ith his
parishioners, in which he sent them anywhere rather than
to Heaven. This was for time purpose of making them pay
their tithes, and be believed he dill make them pay them.
This union of Wicklow, it appeared, was to be an-
nexed in commendam to the Stall of St. Patrick's.
It was highly proper that this union of parishes should be
dissolved, and he was content that it should be done by the
Irish Churchmen themselme s, and in the way most agree-
able to them. But it ought to be done in some way, anti
if not otherwise done, it would be proper to address the
Crown to do it. He move.] for a copy of the report in ide
by the Archbishop of Dublin to the Duke of 'Northumber-
land and the Privy Council, on the subject of the uniting
of the living of Wicklow, and the two adjeinine iiiinge
of Drumkeel and Kilpool, with a view to its king 1,61
on the table of the House.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN did not mean to oppow
the motion, but the Noble Baron ought to be aware that
he was not answeralAe for many of these unio,s. Wiek:ow

,r*~