The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-15 00:00:00

lion.
t 3-lemb,:•i's rt.:pi!tiort, an) 1.-0 help
l'thi4erft‘ tr)i '.!'°inncle wtheo'haitingttol a 'decision, as to %shadier :t was possible to
Pass that resolution consistently with the law l,.id down in that
i statute, and, what was more,consstently with the conpaetp)whlicilei
that statute was intended to record and enforce.—ii(rmi ea
Member— r
thought he should have the admission of the ..
.his
himself that the statute to whicht hebehzirer,eferred stood in o
expressed his ells_
The Hon. Member had,
approbation of the settlement moade at the Union • hut with
respect to the state of the law there could he no 'dispute.—
The compact which had been made at the Union might be
broken ; but until that was done, it become Parliament to act
with good faith on their part. Parliament could not, without a
violation, which *could lead to the
.approhte.tiiesiolnfoonf. t..,1-iiocluat)Loeir-zs
.
of ail kinds, concur in the resolution
of of i
which went to put -out of the purview the settlement made
at the union the wliole of the property of the Church of Ire-
land, and to declare that it was a tiring vitlLa•llicl
of the lion.
i Parliament
had a right to deal as it thought tit. The s
difficult}
Mover's case was, that it went directly against all that hitherto
bad been considered as established. The church property of
Ireland might be compared to a corporate. property, which had
been revised and conferred by Actor Parlianiento;
gobut the lion.
back to a
Mover seemed to think that he bad a rtg.
Period antecedent to be establishment of a ri'grtlitt to the property
on the part of the Church, and when it (the p.roili.etrav) remained
to be distributed amon a. mankind for the bene i of particular
claasea. If the Noise shove agree to the lion. Member's
resolution, there was nothing to prevent them front seizing upon
Property of corporations. Than, again, why was the House to
atoP with the tithes of the church ? Why not also possess
themselves of the lay tithes ?--4Llear !ii—ln short, the
to lea,t. the pro-
action aition of the Hon. Member was so monstrous, 'so likely
to the
most alarming consequences, that it w
sure. quite impossible that the House could for aianst; he was
tnent he-
lame at to the course which they should pursue regarding it. ,
The Hon. Member haul in the course of h's speech remarked
that the aesaion had been wasted -in fruitless attempts to carry
tihe Catholic Question Tbe greatest enemy of that que.sts-
te"A euuld not have devised -a surer means of procuring I,f.
latielit(!ittitstie by causal'
c,__ • a resolution denounct ~
g ti he inserted on the Journals 1
n, the spoliation of the
Iry wie‘tant church property next
.session.—(Hear, hear !)—lt
A" dm fear of such a proceeding which originated much of
--'
°lPPe,.i(ion to the Catholic Claims. (le stems therefore rather
Pleased that the lion. Gentleman ha& -afforded the House
Oortunity of showing how they would meet any such propo-
sl°o- Ile was confident that the vfoter,towhwielhticnh,i they were
ht he en-
:oout to come would tranquillize an
(7t4ined on the subject. The R'yhteAllou. Gentleman con-
y
ctuded by characterizing the motion of the lion. Member. for
bettleen as one of the most-barefaced. proritiiilni:otifrimnjubsetliiceet.
that had ever been submitted to Par
4", that to sach a resolution the Illioalli._n_eMieeiwnebre—r would find
or he (Mr.
'o'4 sti
--AnninPir) was much mistaken—in the country.
Sir F. BURDETT said that the facts of the Hon. Member
Mc Aberdeen's speech seemed to have been so stubborn that
the Right lion. Secretary:opposite had not cared to meddle with
tS'4a- The speech of the Right Hon. Gentlemannan himself was a
Esilare at ail points; for in his first proposition—that fonnded
uPon the article of union—he was not at all borne out; that ar-
title in terms only applied itself to the maintenance of the
Prat
, carom religion, while it was the maiintenance of tithes which
put in proof, if he
`oe Right lion. Gentleman should
4'ea4t hit argument to tell for any lave
i think.ladeen—a gross cheat, h
For the union itself,
Q
body knew what the un.on
rail_ `labia piece of corruption,suprmiotrntrdy by unprincipled vio-
nother Parliament
ae°o.o—one Parliament selling the c
u°7tag it---and the wrong upheld, and made good, by the as-
iatitace of military power. But take the Union Act to have
been a fair measure , still it was not a h
orof the Persians; and what reason wasw f
othe Medea
there
desirable
that it
should not be revised, if such a course was lor the ad antage of the Public ? The Right Honoutra..
abb,le Sect. etat; talked of the sacredness of private property ; b.
a"'".. (Sir F. Burdett) had no hesitation to say, that even with
it demanded it,
ayeta to private property, if the p
1 a course as that of the Hon. Meunbiblieerlfioenr Aberdeen,who.u.nlgd
dell warranted. The Hon. Baronet, after contu li
tay that there was, nevertheless, no parity between cases of
vate property and church property,
I the Pro-
sat down by declaring
id those did the greatest mischief to the cause o testant church in Ireland who ave a tatic admission that its
'tateatigatione was not what it should be,g
eery
by resisting demand for
ZMr. ThANT opposed the resolution and objected
rto_ctelnie.
v„apiag legislatiou of the Honourable Member forn..suibleied(A;
Ir. 1,1,_11 a Gentleman meddled with so many q 31,47.9 would absolUtely pin his faith upon himn" withro ;espect to
lit' Aldertnan WOOD said, that he had meant to cheer the
trait Mern'oer for Aberdeen's declaration as to his ow.neesrieni.
the wih.olellspweeocthil.d, however, (if he had heard it) have ell u
Ibtroulr. li_ecretary
for him
ti,, ble the ,louse •
PEEL said it would be unnecessary .
with more than a very few observations,
al-ttitsVie thought the lion. Baronet had entirel failed to
Putts orthral)°l".l°fla of his Riht lion. Friend. 3' In_ other
'Tad to the pACt of Union besides the Article which had. been,
she Chat h '°use, the
that .c of Irehind ot"-k--- .
part which watt fully recognis , a •1s as Re.Cponstciitulrr'olnof
Eresentative p Provided .for the sitting of the Bisaop
eers.
Baronet sp k Re Was surprised to hear the Honourable
"1„e71-;_i
wi:lot.ne; 4 bbroe haul done of this Act of Union, when. he
d by htni-
oht a Bill into the House
whatever
4et out h
'Union Stever contueYn3 declaring it permanent andfrianmvieolable; so_
pt he might now entertain for the act of
suer
u. he certainly at that time was satisfied to rest hilsl m.eta-
Chetßut trana.,,the corner-stone of it permanency and invio hiltY.
e Hon as s-a in somewhat singular
Pqr,kiew • ember propose., a
ui,,a froth
that the Bishops should be'—
"doubledP2the I
sio7: grunt Sir la ri
aairdett). He did not mean to say that 1
ih_
wait aronet was going to " double them up" he was
would
1
1.;!-:t1;, atoeuxsper._ess(ion which the Honourable Baronet wfu
ii.l,;ll.2.tthlisierlifloorti Much laughing.)—It was the Honourable.
..elobferdeen who meant to double the Bishops up;
'ere were
" doubling up" was a remarkably odd one.
toa_a.. e twenty-four Bishops in Ireland, and the_ Ho-
bc
!wr Ole twenty-four thought they ought to be " doubled ull;ut
Va °:-.4l4tughter.)—He considered two quite enough ;
'uaß that he had to deal with aprejudiced House, lie con-
'let's° tecloti,_in the excess of his liberality, to double his two uir,
that oa_ The Honourable Baronet admitted the principlevate indi •`."urell property was equally sacred with that of private
theZlebtuds. But then he declared himself ready to support
appii_lleaolutions, which he considered perfectly harmless, as , 4,4 '-'4 tO Private property. Now, had the Honourable Baronet
,„,tiit or heard the resolution ? He thought that with all his lii.)-
avearih.the Hon. Baronet had too much consideration for his :
Utule.rr4°,. °4l Property to consent, that it should comies
esoitel°o description which would be given to it by
_tth
e.
Qhur,4,‘"'n• It began by stating that " the property of
that
she iala of Ireland is public property." Ile hpprehended ,
k,hi7, Baronet would not like this description to be applied.
to he tPrivate.property; and if the property of the church was ,
the H teated In the smile manner as private property, which againßaronet admitted, then he called upon hini to vote
*tile st the proposition of the lion. Member for Aberdeen.—
th Right Hon. Gentleman expressed his willingness to enforce
heesatrict performance of the duties of the Church by its mem-
-4 ;j(;11)1:t he would never consent to principles which sanctioned
violation of its lawful rights and possessions. . ._ .
,i,i,};ritouGliAm said, that both on the principles upon
.ite,; , noth
toedwre formed, and in the rules by whicla both were
aitei,omed
Nzttt (41 between private 'property and church property. Prt-
q hir:PertY Was that sort of property to which an individual,
Pre-
p right, and of that right only, had a t.itle. It was
u 1 ,^b) which could be sold, or given away, or transferred, or
lilted ete4—property which the possessor could bequeath as he
hei .or which in default of bequest, by law, descended to his
this'ait._ilut hew did the proa2rty ofthe parson at all transfersorresod with
leave i:ctiPtion ? He could neither sell it, nor. it, nor
or 10,. to whom he pleased; but it passed from him to a successor
°I., ortailtll!e_ knew nothing, and who, perhaps, had been his most
gtual, ritesLoia lf private i,roper:ty'were taken from an
oeh.,.ate robbed not only him, but his children, or next
140640ut if the law said to a clerical incumbent, " The
Illattl.l this living shall cease after your death, who, in whom
clittatgeVolan had any interest, was in the smallest degree
ierty
v/as th ? Besides, was it not clear that private Plfaid no
d.. at i
Uty to -oooMe for the receipt of which the holder ' .
like ata?erfbrol ? They Clergy were officers of state, and,
the I;I'r officers of State, might he got rid of in proportiotnwaass
enireci,ere no further required. If the church property, as it
or nav was private property, why was not the pay of
thel
t the
lia,seYdersonal in an equal degree? And the practice—
the fact °l' only at what had been the practice—
it , ,_, stood. If the tithe was really privatseimpwreOpleehroty:, the-ill',O oot be meddled with at all. Now what. w • PriiniVng as to that ? Why, the tithe of agistment—this was.
the u P!°Perty—liad been given up in Ireland at the time of
hoe '°o, and it was well known that the Union could no not the'leel! carried without it. If tithe was private property,
caul, , slightest reforin could ever be made in it; for who
ti!eolol:ol.tieoovpeer;oframe a scheme which should meet the approba-
throe: 4 sub clergyman ? And if a single individual was coms
mit, the snoliation was as decided as if it extended
to ~_g the whole boda. For the act of Union, it ought to be
ttltraortie-anot for a mouient—to any course in which the public
t",asconcerned. In the case of Scotland, the heritable juris-
recotsi_, ter. which there had been an especial clause made against
thatrep kteraion......being found to be pernicious, had subsequently
that,doealed• The Hon. and Learned Member after observing,
alwaya 1:1 to the day of Richard if. the tithes in every parish had
hath cen hoedhOrd with the m
aintenance of the poor, and
0 knew of law- which relieved the clergy from that