The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-02 00:00:00

leof things—after attacking the detartures from the old
and attacking the scale of the Right Hon. Gentleman
-ear him toforward and lay the burden of all those
I come
re7ts on the 13i11 we propose.—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, with
rerence to the application of the net income arising under the
Ithe Bill
, which in the present measure. It is
we propose
as follows :-
6: To 675 benefices of the first class, containing more than
and less than 500 Protestants, at 2001. per benefice, rent-
Cu a.
'go and 30 acres of glebe valued at 303. per acre-
-165,3751.
" Ta 2ll benefices of the second class, containing more
„than 500, and less than 1,000 Protestants, at 3001. per bene-
zee, rent-charge and 30 acres of glebe valued as before-
-72,7951.

1,"00To 190 benefices of the third class, containing more than
~en, 3 and less than 3,000 Protestants, at 4001. per benefice,
"'charge and 30 acres of glebe valued as before-84,5501.
‘` To 61 benefices of the fourth class, containing upwards of
3,000 Protestants, at 500/. per benefice, rent-charge and 30
acres of glebe valued as before-27,795/.
" To 123 benefices of the fifth class, containing less than
so Protestants, at 1001. per benefice, rent charge and 30 acres
44 glebe valued as before-17,8351."
It appears, as my Noble Friend ha very truly said, that the
Whole scale furnishes about 1901. force ach benefice ; but if I
Were to take only a part of these, if I were to omit benefices
containing more than 50 and less than 500, and benefices
nntaining less than 50, then the whole amount being
185,000/, would give for each benefice an average of about
411/. a year.----(Hear, hear.) What say the Church Commis-
sioners in their second report, with reference to the present
state of the Church of England ? It appears from their
report, that "there are 3,528 benefices under 1501. per
annum ; of that number, thirteen contain each a population of
Thor° than 10,000, fifty-one a population of from 5,000 to
10,000 ; two hundred and fifty-one a population of between
2,000 and 5,000; and eleven hundred and twenty-five have
each a population of between 500 and 2,000." According to
Ibis statement there are 1,440 benefices in this country, each

Containing above 500 persons, all under 150/. per Minim, and
the average of which we may suppose to be from 1001. to 1201.
per annum.—( Cheers.) Therefore we have here in England,
1,440 benefices, each containing more than 500 people, at this
average of 1201. a year—say it yields an average of 1201. a-
ear ; and we propose that in Ireland, in all benefices contain-
ing more than 500 persons, there shall he one average of 411/.
a-year.—(Loud cheers.) Now, I ask my Noble Friend, if he
so shocked at the penury in which we leave the Irish
Church, what does he consider the state of the English
Church under such circumstances as these 2—(Cheers.) Be
it recollected too, that the state of the English Church is the
state of a National Church, to which the people of this coun-
try belong; that when we talk of the poverty of clergymen of
this Church, we talk of the poverty of men who are doing
their duty to their flocks in both town parishes and country
parishes--whose offices are received with thankfulness, re-
spect, and veneration ; and that when we speak of the average
of 4001. a-year which is given to the Irish clergyman,
it is given in parishes where there are more than 500 mem-
bers of the Established Church, certainly, but where there

are, perhaps, 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 person; of a different per-
suasion, to whom that religious consolation cannot be ex-
tended, and by whom it would be refused if it were proffered.
This was the point upon which my Noble Friend opposite and
I entertain a difference which must always be kept in view.
This Church of Ireland you must endeavour to support ; you
%lust endeavour to make it agree, as well as you can, with the
circumstances of the country in which it is placed ; but, after
all, it is not the Church to which the great majority of the
People belong.--4 Loud cheers.) My Noble Friend com-
plains of the hardship and injustice of leaving some of these
Clergymen starving, as he calls it, on 1001. a-year. Why, Sir,
I find that in the 7th and Bth of King George the Fourth, in
the orthodox period of 1827, before the Roman Catholics were
admitted into this House, a provision was inserted in an Act
of Parliament that— _ _

" When any parish or parishes appropriate, belong to, and
are annexed to any archbishopric or bishopric in Ireland, it
shall and may be lawful for any archbishop, with the consent
of the dean and chapter of the diocese, and when there is not
any dean and chapter, then with the censent of the major
part of the beneficed clergy of the diocese, and also of the
archbishop and patron of such parish, under their hands and
seals, to unite two or more of such appropriate parish or pa-
rishes into one perpetual cure, and to unite one or more of
such approprirte parish or parishes to any one benefice or bene-
fices contiguous thereto, provided the certain value of each
such respective unions do net exceed 1001. by the year."
If any reproach can justly be brought against us, it is one
which applies equally against those who framed this Act, and
against those who passed it, and thought that in so doing, they
were conferring a benefit upon the Church of Ireland—
( Hear, hear, hear.) Undoubtedly in benefices in Ireland--
there were no great number of them--which contain less than
fifty Protestants, the income of 100/. a year is a small one ; but
it is not less, it is even larger, than the income which many
clergymen and curates of the Church of England enjoy. It is
an income one-fourth larger, besides the glebe, than we were
told last year was given to the curates of two parishes which
produced 1,2001. or 1,500/. a year to the rector.—( Loud
cheering.) So when my Noble Friend the Secretary for Ire-
land (Lord Morpeth) makes this proposition, he makes a pro-
Position, the tendency of which is not to diminish the Church,
but to apportion the income of its ministers to the amount of
sitxtv they arc called upon to perform. While he increases—
nd increases in several places to a very large extent—the in-
comes to be paid to those ministers who have heavy duties to
Perform, he diminishes the incomes of benefices wherein the
°limber of Protestants of the Established Church is very li-
alited.—(Hear, hear.) My Noble Friend opposite (Lord
Stanley) says that there ought to be some limit, according to
the extent of the parish. It is a great hardship undoubtedly
and a very severe labour, for a clergyman to have to go over a
great eetent of country, in the discharge of his spiritual duties ;
and this is one of the points which I think might well come
lsnder the consideration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
At the same time I should be sorry that a rule should be laid
down, and above all in an Act of Parliament, that the extent
of parishes might be enlarged to any degree. By adopting
such a principle we might fall into the error which those have
fallen into who have long opposed the Bill before the House
an the subject, and the principle of it, that we should consider
the extent of Ireland and not the number of Protestants—
that we should provide for the cure of acres and not for the
cure of souls.—(Cheers and laughter.) His Noble Friend
'yea% at some length into an explanation of the details of his
own Bill, and he also found fault with the Commissioners.—
(Hear, hear, from Lord Stanley.) At any rate, if he did not
rect.), censure, he did, by implication, state that some blame
Ir4s„.. attachable to the Commissioners acting under the Church
-ifemporalities Bill. His Noble Friend read a statement from
*emir report, in which they stated that they thought that it
'was expedient to spend 75,000!. a year in the repair of
churches; but he added that, in particular instances, they had
sent down 100/. for the repair of churches which did not
require more than Si. to be laid out upon them, and this had
occurred it, parishes where there were Protestant gentlemen
Who were ready to contribute the Si. The Noble Lord passed
over the defects of the Act which he wished to introduce, and
bent to the clauses of the Bill before the House, which gave
Power to the Secretary of State to reduce the income or reve-
Imo of the Clergy to the minimum, and he assumed that this
Would be acted upon in every MC ; and he added, that thus
1,t.1 impoverishing the Clergy the Government would be ena-
bled to raise a large surplus to devote to other purposes. I
think that this was carrying the argument to the extreme, and
1° an unfair length, for it is always to be assumed that
the Government of the day, in which there is a dis-
cretionary power, will carry a Bill into effect according to
the spirit of it, and according to the sense in which it re-
ceived the sanction of Parliament, and will not strive to vio-
late ethe principle of the Bill. If the Act stated that from
00/. to 300/. a year was to be given to a Clergyman, accord-
ing to circumstances—if they always gave 2001., whatever
/night be the circumstances of the case, and never 3001.—they
Would sot act fairly, or in conformity with the meaning or spirit
of the bill. I think that Parliament would feel that any Se-
c, eetaey of State, or any Minister of the Crown, would neglect
big duty if the Bill should be carried into operation in this
lwaY•—( Hear, hear.) But if any other persons should be pro-
Posed to carry the Bill into effect than the ecclesiastical Com-
inissionera of the Protestant Church, I should be happy to
ret to the arrangement, provided that it could be shown
``) bc'. more satisfactory, for I do not mean to say that these
are- the only persons who can co so. I repeat, if there arc
other persons who in the opinion of Parliament are better
.aldapted to carry out the plan, I am quite ready to assent
. a
change in this part of the measure. It was always
'aid in the course of the debate on this subject last year,
!oat there would be no surplus if the Bill was passed—that,
ak Tact, a calculation was made of a surplus which would not
4131lear, and which would altogether vanish in operation,
and that it was only an imaginary surplus on paper. I eon-
.eis that my Noble Friend's proposition was more acceptable
14 appearance than the assertion so constantly made last
year, because my Noble Friend says that there will be too large
,
;244rplus, and indeed so large that we shall not know how
amply; it—that more will be received than was necessary
Tr the payment ofa-year for educion. At any
we shall carry into effect the object intended of apply-
Atilt any surplus that may arise to the purpose of general edu-
-
~ mien ; and my Noble Friend need not be under any alarm
4:14 to too much accruing for this purpose for a considerable
44e ; for in the first place, the fifty thousand pounds a-year,
4 given from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of gc-
17d education must be repaid. I feel perfectly well assured
*hat it will be many years before the fifty thousand pounds a-
?:f ear thus advanced will be repaid by the Bill.—( Hear, hear,
totn Sir Robert Peel.) The Right Hon. Baronet is, per-
satisfied that this is the case. It must be recollected,
at,any surplus of money that may accumulate in the bands
of tine Commissioners, may be devoted for the compensation
of
i,tnose who give up their advowsons, to allow them to fall
0 the bands of the Commissioners, that they may come
within the operation of the Bill. Therefore the Right Hon.
t,ntleman will not agree with the Noble Lord, that any
ttrplus would arise that would be too large for the pro-
elpose ; u pur b t, on the contrary, that it would be a long
nie ,
oefore it would amount to a large sum. At any rate, I
eeist say that this will be the case, before the sum will be suf-
;ntlY great to be devoted to other purpoees than the edu-
eait I°ll of the people. Although, therefore, a sum may arise,
,
la, be a very long time before there will be a sufficiently
ge surplus to render it necessary that the attention of Par-
i„arlillent should be drawn to the subject.—( Hear.)
Friend called My Noble
With my attention to one point connected, as he said,
a surplus—namely, respecting glebe lands. He asked
iev_whether this surplus was to be applied in such a way as to
glebe lands to the Roman Catholics •? He asked me for
I then and distinct answer to the qucstion.—( flux, L,;,..r.)
tcn answer directly and distinctly—No.—( Cheers.) His
aleste,
of th_ s Government have no intention to apply any portion
Cl e surplus from glebe lands for the Roman Catholic
gY.--( Hear, hear.) I state now, as I did on a former