The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuNm 2.
IRISH TITHES-ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. BARRON'S speech continued from our last night's
debate.

* * Would the House refuse 50,0001. for the
education of the people of Ireland, while at the same time
they taunted the people with being a brutal ignorant people?
How could they be otherwise than ignorant when whole
parishes were to be found in which there was not a single
school? They told the Irish people that they were not capable
of governing themselves, and yet refused them the means
of education? He implored the House, for the sake of pro-
perty, not to drive the people of Ireland to desperation. It
was monstrous to tell a whole nation that they must remain
in ignorance, and have no share of the means provided for
moral and religious instruction. There was now an opportu-
nity for a rational compromise between the two parties that
divided Ireland. Was it worthy of the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite (Sir J. Graham) to endeavour to excite the religious
feelings of the people of this country against the Catholics of
Ireland ? He could tell that Right Hon. Baronet that the days
of Lord George Gordon were gone, never to return. The people
of England were no longer to be deluded by such means. He
could not help thinking that if the Right Hon. Baronet were
seated on the Ministerial instead of the Opposition benches,
he would not have such a holy horror of Popery as he now
professed. Did not the Right Hon. Baronet know that the
Roman Catholic religion was the religion of the great majo-
rity of civilized Europe ? They had already put power into
the hands of the Catholics of Ireland, and yet they looked
upon them as alien in feelings to their British fellow-sub-
jects. This was a state of things that was unnatural, and
could not last ; and the sooner it was put an end to the better
for the peace and happiness of both countries.
Mr. G. KNIGHT said it would not have been wonderful if,
after the manner in which promises had been broken, after
the total failure of that reconcilation which was to have
ensued, after the deeply-to-be-lamented conduct of the political
priests, and the prostitution of religion to political purposes,
he did not think it would have been wonderful if any man had
been induced to take up, with regard to that question, an en-
tirely new position. But it was not these considerations which
made him think the Established Church less out of proportion
than he had thought it, but because since 1832 its proportions
had been materially changed. In 1833 inquiries had not been
instituted, and it was confidently asserted that the annual in
come of the Irish Church amounted to no less than three mil-
lions. Since that time the truth had been ascertained. Lord
Althorp—whose very name is a guarantee for good faith—had
declared in his place that on no subject had he ever known
so great a delusion to prevail. The real income of the
Irish Church was found to be 800,000/. ; from that amount
60,0001. a year was diverted to relieve the Catholics from tha
ccss of whiell they loudly complained. —( Hear, hear.) Ten
Protestant Bishops were swept away ; the revenues of the
Established Church were reduced, and a large measure of
Irish Church reform was carried into effect. This was the
explanation of his no longer entertaining the same opinions be
had expressed in 1832. He was aware it was said that a
part of the Cabinet of Earl Grey had not considered his
measure of Irish Church Reform as a final measure ; but in
his (Mr. G. Knight's) opinion nothing was so directly the
reverse of good government as when great changes were
made speedily to return to the charge. Such a practice
created a perpetual expectation of change, and gave the public
mind a habit of restlessness the very opposite te'that which it
was the duty of all Governments to instil. He ventured to
ask whether it would be consistent in him to do anything but
strenuously to oppose the secular principle which was the
ground upon which the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the
Home Department had declared last night he would take his
stand It was that principle which met him on the threshold—that
principle for which alone the warmest supporters of the Bill
avowed they thought it valuable—that principle which per-
vaded every line of the present Bill, of which the enactments
were prepared with as much labour and astuteness as if it
had been entrusted to the arch enemy himself. He admitted
that his Majesty's present Ministers were in honour bound not
to omit the principle from their this year's Bill—but he re..
gretted that abstract principles should be dragged from the
closet and ebtruded on legislative assemblies. So brought
forward, they were always the symptoms of morbid excite-
ment, and often the precursors of fatal events. Men went
wild about abstract principles—nations are convulsed in their
name. The National Assembly of France, in 1789, teemed
with abstract principles, and prepared itself with a course of
them in a career of crime and of blood—whilst, on the other
hand, there was not a single abstract principle to be found in
our Bill of Rights, because the Statesmen of that day knew
how unwise it was to introduce them. Nothing, it was now
clear, would satisfy the disturbers of Ireland but the complete
subversion of the Protestant Church, and the establishment of
a Catholic Church, and a separate Catholic republic. If these
things were desirable, were they possible ? Would the great
body of the Scotch and English people ever consent to the
establishment of a Catholic Church in Ireland? and if it were
established, would that give Ireland tranquillity? Would it
not drive to desperation a minority powerful enough to disturb
the peace, and certain to do so, if cruelly outraged ? Tran-
quillity would not be obtained. The scene of agitation would
only he changed. He was disgusted with the attempt to get
religion done cheap, and lie was astonished to hear the Noble
Lord (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) re-
mind them last night of the miserable pittance received by some
of the working clergy of England as a thing worthy of irnita-
tion. The servants of the altar were not, after all, "hewers of
wood and drawers of water." A Minister of the Gospel was
not to be bargained for and cheapened, like a damaged bale of
goods. He contended that Ministers had no right to cut down
the Church for the sake of creating a surplus ; and that, by
this Bill they did so cut it down much below the necessary
amount, as had been abundantly proved last night hy the
Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, Rut there were
two propositions before the House, the Reform of the Church
and commutation of Tithes. About the latter there was but
one opinion, It was most desirable that the tax should be
transferred from the tenant to the landlord, and remove the
irritation and collision which arose from the present manner of
collection ; and in Ireland, where the collection was so pecu-
liarly difficult, it was fair to give the landlord a fair coinpen-
sition, and it was no hardship to make him undertake the risk,
because the greater part of the land was in Protestant hands,
and therefore it would only be a payment from a Protegam
propriotor to a Protestant Minister, in Ireland there roust al-
selo be Protestant landlords and Catholic tenants. He did
not suppose the House would ever adopt the suggestions of
the Priest of Carlow, and sanction the ejection of the
propriotays of the soil, fa the peonnloy pot of
the matter, the landlord was alone concerned, fur evctt-
tually the tenant ceased to pay in tithe, he would
pay in pont, This would assuredly she the case sooner
or later in a country whore there was a greater competition
for land than in any other country in the world. The
catholic tenants are therefore exactly the persons least con-
vernal, though they were always brought forward as the
stalking-horses on this occasion. It was first represented they
would be so much the less poor for every farthing taken from
the Church and then they were significantly fcrelP.lo laf
ocir nitmPeP-=t4 six 9101!clit-4 weN tit eyer. bytmdished in their
faces. 1 But this was nothing but tic argument of physical
force=the argtiment of anar;hy--the tocsin cif civil Mir i Ally
thi4 wag 4111PTIptit wilich the lintio wclttici !mar be in-
-4401°0. Tint they Were all agreed about tithes i the point
at issue was the prepesal of pettieg down the Church to erect
stFPIR. if Ministers really wished 0 do lastiPe to Ireland
without introducing an erroneous principle or pandering
to 1141 PaAgigliii they really wished to show that they eared for
the Catholic population of Ireland, they would with one hand
protect the Protestant Establishment, and with the other
chnrge the Consolidated Fund with the pay of th.?. Catholic
Clery they would provide a Reaiurla tfir PAtho-
'ids t iluth, tiere 41N44yrlwas for the trehtytterians of
ti 4 Wort fo. eneduth4e 'the dafhOle'repiron_Liiot as.an
establishment—but as a statesmanlike Manner of 'shlig with
tlley eret and pf Otisnititig Nelltigs
eserve
to he I:9llfWa, as was pnikrofly c1:011, -cY.erY Other 'rro-
testßnt country of hurope. I-1e was reCclirincliiig no; log
Pitt, Vox,
mote had bmi opinionof
an 4 more than had beOn once confirmed 11.1,
that -fouv.
1:01RIN would come to the main point—The 4p,
piiptttOn of the surplus thtit plight aria? from thy (Aura pro-

perty of Ireland after providing for the spiritual wants of the
Irish Protestants. This property was originally wrested from
the Roman Catholic Clergy, and given to the Protestant
Clergy, with a view to the conversion of the population of
Ireland to the Protestant religion. In this they failed, and
the proposed object not having been attained, he considered it
fully competent to Parliament to apply any surplus of it to
purposes best calculated to promote the
,education of the Irish
people, guaranteeing, at the same time, existing interests. Ile
considered it the duty of the State to provide for the religious
education, of all subjeczs, unless they entertained doctrines
hostile to the public security. He cared not from what source
the means were drawn, from local taxation, from the Consoli-
dated Fund, or from a surplus of Church property. Ile had
looked carefully into the subject, and he must confess be could
see no injustice whatever in contributing to the support of the
Roman Catholic Clergy, from any surplus income of the Irish
Church. lie should have been much better pleased, if, in-
stead of giving 301. per cent. to the Irish landlords, that sum
had been employed to constitute a fund for the support of the
1;-i.Th Catholics. The question here was not as to 50,000/., or
any other sum. The great question was whether Catholics were
to be placed in all respects on the same footing as Protestants.
In his view it made no difference whether the surplus was
10,0001. or 100,000/. The Noble Lnrd ( Morpeth) placed the
amount too high at 360,0001. • In Scotland religious instruc-
tion was provided for a people much more numerous than the
Protestants of Ireland at less expense than 300,000/., and it
would not be denied that there was nowhere to be found a mere
moral, a more exemplary, or a better-educated clergy than
those of Scotland. The best course would be to throw all the
Church property into a general fund, and let the clergy be paid
out of it without any deduction. The Bishops of Ireland were
too highly paid. From 4,000/. to 5 000/. a year was too much
in so cheap a country as Ireland ; 2,0001. or 3,000/. a year, and
4,000/. to an Archbishop, would be amply sufficient ; an addi-
tional sum of 1,0001. might be given to such of the Irish Pre-
lates as had to attend Parliamentary dutieS. The net revenue
of the Irish Church was, altogether, 795,0001., and from this a
surplus might easily be had of 159,000/. or 200,000/. If ever
there could be any excuse for a breach of the peace the tithe-
payers of Ireland were excusable for refusing to pay tithe.
They were led into an error upon the subject. The Noble
Lord ( Stanley) announced to them that tithes were extin-
guished for ever in Ireland. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
IL Peel), on coming into office, declared that tithes could no
longer be levied on the occupier, and the million loan was
given up to him to indemnify those who had refused to pay.
What was tobe done ? It was easy for Gentlemen opposite
to oppose concession. They did not reside in that country,
and were not daily alarmed with the dangers which threatened
life and property. There were many Protestant Clergymen
in Ireland who bitterly rued the course which had been purr'
sued by their so-called friends and advocates. • •- •

Mr. W. ROCHE said that the amount of tho surplus was
not so much the object as the principle ; for, however small
might be the amount which could be afforded for the purposes
of education, the great point gained by it was that the admis-
sion of the right of the people to claim it, was evidence of
good feeling on the part of the Government of this country
towards the Roman Catholics.

Mr. J. YOUNG thought that it was the general character
of measures, more than their details, which the House ought
to look at as important. The general character of the present
measure he (Mr. Young) could not but look at as being very
strongly marked. It was, in fact, as had been the former
appropriation clause, adopted more as a means of humiliation
to those who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House
and their supporters, than as being likely to affect the objects
which were ostensibly put forward as being attainable by it.
Hon. Members on the other side were constantly in the habit
of talking of their seven millions, but he (Mr. Young) was
convinced that not more than one hundreth part that number
ranked themselves with that determined hostility to the Church
of Ireland as was pretended by some Honourable Members
opposite to be the feeling of the great body of the people of
Ireland.

Mr. E. BULWER said that much had been said about the
smallness of the surplus, and it had even been alleged that
there would, in fact, be no surplus at all that could be appro.
priated ; but it appeared to him (Mr. Bulwer), assuming this
last statement even to be a fact, that it furnished an additional
argument in favour of the measure of the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Ireland.--( Hear, hear, hear.) But, to come
to the merits of the question at issue. Why, if sinecures
were abolished on principle in the offices of the State,
should they not proceed to legitimate the principle in the
Church ?—( Hear.) The Hon. Member for Nottingham-
shire had admitted the propriety of appropriating a portion of
the revenue to the advantage of the Roman Catholics, yet it
was argued that it was illegal to appropriate a part of the re-
venue to the advantage of the whole people of Ireland—alike
to Protestants and to Roman Catholics.—( Hear.) What,
would posterity believe that the Noble Lord (Stanley), who
had declared himself the godfather of the Protestant Clergy,
who had promised and declared in their name, would after-
wards declare that the Church property of Ireland could only
be appropriated to the uses of that Church alone? Why,
were they not standing on the ruins of the great Catholic
Church ? And should they decide adversely to their own title
deeds ? Every age possessed abstractedly the right to modify
and improve the laws and regulations of all preceding ages, in
order to suit the increased or altered wants of the people of
their own time; and it was upon this rule of legislation that
t saatsa -aes.—ecneets rrortrtsie
Aliaibterial Benches.) Talk of -Irish bulls I Why the
Church of Ireland was the greatest Irish bull of all, because
it was to be the Church of Ireland,
.but not to be the
Church of the Irish.—(A laugh.) Did the friends of the
Church of England imagine they were serving her cause by
tying a diseased body to the healthy one ? If they did
they were mistaken, for they were only the more surely
spreading to the healthy -body the contagion from the
diseased one.-_.t Hear.) It had been said that the policy
of the Government was one of concession. He denied it.
They had succumbed, but they had not conceded. Adherence,
obstinate adherence to principles, had ever been fatal to those
who occupied the benches opposite. The Duke of Wellington
declared against reform, yet schedules A and B very quickly
followed upon that declaration.. They now stood up for the
Old Sarum of the Irish Church ; but they might possibly, It
their present opposition was successful, find that it was only
preparing the public mind for measures of a atilt more sweeping
nature.—(Cheers from the Irish Members.) The Noble
(Stanley) had certainly drawn a most affecting picture of the
present state of the Clergy; but what had they to thank fur
it ? Why, the advocacy of the Noble Lord and his sup-
porters I For was there one man to be found who thought that,
unless the Reform Bill could be repealed, it was possible to settle
the question of tithe in Ireland without introducing the pria-
ciple of appropriation ? It was the principle on which the
Noble Lord and his supporters advocated the cause of the
Irish Clergy that had rendered the Church the real big begger-
man of Ireland.—( Laughter, in which Mr. O'Connell joined )
During the discussion on the Reform gill the Duke of Wel-
lington had asked how, if the Aiii passed, the Government
of Ireland was to be carried on? An answer to that question
was afforded at the time, when the Right lion. Baronet op-
posite, having assembled a House of Commons to wltneas his
expected triumph, was told that without this principle of ap-
propriation the people of Ireland would not be satisfied. • At
the same time the Right Hon. Baronet found it was impossible
to carry on the Government of the country, unless with the
accordance of a majority of that House. They would find
that it would be impossible to make any compromise with Go-
vernments which were of the day only, at the expense of the
power of the power of the people, Which was immortal. He
saw nothing to be alarmed at ih the people of Ireland, but ho
saw much to be alarmed at in their discontent.—(Cheers.)
Mr, AI AOlan AN was sorry to hear from the lips of the
Hun, Gentleman who spoke last, such sentiments as had fallen
from him on the subject of the Irish Clergy, Ile had no right
to impute to them motives such as had been attributed to
them. He presumed that he must suppose the Hon. Gentle-
man was not one of those who bad exerted himself for the
support of the Irish Clergy? Who had created the cause of
the distress of the Clergy ?—( Cheers from the Opposition,
and cries of " Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) He
thanked the lion. Gentleman for that cheer, and be (Mr.
Maclean) would tell him. that ho believed that he <Mr.
O'Connell), and those with whom he acted, wew the cause
of that distress, They had been reminded by Honourable
Gentlemon opposite, that the unkirtunate affair of Ratheor.
mac was awing to the system of tithes. Now, he contended
that it PM not owing to the system of tithes, but to the
doctrines that had been preached on the subject, that had led
to this state of things, (Cheers from the Opposition.) It
was observed by the Noble Lord that if Queen Elizabeth had
been a Catholic and James the Second a Protestant, there
never would have been any security for the liberties of Eng..
land. The Noble Lord expressed a similar opinion, but in
stronger language, in a subsequent part of his, book.
.( The
Hon. Gentleman then quoted an extraot from it, to the effect
that in consequence of the Catholics having engaged in so
many eeespieaelea against the Government and tliebeoustitu-
lknale the reigns of Elizabeth, James 1., and Charles I. and
11., the English Parliament felt itself compelled to adopt re-
strictive laws respecting them, and that the Legislature was
was fully justitied in doing so.) Such was the opinion of
the Noble Lard upon alluding to what bad occurred in the
reign of William and Mary, He said that he could not doubt
the wisdom of precaution, and there was no doubt as to the
justice of the course pursued. He contended that they should
make the Bible, on which the faith of the King was founded, as
well as the principles of the national religion, the rule of their
conduct. From that book every man might be able to judge
for himself, and from the attentive study of which he sessaid
learn sufficient to overcome the sophistries o ;Nato or the
Hon. Member for Lincoln.--4" lleer, hear,'A and laughtsois
He would tell the and Learnt Member fel. gllkenny,
who bed cheerer) him in a tone of irony io the course of his
-address, that nobody felt more deeply than himself that the
Hon. Oelitlerlizilt possessed greet power in Ireland. He (Mr.
Maclean) was inns, aware of the prostrate state of Ireland, and
he would'tell the lion, Member that there never was a case
in which his intlaerese could be exercised in a more beneficial
or satisfactory manner for the advantage of both parties than
thiL—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would say to him, in
the language of one whose memory he knew the Hon. Gen-
tleman esteemed, Ireland was not dead, but oaly It
was in the Hon. Member's power to brisiv--. sst‘i ersee4ies of'
that country—( Cheer! fry kffnisteqal, benclies)—and lie
entreslsit,p;' iys Nit? Ii ,t 14e of tliq !looms, to awaken
her from the lethargy was slie TKO liear, hear.) Let
him etideqedr to set this geessiee at Teat; which might be
easily doelei toed they vse,al4 thusle ableto. bring out the
energies of the coentry. —pears 444..
Lord J'ctliN RuggE only wised to state that Isis
, . .
opit44 accoisumie‘ with that stated by Archdeacon
POu Au the subject of a Chorch Ratablishment.
Mr, MACLR AN explained.
Lord MORPETH—Having on a former occasion sub-
mitted a statement to the House on this subject, I do not now
feel called upon to trespass at arty length ott its attention
to pflor an
°.llCriatirni on this measure, except for ••
t •

„ cno pur-

'e

nose of answering some objections which appear to me 1
and to put tae true
:risen in the course of the discussion, and
in
aov
state of the case before the House. B
that has been urged against the
principle, I do not .argument
called
upon to enter. Because we rest uponbilitv of having irloptedthat principle, we have
.
no desire to sl.rink from the responsi
n Hear' hear')
it ; and it is our intention to act u
or heavy, we make no compla;nt ; for I
have not renounced
An 1 whether the harden of asseitingpot
our backs. —( Hear, hear.) Therefore we
in the Bill of last
this principle, nor have we made any change"
to be an improved
rear, except to adopt what we conceive t
measure. I
will
machinery for its operation in the preslesni.d
it
was my inter:-
htatbapsrinnbcti
not be diverted from the course which
tion to pursue,
has reference to
spoke last, into that branch of history. whitterch. Pylectbherolikgehnt
I must, how'
ever, antiquity of the Roman Catholic Ch
point of ever, observe, that I had thought that on
theleast assailable. I
anti-
quity the Roman Catholic Church was the
Church to
by following the Hono.uibable Member who
admit that I consider it to be the duty of every
afford every facility for the reading
not conceive that this point is now before the H
,neat) to assert
must say I hope that the Hon. Member did not. _n
tt,e,
class
that Fenelon and Bossuet were not to. be considered i
dia!elY
of Christians. To turn, however, to the subject imnie
for
before the House : I find that the Noble Lord the Memberwould
the Scripturebsu;seb;ob
1.117,1
North Lancashire stated that his plan he had no doubt
not
ray
be successful. I do not stop
Noble Friend's general plan was better than that proposeduels.
the Bill, but whether he had the power of adjusting
thethqat uvr
tion without the principle of appropriation ? lam sure
..
to inquire whether or
.IL
cies
would be successful. I must remind the House that two spc
of Commor,,,
Noble Friend would not offer a plan which he did not beiv.A
of messages were brought down to the House
last night, one by my Noble Friend
.the Member for
.IV.. _
ttt
Lancashire, from the Most Reverend and Right Reverend
e.
rn
Bench of Bishops of the Irish Church, stating that ~new were
ready to adopt and accept the scheme propo.:,eded by
(7.
Noble Friend ; the other message. was delivered by the 11
Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone), who apparently !,IP'
peared for the whole of the Upper House, and stated that they
would never give their consent to any proposition on the sub
ject, and this notwithstanding the august communication ,which.o
-had been made shortly before.--( Hear, hear.) I believe
that nothing that was said was conclusive on the. point; we
shall, therefore, procure permits for the introduction of our
goods, without further troubling ourselves on this ground.---..
( Hear, hear.) With respect to the particular measure whit!,
my Noble Friend opened to the House, I do •not feel touch
disposed to quarrel with him, for I think that there are sem°
points which we might be disposed to adopt, but we never
could bring ourselves to assent to the principle that ,whatever
surplus might arise from the income of the Irish Church, that
must be appropriated exclusively within the pale of the Est,'
blishment.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, and all ssii°
followed him, urged very few objections to the inunecLate ar-
rangement I proposed in the Bill before the House for the
commutation of tithes. lam very much obliged to himfor
this, for I felt that if there was any part of the Bill on which...
f
I had misgivings, it was on this point, because I was afraid
.s.t
shOUld be told that it bore heavily on the clergy of the I
Church. There is one feature in the scheme proposed by the
Noble Noble Lord opposite which certainly is not to be met with
our Bill—that, namely, of redemption. Upon this point 1
s.
shall content myself with remarking that when we have GfecTi
us a task beset, as the Noble Lord acknowledges, win such
complicated difficulties as the commutation of tithes into a
rent charge, it seems hardly expedient to cour;,le with it the
ba
other very complicated question of redemr? ,tion. It will 1
much better to take the questions separtstely,—( Hear.) "s a
have said, I do not wish to go at length into the objections and
difficulties which are in the way of redemption, but I
briefly remark, that if the rent charge be redeemed by
money, if that matey Ise invested in Government Securities
at 3siderable 1 per t.,
the parties will find themselves subjected ts°,o
con reel.oetion ; and if they be invested in land,
they would suffer a loss. The Noble Lord last night said that
the vSlue of land varied in different parts of Ireland • but
being the case would only materially add to the difficulty theof
the question. The great object of our Bill is to relieve,
mind of the clergyman from all uncertainty and suspense aso,',
the amount of his income and the receipt of' that ansoun!ii "
but if the clergyman be converted into a landowner there vit!i,
not only be no end to the collisions between him and t
tenants, but his property as such will be, of course, sobieca
to all the fluctuations and casualties which attend laude sf
property from bad weather, bad markets, and a score
es
other contingencies.—(Hear, hear.) What security cit
will he have that his tenant will not neglect his land, an
ss?
having suffered it to go to waste, throw it upon his hanuia
None at all. I will not go further into this point, but I is
repeat that I consider it highly inexpedient to embarras th
-
already very difficult and complicated question with the /Aa%
difficult and complicated question of redemption.—(le e
hear.) Passing to that part of the Bill which relates tout -
future distribution of Church property in Ireland, I may
that I last night felt myself greatly relieved at the very.
gated tone of opposition which I thought I perceived in the
te,
speeches of my Noble Friend and other Gentlemen s,plosi
in comparison with the mode in which my Bill of last year whe
treated, and in comparison with the mode is, which is„
Noble Lord's own measure on the subject fsi Church rem'
poralities was treated by the House:—(Hear, hear.) It'`
that one Hon. .L.:....mett the present Let
s bavingTesei drawn up by the arch enemy of mankind;
it was some compensation to find that other Hon. Gentle-
menhw
were not quite so hard upon me.—(A laugh.) I
two promitent grounds of objection to this measure appear to
be, first, the number of real Church purposes which are at pre'
sent incomplete, and which it is urged must be fully accent;
plished before we can make any transfer of a surplisa for thepurposes of education ; and, secondly, the alleged tow avers'
of income which we assign to the Clergy. of Ireland. In refer"
ence to the subject of the first of these objesaions, the number
of real Church purposes which are left incomplete, 11;1„s
state that a number of returns, which have been moved I have not as yet been able to lay on the table of the Will as there has net been sufficient time to make them out, but
am in no degree fearful of the strictest inquiry, which crin be
made upon the subject ; there is no part of the matter frr-
which I wish to shrink. Our great argument lies in the
mental maxim, the rightful tenure of property, as,d we h°'
that we stand equally unassailable whether upon, an ar;t101:
upon which we proceed. As I have said, the
ecific sp
tical balance sheet, or upon the great fundsSnental prinCiP
return
moved for upon this subject have not as :set been made, bet '
may observe that, formerly, the board of first fruits in Ireland' d
and the vestry cess there, were intended to provide for, ant
did, to a great extent, provide ;or many real ecclesiasti,cas
purposes ; and that at Presssnt the " general fund" 11604
under the ChUrch TemKralities Act is made applicable to t"
following. purposes :-44 I. To prosido things necessary for the celebration o
divine service in the church or chapel of every parish.
" 2, To pay all parish clerks and sextons' salaries. .
" 3. To defray the expenses of building, enlarging, or
re-
pairing churches and chapels.
" 4. To fence and maintain church-yards.
" 5. 'l'o augment small livings to 2001. per annum, and t°
purchase house and land for augmented benefices.
" 6. To cotnpensate thu lay patrons of any livings thas
may be divided under the provisions of the said Act.
"7. To defray the expense of the commissioners, and " 8. To provide for the maintenance of curates, &e., here-
tofore provided for by vestry assessment, under any statute'
-law, or custom."
These are purposes to which this fund is applicable, and I
cannot but think that they arc such as to satisfy Hon. Niefi
hers that the real purposes of the Church are not entirely
at nought or neglected.—( Hear, hear.) In lieu of the source
of revenue of the board of first fruits, which it merged in ari;
other board, and of the vestry cess, which it abolished, the
Legislature in that measure thought fit to provide, for P„
-
,
same purposes to which these had heretofore administere?it
other ecclesiastical revenues, which, though they obviootb
could not for a considerable time meet the purposes for c
they were designed without assistance from the
public tree,
,
wry, are peculiarly calculated at a future period to realize. it
considerable surplus. My Noble Friend opposite last nig!),
stated that the whole amount of permanent income which tati
Commissioners had at their disposition to meet the
permanst'
expenditure of 69,009/., was but 29,0001. It is true that
I
29,0001. is the amount reported to have been at the dispocii
of the Commissioners last year, but the Noble Lord omitted
to make any mention, as perhaps he ought to have done,
what has occurred since last session.-_( Hear.) Two bishorcs
have since fallen in, namely, Ossory, to the amount
3,5001. ; and Cork, to the amount of 4,3051 ; together 7,800,
Moreover, the present Bishop of Ferns and Ossory has become
liable to the tax, on succeeding to the temporalities of time sc°
of Ferns on the demise of the late Bishop. The tax on eeck9,l-
astical benefices rated by the Commissioners last year at 75(9..
has been increased by the Bishop of becoming also
subject thereto, and by the several livings exceeding 300'
which fell vacant last year.. The Commissioners, ii, their rc:
part of the Ist of August last, state also, that in app
of clerks to three additional (maces aniotoss.mg to an tire
sum of 5971. have been suspended ; and I •
am correct in statil
that since the date of that report, the sinecure preeentorship °,l
Elphin, amounting to 263/..,. less been also suspended ; 85,e
the 'lithe Bill provides for •
sne suspension of another sinec°:,
precentorship, to the ....mount of 1,000/., for the last two yc2rss;
so that when all. these circumstances are considered, not r;
speak
.of t'-„Q interest arising from the temporary investniQnt
in ste',A of the moneys realised from the sales of perpcWitie''
and which will be found for the half year to amount 10 1.5401.
ointments
the aceessiou .of income under these additional sources for
the
present year.may be fairly estimated at 5,2001., making in 47
for the present year, 42,000/. ; but this is exclusive of 31'/
moneys that may arise from the sale of perpetuities within t,'',
‘
„;
present year ; and when the House hears that no 'lass a st.
sotto
166,1511. has been realised from this sos.° alone to the
25th May last, that is, within the last two years. For the firsa
'
six months the Commissioners sold nothing_ that, indeed, r,`
their first report for the year spAklitrig August. 1y.35, they sr st"
they had only sold 2,3C1,,--4.„( Hear, heat.) I will now ,
the permission of OAP House, proseed to place clear!- re;
them th
estue IVAlatate of the prospects of the fund, s "tools
the anst of:the funds the bands in the hans,S, ger;
contemplated by the Church TemporaliVm,
siastical OellirOisaioners, when.all the sour, a'
of
ment Act, and the present Tithe ' Act, the cees
realised I contrasted with the aourees .1, shall have
by Earl Grey, to arise under the u.ect,
rcv nlni.nj,
of revenue estinia'
PAst
C....hurch Temporalities alone, as follows
CIIURCH TENIPORAUTIES &CT,
3 & 4 Will. IV., ch. 07'
Revenues as at present
contemplated to arise from .40
I. Produce of suppress,.
,t• see
2. Reduction of the s• •
otshopric of Derry, immediate sl
and prospective..
6
3. Futur'.
reduction of Armagh see
4. rt.•
s.aebe-house loan instalments, repayable for the
tar
fifteen years 7,„„a
5.. Tax on continuing bishoprics
6. Tax on incumbents of benefices 793'

Ship
ben(

T
the
Jests

Term

cpme
thitt
4.°l4nd