The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-07 00:00:00

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

The Dumbarton Canal Bill, Belfast Railway Bill, and Buck-
ingham Railway Bill, were brotwht from the Commons.

IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL,

On the motion of Lord DUSCAKNON the report on this Bill
wai brought up.
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the clause which
obliged a constable or sub-constable, to swear that he did not
belong to a secret society, because it would operate against the
society of Freemasons.

Tho Earl of RADNOR was not a Freemason, nor had he
mu-h respect for the craft, but he objected to the clause.
T..e'Duke of LEINSTER also opposed the clause.
E-trl HARROWBY opposed the clause.-
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought there should
be n,) exception in favour of Freemasons.

The Duke of LEINSTER moved as ari amendment that
Freemasons be excepted.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when their Lord.
ships; divided, when the numbers were—
For the original clause
Against
Majority against the amendment...

44

_.3

The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the clause which em-
powered sub-inspectors to act as magistrates, if they should, in
discharge of their duty, happen to come in collision with the
people, how could they tell whether they acted in their capa-
city of sub-inspectors or magistrates. • • •
Lord RODEN differed from the Noble Duke; from his
experience, he could say it was of great advantage to have
sub-inspectors acting as Magistrates.

All the other clauses, as amended, were then agreed to.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH gave notice that he should
move the insertion of two clauses, requiring that detailed ac-
counts of the movements of • the police should be laid before
the Grand Jury.
The report was then received.
IRISH CHURCH.

... _.
1 The -Etel. oNZIPON then ewe,. end said that their Lord-
ships would recollect that. his Majesty had been graciously
ple:tsed to recommend to Parliament to take into consideration
the subject of tithes in Ireland ; and as the time was now
approaching when the House would be called upon to give
effect to that recommendation, it was therefore necessary that
the House should be furnished with all the information re-
quisite for explaining the whole of the question, and to enable
their Lordships to come to a correct decision upon it. The
motion with which he intended to conclude his present ob-
servations was for the purpose of bringing before the House
information on the subject which it did not now possess, and
he apprehended that, under the peculiar circumstances of, the
question of tithes in Ireland, it would be utterly impossible
to enter upon it without taking into consideration, not only the
best mode whereby that kind of property could be secured
and realized, but also the present condition and future pros,
pects'of the Church in that country. This latter considera-
tion appeared to him to be the most important, particularly if
it was intended to bring before the House any question of ap-
propriation or any proposition founded upon the supposition of
the existence of a surplus in the funds of that Church. It
was also very important to consider the connection between
the Church as regarded the means of maintaining it and the
question of tithes, and he would say that when persons talked
of Church property as being merely intended for the payment
of the individual clergy of each parish, they took a most narrow
and imperfect view of the question. The property of the
Church belonged, not to the individual clergy of each parish,
but to the whole body of Christians professing that particular
creed. It was true that the law regulated the disposition of
that property from motives of public convenience, but when it
undoubtedly belonged to a population of 839,000 souls, he would
say that their Lordships were bound gravely to consider how
it should be dealt with, when they knew that those to whom
it belonged did not, and never would willingly, consent to
abandon it for any other purpose. As far as regarded
the income of the -Clergy, he desired nu further information.
There was, he believed, alrseady on the table sufficient to
enable their Lordships thoroughly to understand the subject.
A commission was appointed five or six years ago for the pur-
pose of inquiry into the revenue of the Archbishops and the
various other dignitaries of the Church. That commission
furnished accurate and complete details on the subject; and
another commission, which was issued in 1834, called the Corn-
mi.sion of Public Instruction, had got together much useful
information respecting the parochial Clergy. But there were
other branches necessary to meet the wants of the Clergy--
such as regarded the increase of small livings—the providiuu
decent places of living for the Clergy—and decent plactesi of
worship for the administration of divine service ; and as re-
garded all the other objects, without (manikin to which it was
imnossible the divine service could be properly performed-..as
far as regarded_ all these objects, the information now possessed
by the House was sufficient. It was true that the commission
appointed under the Act of 1833, called the Cltuvoh Tempo-
ralities Act, had presented to the Lord-Lietitenant two reports
of i's proceedings ; but the last of these proceedings did not
bring down the statement of the operations of the Commission
beyoad the first of August, 1835. His (the Earl of Ripon's) ob-
ject in making this motion was to obtain returns down to i 1 more recent period. The Church Temporalities Rill ro-
vided for all the purposes which he had just entlkllONled, and
to the proper execution of those purpoect; eke contended, the
Church possessed an indefeasiblo right, This was clearly
proved by the mere wording or the preamble of the Act, stud
he could say that th© 13i11 bore on its very face the evidence
of a Parliamentary contract between those making as impost
and those for whom the impost was made, Alt these purposes
he would, therefore, contend Parliament was bound to effect
before the Church of Ireland was deprived of any property.
He now came to the question of the actual condition of the
funds of the Irish Church, and of the manner in which the
Commissioners had been enabled to perform the duties im-
posed upon them by the Bill. According to an estimate made
-by the Commissioners, it was stated that the sum likely to arise
from the amalgamation of the ten bishoprics was "...e.t less than
50,000/. a year. The tax on the remaiuir- bishoprics it was
stated would produce 4,600/. A pee, and the tax on the in-
comes of the Clergy at large would amount to 44,800/. more.
The interest to be received ^., 1,41,11„), to be obtained from the
sale of perpetuitiest was stated at 40 000/. The result of
the wheli. klintate, including the 'prospective reduction
fg t!ig incomes of the Archbi-shop of Armagh and of the
is..up of Oerry, together with some other small items, would
lArtloutit to 146,8401 per annum. The sum stated to bare
Welt previously derived from vestry cess was 60,0001. On
accettint of the augmentation of small livings the sum of
46AQC1. was annually paid; for building-churches 20,0001.
ann'tiaily., and for providing glebe-houses, 10,0001. ; making,
In the ,'pole, 136,5001. In the conclusion of the year 1834
an Act was passed which placed at the disposal of the com-
missioners funds, of the annual value of 22,000/. The ex-
penses
of the commission for the year ending August, 1635,
were about 12,000/. ; and when the balancii
botwe,an the ex-
penditure and the income war,rectal,lucted, and that the assets
to which the fkludi v:klli,V. to, be applied were urgent, whilst
illts%'stek4. ih,e4rwilyee Weee distant, uncertain, and contingent, it
•4;1i,..e nc ,--essary that sow sear should '1:. 4` ivea to the Commis-
seontses to eemmynce operaticms lay incurring a debt. In short,
'Xllelt t1;0 geultAlsa4lers eorameneed they had not funds suffi-
Pico l',-,•' The vestry GC SS,* much less for the other important ob-
jects to which they were tube applied. The first year the sum
!I'VVetVieti wAs 20,0331,, and in the following ;ear 32,206/., mak.