The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-02 00:00:00

to the sti p taken by the Vicer of Leeds, in inging
Bill before Parliament, at his own expense, to divide his
parish into districts, whereby he depsiveci himself of
half his income, and commented on filet ate ac enether
reason why they should adopt the motion of the Noble
Lord with the view of rendering earl- cessary the expen-
sive course taken by clergymen in tlieir individual ca
pacity for the division of their parishes, the Hon. Gen-
tleman concluded by expressing his conviction that the
appointment of the Commission proposed, and the adop-
tion
of the measures he contemplated, would effect a vast
Baying of the public money.
Mr. HORSMAN declared his gratification at the tone
and manner of the debate, and proceeded to remove some
rai"Perehi n,ions which he feared existed with respect
to the object the Noble Lord the Member for Bath sought
to attain. The Noble Lord merely endeavoured to work
oat the application of a principle which in individual
eases had been found productive of great good, and to
render the Church institution as effective as possible. He
felt Commissioners
grateful to the Noble Lord, and he trusted that the
"°ltltnissioners would comprise gentlemen who could
give up their time to the necessary labour of the Corn
mission, and that the inquiry would nut be postponed,
n
oMr. SIDNEY HERBERT wished to make an obser-
tstioa as to the working of the Commission. Allusion
bad been made to the abuses arising from pluralities, but
by
l'lvr most of those evils were prospectively dealt with,
and he was not prepared to deny that the plurality
restrictions ought to be carried farther. He said thus
much, lest in voting against the amendment, as he
intended to do, he should be classed among those who
lu:fenedth pluralities. He w the l affecting
them to te e farthest exte ouldnt, vestedcarr iny terestsaw being pre -
served, and he hoped the time was not far distant when
koth pluralities and non-residence would be things un-
ell"h• He wished to urge on the Noble Mover of the
,eselution before the House, to whom he thought the
thanks of all religious denominations were due, the neces-
etty of paying
attention to the means by which informe.
4 Was to be collected by the Commissioners. The ex-
isting organization should not be overlooked, but the
Commission ought to be worked through the chapters
and archdeacons, who were acquainted with the condi-
ti°rl of the archdeaconries. Ile trusted that the Hon.
Member for Montrose would withdraw his amendments,
and let the House unanimously appoint the Commission
°F Inquiry called for.
Mr. HUME said all that he wished was to make the
inquiry as general as possible. The Hon. Gentleman
T;!is Proceeding to restate the grounds on which he rested
IS amendments, when he was met by cries of " Order,
order," from the Chair; upon which he moved his first
,a,utendment, to the effect that after the word " popula-
tion" in the Noble Lord's motion, there be added the
Words " who attend the Established Church;" but which
amendment was negatived without a division. The Hon.
Member then proceeded to move his second amendment,
!0 the effect that the Commission to be appointed inquire
into the best mode of putting an end to ecclesiastical sine-
cures and pluralities. He considered the Hon. Member for
oxford (Mr. Wood) had introduced a strong argument
in favour of that amendment from his statement of the
good results which had followed the abolition of the
sinecures in the prebend of Westminster.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask the Noble Lord (Lord
Ashley)
whether he was willing to make the addition to
I,s motion which he (Mr. B.) had suggested in regard to
Joining together small parishes where practicable and
likely to be advantageous.
Mr. HUME—Should the Noble Lord agree to that, I
',ill join it to my amendment.
Mr. GOULBURN hoped his Noble Friend would be
Ile in adopting either of the amendments proposed.
fi considered that the additions prop )sed would impede
the proposed inquiry, as they would be the means of
mixing it up with legal questions, and matters of indi
'rldual right and vested interests, which would distract
attention from the real matter it was intended to inves-
tigate. Instead of introducing any matter that would
ifl'eede the progress of inquiry, he held that everything
should be done to facilitate it, and he concaved that they
Would best consult the interests of the Church by reins-
ibg the amendment. In regard to the motion itself, the
questiont had been so fully argued that he would not de-
tain the House with any further comment upon it. He
only say that it was peculiarly gratifying to him
° see one for whom he entertained so high a respect, as
h 0 did for the Noble Lord, bringing forward a subject of
Such importance, and which would be the means of im-
Parting so much benefit to the country.
Mr. lIUME then said he would withdraw his amend-
ment as related to sinecures and pluralities, but press
at portion of it referring to the union of parishes. He
Would therefore move this—" And to inquire into the
Proprietyand
of uniting small parishes where practicable
nuu advantageous."
Lord ASHLEY would not dispute that the matter was
deserving of consideration, nor did he deny but that it
might be proper in several cases to unite small parishes,
especially in towns; but he thought the making it a
matter of reference to the Commission would be placing
top much on their shoulders, and that it should be made
the subject of a separate inquiry.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he agreed with the Noble
Lord as to the impropriety of referring that matter to the
Commission now to be appointed. It would oe the means
of impeding their deliberations, and therefore he thought
it ought not to be pressed.
Mr. BROTHERTON was of the same opinion.
Sir E. N. BUXTON said he believed the general
feeling of the House to be that such a Commission of In-
quiry was necessary, and he did not think it fair that
after Hon. Members, who had taken up the subject, came
to that House, and asked for powers to investigate it,
some other Hon. Member should start up, and insist
that there should als be referred to the Commis-
sion to be appointed a totally different matter
for consideration than that proposed by the originators
Of the motion. He was satisfied that the best results
Would proceed from the inquiry called for, and he trusted
the amamendment would not be pressed.
Lord ASHLEY sail he had been found fault with by
the Hon. Members for Montrose and Manchester for not
referring to whet had been done by the Dissenters in
the e course of his remarks. Had he been making an ap-
plication to the House for a grant of public money to carry
out the objects he had in view, he would have certainly
ecinsidered it his duty to have done so. His
,hietion, however, had no reference to that.
'he Honourable Member for Montrose had alio
stated that in referring to ragged schools ho had con-
nected them with the Established Church. Now, he
certainly did refer to ragged schools, but he did not
couple them with the Established Church; and he would
Consider it unjust did he not state that they were deeply
indebted to Dissenters for the exertions they had made
lllfavour of these schools; and he could state that, in
reference to them, he had always seen the greatest har-
m
ftTaY prevail between Churchmen and Dissenters.—
in•ei the
hear.) He had been also charged with overlook-
physical condition of the people in his desire to
Phadfor spiritual destitution. On the contrary, he
1114'e said that he would be anxious to take all the steps
e could to alleviate distress, and he believed that such
distress could be best ascertained and remedied by a pro-
-1):.r and vigorously worked parochial staff. Ile knew
many parishes so large that the clergyman could only
see his parishioners once in two weeks, so scattered were
they over the country, and he knew a parish where the
rgYman had to ride 24 miles to visit cane of his
these the Commission would have to suggest a remedy,
.24 it was for the remedying that state of things he
"'shed the Commission appointed.
Alter a few words from Mr. W. BROWN, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ....
Against it lll
Majority against the amendment--93
The
Ashley's motion was then agreed to.
tho "he SPEAKER proceeded to call over the names of
Members who had motions on the paper, and all
those
Ron. Gentlemen who were present expressed their
enable
to waive their right of precedence in order to
Lord J. Russell to bring forward his resolutions
00
the Irish Poor-law, with the exception of
Mr. S. CRA.WFORD, who said he would think it his
duty to move the resolution of which he had given notice
on the question that the Speaker leave the chair.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
1-tr. PUSEY obtained leave to bring in a Bill to im-
raove the relation between landlord and tenant in Eng-
lld and Wales.
POOR-LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the motion I have to
make is, that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, in order that
the House go into Committee on the report of the Se-
lect Committee on the MA Poor-law. All I intend to
40 at present is to ask the House to go into Committee,
and when that is done I shall lay before the House the
statement which I intend to make on that subject.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD then rose and moved
the,„ amendment of which he had given notice, which
(.71"---" That it is unconstitutional and unjust to impose
"h, Ireland separate national taxation for the wants
oParticular localities, so long as the public general
revenue of Ireland is paid into an Imperial Treasury,
ri`t Placed at the disposal of an Imperial Legislature,
the general purposes of the United Kingdom." He
consi-_idered it unfair to cause the people of Ulster and
meter to support the western landlords, who had
in'itned their property. Let their properties be put
e;', the market for it, and then, if there was a defi-
ereY, have recourse to some such system as the present.
th!contended that it was unjust to call on the people of
41: north of Ireland to make good the deficiency in
t Other part of t
erial Treasury. he country. It was a
When charge
Hon. that sMem-
hould
: borne by.the Imp
LIN talked about the share of taxation borne by Ire-
1)
he would remind them what was the condition of
Ireland
at the time of the Union. In 1801 the debt of
ere'aed amounted to 28,000,0001., and in 1847 it had in-
creased to 130,000,0001. How that increase bad oc-
the'rrl he could not tell. From the period of the Union
England
of Ireland were in the hands of England, and
laasldiund had the entire manage raent of the funds of Ire-
The proportion which Ireland had to pay was
naitrtuo at the time of the Union, and the Finance Com-
bp, eOl 1815 had declared that the burdens imposed
‘‘,l: Ireland were too great. If that were the case,
ie 1,7..aa to blame ? Who made Ireland bankrupt
Ir ?It was England. He held that in justice
thacm" was chargeable with no portion of the debt
rS,'[lB not incurred at the time of the Union.—(llear,
.) Another allegation which had been made
of
sthat Ireland was not subjected to the same amount
wistaxation with England. But why was she' not ?
to ',Y, it had been stated that the reason why Ireland was
g° taxed was on the ground of her inability to pay
8411,4e-tear, hear.) But that was no reason why she
landtaxed. He was quite ready that Ire •
8110111 d be taxed to such an extent as would be fair,
ba‘no contended that as such taxation would be paid
peuethe Imperial Treasury, so should the necessary ex-
-o,l.pure for the relief of the poor of Ireland be paid
t: the Imperial Treasury. The Hon. Member eon-
leueagetclh
,t_onu.rg. e the soundness of his views at considerable
?i!concluded by moving the amendment.
B. OCHE was opposed to the amendment of
the
11°11.PP
for Rochdale. Every one must agree