The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-26 00:00:00

FIRST FRUITS.

Sir J. NEWPORT rose to bring before the House the ques-
tion of First Fruits in Ireland. The Right lion. Baronet
stated the origin and object of those funds, and complained of
the abuses which had existed. One object prescribed for the
First Fruits was that of repairiog Churches ; but, instead of
their having been so applied, immense taxation bad been im-
posed upon the Roman Catholic population for that purpose
by- means of parochial assessments. He impressed it upon
the attention of Gentlemen, that every diminution from this
fund must be made good by public taxation, and therefore
would have to come out of the pockets of the people of
England. He read various opinions corroborating his own
views of the question. His present intention was to move
for the appiiintment of a Select Committee to inquire into
the whole subject, before which he should submit a series
of resolutions to the House, differing in some measure from
those which he brought forward, and which were only re-
jected by a very small majority. The Right lion. Baronet
then read his resolutions, which were declaratory of the oei-
gin of first fruits, and of the Acts of Henry VIII., by which
they were conceded to the Crown, and that of Anne,_ which
afterwards restored them to the Church, together with his con-
struction of the law for taking the valuations. The new resolu-
tions stated that it appeared just and equitable to the House
that this branch of royal revenue should be rendered applicable
to benevolent objects for which it was originally intended, and
that no further deficiency should be supplied by the people.—
The Right Hon. Baronet, in remarking upon his resolutions,
made the following comparison between the first fruits of Ire-
land and those of England. The Archbishop of Armagh, Pri-
mate of Ireland, paid for first fruits, 4001. ; the See of Canter-
bury, 2,13fi01. ; the See of Derry, about which they had heard so
much of late, 250/. ; that of Winchester, 2,800/. 7 • the See of
Cork and Ross, 50/. • that of Norwich, 854/. The first resolu-
tion was then moved and put from the Chair.
Mr. PLUNKI..;T'r said, thatAhis question was highly im-
portant as affecting the interests, and peculiarly important as
affecting the character of the Church in Ireland. His Right
Hon. Frienel had expressed himself anxious to uphold the cha-
racter of that Church, and could not therefore but rejoice when
be (Sir. P.) should shew to his conviction, and he believed to
the conviction of every member of the House, that the charges
which he had made against the Church, were all of them
unfounded. If it were true that the Clergy had taken and
appropriated to their own use, funds which ought to have
been applied to the purposes stated by his Right Honourable
Friend, then there could be no language too strong to
characterize such scandalous proceedings. But he was confi-
dent in being able to shew that such was not the case. The
Right Lion. (;entlernan then entered into an examination of the
Acts of Henry the Bth, stating that though incorporated in
England, they were still two diStinct statutes in Ireland, namely
the 26th and 28th of that King ; that one of these Acts related

o the valuation of benefices, tiie other to the valuation of first

fruits ; and he contended, that there was a distinction in the
wording of the two, which showed that the original valuation
was to be binding upon the one, though not upon the other.
This was a question of law only ; and the law alone could ope-
rate upon it. He had no fear of being able to show from these
and subsequent Acts of Parliament, to every mind accustomed
to the construction of statutes, that no rational doubt could be
entertained as to the spirit and meaning of the law. His Right
Hon. Friend, though not a practising lawyer, knew very well
that the best possible commentary upon statutes of doubtful
construction was the general usage and practice. And if he
was wrong in the construction which he now put upon these
Ads, his opinion was at least backed by the experience and
usage of three hundred years. The Right Hon. Gentleman
then quoted the Acts of Charles and of Gfiorge the First, as
corroborative of his opinion. The latter distinctly limited the
payment of first fruits to the " former rate, and no more." The
Right Hon. Gentleman having explained the Statutes of
Ilenry VIII. stated that the value put on first fruits in that reign
had been paid by the Clergy of Ireland. He could not suppose
the Law Officers of the Crown were to blame for giving the
opinion they had given. As an honest man and a Law Officer
of the Crown, he could not have given a different opinion. The
Church of Ireland, in his opinion, had been ill used. He had
formerly said that instead of 130 Non residents as stated by an
Hon. Gentleman, there did not appear to be more than thirty.
He was enabled again to say that statement was substantially
correct. If all the circumstances were consi4red, there was
scarcely a Non-resident Clergyman, in the obnoxious sense of
the word, in Ireland.

Mr. SPRING RICE defended the speech of his Right Hon.
Friend. His Right Hon. Friend said the law allowed a re-
valution of livings, and that re-valuation had not been made.—
That conveyed no imputation on the Clergy. The Goverment
was only censured. He might ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
why those benefices which paid nothing to the Crown, were not
to be re-valued ? He was ready to admit that the Clergy of
Ireland, in some instances, had not subscribed towards public
education; but those cases should not be urged as argument
against the liability of the Church to pay any thing. He wished
for the sake of Ireland to have the whole question, re-considered.
The'more it. was considered, the more it would press on public
opinion.
Mr. GOULBURN said the Hon. Gentleman's speech had
wandered into many topics which did not apply to the question.
—lt was impossible to hear the speech of the Right Hon. Bart.
without seeing that tire intention was to prove the Clergy of
England was liberal, and the Clergy of Ireland illiberal. It was
however nothing more than a question of law. He left the law
to the statement of his Right Hon. Friend. The Hon. Gentle-
man had endeavoured to shew that the Churches of England
and Ireland stood upon different footing. He protested against
that doctrine, because the law said the Church of England and
Ireland were united. Their interests were not distinct and dis-
similar. In the Church of Ireland there was unabating zeal to
, discharge the duties of their station not exceeded by any cart
, on the part of the Clergy in England.
Mr. HUME said he had never calumniated the Clergy of
Ireland—he only opposed the system. The Clergy had been
described to be a meritorious body of men. They were known
by their works, and he might ask whether they had not long
been losing members of their flock ?
Sir J. NEWPORT replied. If it was a question of justice,
what was to become of the NO benefices which had never been
valued.
The House then divided—
For the motion - - 71
For the previous question - - 85
Majority against the motion - —l4
Mr. S. WORTLEY moved for leave to bring a Bill to re-
gulate Superannuation Allowances.—Leave given.
Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the Beer Bill.—
The resolutions were agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read
a third time on Thursday.
The. House went into a Committee on the Exchequer Bills'
Bi
Mr. HERRIES moved to add the Appropriation Clause,
which was adopted.
The report was ordered to be received on. Thursday,
. The Wool Exportation Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Combination Laws Repeal Bill was read a second time,
and committed for Thursday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and at
OKL O'CLOCK the House adjourned.