The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-05 00:00:00

IREI,AND--UC.I.TION COMMISSION.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT begged to ask if the Commission
for examining into the state of education in Ireland was to be
speedily sent to that country ?
Mr. PEEL said there was no reason why the CoMmiSsion
should not be speedily prepared, and offered for the signature
of his Majesty. The whole of the object of the Honourable
Baronet's address would be •enmbraced in the. inquiry of the
Commission. -
Mr. S. RICE hoped all interested persons, would be ex-
cluded from the Commission.
Mr. PEEL said the Hon. Member would find the names,
highly satisfactory.

NEW CHURCHES.
On the motion that the Report of the New Churches Bill be
brought up,
Col. DAVIES objected to it as unnecessary, and a waste of
public money. If the sum proposed were to be voted, he had
much rather apportion it to those clergymen who were now so
ill paid. He should therefore move, that the Report be brought
up this day six months.
Mr. LEYCESTER said, we wanted good preachers, not
large churches; and when the people called for bread, they re-
ceived but stones. The incumbents should not have the pa-
tronage of the churches ; and churches, he was sure, would not
be wanting if a better arrangement took place ; in fact they
would rise around us like exhalation. He objected to the re-
ception of the Report ; it imposed an unfair buythen on our
Dissenting brethren, merely to add to the dignity or gratify the
cupidity of the church. ,
Mr. COOPER contended, that this grant was by no means
profligate, as its object was to provide places for the moral im-
provement Of the people under the principles of the'Estsblished
Church. If Dissenters were allowed seats in this House, they
should have judgment and delicacy enough to keep their pecu-
liar—(tCtrhieesloasft remark of the‘ Question !")
i‘ir. sentimentsll uito
E said their
he
e ownwa b
was
surprised at
Hon. Member. The Dissenters paid taxes as well as others,
and should not allow themselves to be fleeced of their property
by the Church. The Hon. Member seemed to think that no
man but a High Churchman should deliver his opinions in this
House. He ( Mr. Hume) considered the grant a , profligate
grant, because it was not applied to the general use of the
State, but only for the advantage of the few. All unequal
taxes were unjust, and on that score the grant was profligate.—
Money would not produce an increase to the Church ; on the
contrary, the richer the Clergy the less they generally labour.
Those who did.most for the good of religion were those whose
zeal prompted them to build churches, and give mural instruc-
tion almost gratis. The fee simple of the Church property was
already near two hundred millions, and they, that was to say
the House, should see how that was appropriated before they
were ready to give fresh grants. With such an income as the
Chttreb enjoyed it was unfair to call on the Dissenters (one
half of the whole population) to vote for churches for 'the well
paid Protestant other half of the people. He would not hesi-
tate, and he was satisfied that Members on the OppOsite Side of
the House would agree with him, that if the vicarage of
churches was' given to those who built
,them, ,there would
be no need of contributing a single penny of the public mo-
ney to such a purpose. The money paid for the very seats in
some churches was amply sufficient for building churches and
defraying all expences attendant on them. This was the
case of the wealthier churches. The religion of the country
was not improved by these grants, neither by the former
million nor .the present 500,0001. It increased patronage—it
did not benefit religion ; and that increase ,of patronage
was peculiarly dangerous and objectionable. It had been said
by a great men, that there could not be a more dangerous instru-
ment in the hands of the Government than a servile priest-
hood. This object, and this alone, was promoted by the present
grants; Ile would be glad to see clergymen Fold their parishes
by their good behaviour, and not by the tenure by which they
at preset-J..llddh
tem. This was te opnion o Alem hers
on the opposite side out of doors;h it
bui. wasf
wellknown that
Members
.were wont to speak one language out of the House
and another in it.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—On these grounds t
would support the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. C. WILSON supported the Bill, and contended that
.orl t
the measure was highly necessary and acceptable to a majority
j
of the people of the country. There was ne more salutary

PRICE SEVENPEN9E:_.

mode of applying the 'public money than by the application of
it to the tiupport of the religion of the country.
.Mr. bEYCESTER explained.
Mr. (GURNEY was apprehensive that these would be un-
equally and partially distributed.
The CHA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,- that
.this money would be subject to the provisions of the Act under
which the former grant of a million was made disposable. Its dis-
tribution. Would be placed in the hands of Commissioners pur-
suant to that Act, who would exercise their discretion in 'lend-
ing in sonic instances—in giving a part and the parish giving
a part also ; and in those cases where the whole sum should be
given or withheld, and generally to guard against the appre-
hension of abuse thrown out by the Hon. Member.
Sir J. NEWPONT complained that the majority of the
churches in Ireland were built, not by Parliamentary gift,
but by Parliamentary loan, which was repaid by taxation on
Roman Catholic parishioncrs.—(llear, hear, hear I)—It was
most unconstitutional and unfair to grant and: extend this
money in the shape of a gift• to a Protestant population, and
place it as a tax on Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catho-
lies, who had no interest or advantage in the loan. Wheia
the subject of education was introduced it was said, let the
object be effected by contributions ; if the people were sa-
tished that they wanted churches as much as education, they
would then do so; but the truth was, no real necessity existed.
The egt.riltry boasted of its liberal principles ; but, in our treat-
ment of Catholics and Dissenters, we were worse than thernost
bigotted nations of the Continent.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD supported the Bill, and defended
it from the charge of inconsistency imputed to it by the Hon.
Member for Waterford. .

Mr. GRATTAN agreed in the sentiments of his 'Hon.
Friend (Sir J. Newport).
Mr. PHILLIPS had not before offered his opinions on this
subject; but it struck him very forcibly, tkat the petition which
was last night presented by the Hon. Member for Kerry; Con-
tained matter peculiary applicable to the present question
That petition etatcd that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were
without churches, or houses of worship ; now it appeared to him
extremely unjust to oblige those persons to pay for the erection
of buildings to which they did not resort, whilst they were
themselves left wholly unprovided with accommodation for their
religious Worship. This was the very extreme of illiberality.
Notwithstanding what had been said of the bigotry of France,
he would say that it was not exceeded by such illiberality as
this, which was a shame both to the Parliament and the Church.
To add to the abuse, this 500,0001. was to be expended where
it was not wanting.
Mr. .MONCIi. was desirous of offering a few words before
the House proceeded to a division. Hews as anxious as any
person could be to support the Protestant Establishment for,
as long as a religion was supported by the State, he would .be
the last man to lend himself to the spoliation of the means ne-
cessary to maintain it suitably. At the same time he could
not approve of the conduct we adopted towards Dissenters,
and of the unfairness of the burden imposed upon theM in con-
tributing to the building of our churches. As an instance of
the advantage derivable from free contrihutions to such pUrPoses
he would mention Moorfields, which was a most commodious
house of worship, and one into which no person, no matter of
what religion, could enter without feelings of veneration. He
(Mr. Monck) would approve of the plan of giving the patronag:e
of such houses of worship, which they themselves built, to Me-
thodists and sectaries. By this means they might be included
in the Church, for the Twenty-nine Articles were so general as
not to prevent Methodists or Arians, or any other sectaries
from being included in it. As to the present measure, there
was no immediate necessity for it, and it might at all events be
with propriety postponed till the next Session of Parliament.
The gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers
were—

- 42

For the Amendment - 9 1 Against it
Al a jority - - - 33
The Report was then brought up, and the Bill read a third
time.

CQCOA N UTS BI LL.

The Report of the (;ocoa Nuts Bill was brought up, and or-
dered to be taken into consideration to-morrow (this day).
NEWFOUNDLAND' JURISDICTION BILL.

The Iteport of the Newfoundland Jurisdiction BA was
brought up, and the Bill was recommitted.
Several amendments were agreed to, and the report was or-
dered to be received to-morrow.
COMBINATION LAWS.
The Report of the Combination Laws Repeal Bill was. re-
ceived, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.