The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL.

Upon the SPEAKER'S leavinz the Chair for the whole
House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Irish
Church Reform Bill,

Lord ALTHORP rose to submit his resolutions to
the House. It was not his intention to waste
the time of the House by saying any thing calculated to
re-open the question, or to re•debate the subject. He
would merely state, more by way of notice than any thing
else, that the church cess was entirely abolished. That the
Bill, even supposing it were carried, could not come into
operation this year, yet it was not the wish of Government
that the church cess should be collected this year. It would
he therefore necessary that the money for the church rates
for this year should be raised from some other funds.
The Noble Lord then proposed to read the first resolu-
tion, which was as follows

" 1. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expe-
dient that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be autho-
rized to appoint Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose
of carrying into effect any Act that may be passed in the pre-
sent Session of Parliament to alter and amend the laws relating
to the Temporalities of the Church in Ireland; and that the
said Lord Lieutenant be empowered to order and appoint such
salary or other emoluments as he shall deem fit to be paid to
such Commissioners, not being Bishops."

Mr. LEFROY had received a great many letters from
ashops and the highest ecclesiastical and local authorities,
all expressive of the greatest apprehensions with respect to
the measure now proposed, not as a measure merely for
the reform of the church and a new arrangement of
church property, of which they expressed no disapproba-
tion if kept svithin reasonable limits and applied to the in-
terests of the church, but they were alarmed at this
measure because they considered it one which must ulti•
inately destroy the church property and the rights and in-
terests of its possessors. He was prepared to dispute this
as a general question, whether it were expedient or com-
petent in that House to interfere with church property
in the manner now proposed. He intended to move an
amendment on this resolution, to take the sense of the
House on these important points ; whether it were just
or competent in them to interfere in the general property
of the church, and the rights and interests of its present
possessors, except for church purposes. He was far from
opposing a fresh adjustment of church property; nor was
he an advocate for sinecures and pluralities; be would op-
pose no reform on these points; but he would strongly
oppose, first, the application of church property to other
than church purposes ; and, secondly, any infringement
on the vested rights and interests of the present possessors
of church property. Passing even the first resolution, he
should come to the second and third resolutions proposed
to the House, which were as follows :
" 2. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is ex-
pedient to make provision for the abolition of the First Fruits
in Ireland, and in lieu thereof to levy an Annual Assessment
upon all bishoprics and archbishoprics, and upon all bene-
fices, dignitaries and other spiritual promotions above the yearly
value of •2001 to be applied to the building, rebuilding and re-
pairing of churches and other such like ecclesiastical purposes,
and to the augmentation of small livings, and to such other
purposes as may conduce to the advancement of religion, and
the efficiency, permanency, and stability of the United Church
of England and Ireland.

"8. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that vestry
assessments for any of the purposes to defray which the annual
assessment mentioned in the preceding resolution may be ap-
plicable, should be abolished; and that any law, statute, or
u.sage authorizing such assessment should be repealed."

Thus it was proposed to abolish church cess altogether,
providing in lieu thereof by an annual tax upon all church
benefices, from the Archbishop downwards, so low
twenty pounds a year. This was not a mere abolition of
the Board of First Fruits on the new arrangement of
church property. The amount of the tax proposed would
infinitely surpass that for which it would be substituted,
and they were going to call upon persons to pay this tax
who, from having already paid their first fruits, ought in
honour anti justice to be perfectly exempt from any ulte•
rior claim. It appeared from returns made to that House
in 1828, that the sum total received for first fruits in Ire-
land for the space of thirty-one years was 9,947/. Its. 3d.,
of which sum 3,177/. Is. 4d. was paid by the Bishops.
This would show thewholeannualamount paid to be 3211.,
2141. of this sum being paid by the working clergy. The
taxes proposed by the new law would bring in no less a
sum than 55,000/. per annum from the whole of the
clergy ; yet this was a Bill they brought in under the title
of a Commutation Bill. This was like asking a man for
change for a shilling, and taking from him a ten-pound
note: they asked for an exchange of 3411. a year, and
seized hold of 55,0001. a year. With what justice or
equity could this be called a commutation for the first
fruits ? No, it was a plunder of the church. If such
a thing were to take place between man and man,
it would he punished as a downright highway rub
'!ery : but because it had been introduced by the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was al
very right and proper.—(A laugh.) As to the next re
solution, the vestry cess at present produced 60,000/.
a year on above twelve millions of acres of cultivated lend,
tiring a burden of about a penry an acre. Now this
church cess was by no means applied wholly to church
purpo•e+, but to marry purposes quite distinct. Why,
lien, should this burden, which was at present laid upon
the land—why shou d this be !lid upon the working
clergy ? The House had been told that the Church o
Ireland was so wealthy that it ought to contribute to these
outgoings. There never was a subject which had met
with more exaggerated detail than the Church property,
as the N.,ble Lord himself bad allowed. The income 01
the Bishops did not amount to more than 130,000/.
a year. The remainder of the 600,000/. went to the Bi-