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

(PRICE 7D.)

was binding which in itself was immoral. The Hon. Member
Ii id talked of a dispensation for oaths. Any one who
knew Roman Catholics at all knew the utter impossibility
of their dispensing with any oaths, obligations, or con-
tracts with a third person. The doctrine of Catholics, and
of every reasonable Protestant, on the subject of oaths, was
identical. Rut, after all, what had kept Roman Catholics
out of that House so long ?—(Hear.) Nothing but the
respect for an oath—(Cries of " Hear")—and surely if
there could have been any dispensation obtained for breaking
an oath it would have been on the case of that oath
which shut them out from political power.—(Hear,
hear.) He could show the Honourable Member a
passage in which John Knox said that faith should not be
kept with Papists, but he defied him to prove, by any
Catholic writer, the calumniating assertions which he had
thrown out, and which had so frequently been refuted in
that House.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON disclaimed participating in the
bnoxisus d.ctrines which had been attributed to the
Catholic illembers of that House.

Mr. SHAW did not think that this was the proper time
for the present discussion.
Lord ALTHORP said, that the Roman Catholic Mem-
bers, according to the clear intention, had an equal right
with the others to vote on all subjects relating to the
Protestant Church.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said that, in consequence what
had been stated some time ago and repeated this night by
his Hon. Friend near him, he thought it right to dear up
a misunderstanding which had taken place. It was true that
in the heat of an argument he had been tempted to read
the oath which the Roman Catholics took upon their ad-
mission into that House, but be had not done that with
the slightest degree, intent, or purport whatever for
having it supposed be had conceded that any
Roman Catholic Member was under any restric-
tion front entering into any discussion respecting
the Church of England or Ireland, and giving his vote
just as he pleased, but for the purpose of show-
ing that the obligation which was imposed on all
Protestant Members respecting the Constitution of the
country, had been imposed on the Roman Catholic Mem-
bers when they entered the House, and for no other reason.
He would have given this explanation on an earlier day,
but at the time he intended to do s), the Hon. and
Learned Member for the city of Dublin rose, and made
a littie iwerlude of a speech upon some point or other,
which lasted only two hours—(Hear, hear, and laughter)
—and which rendered it then too late for him to enter
upon it.

Mr. JOHNSTONE begged leave to make a few obser-
vations in reply to what had now been stated.
Mr. SPEAKER said the Hon. Member had no reply :
if he spoke at all he must strictly confine himself to expla-
nation.

Mr. JOHNSTONE had no intention, in what he stated,
to have been uncourteous to any Member of that House.
He had not a seat in the House at the time the Roman
Catholic Bill passed, and he therefore could only
read the arguments which he had seen, consider the
point as be had done, and come to the best conclusion
he could upon it, and which was in opposition.—(Here
the cries of " Chair," were so universal as to cause the
Hon. Member to sit down.)

c-4
-/ii.-- _
..): • -
iishops' tenants. This statement sho that the income
of the clergy was much exaggerated...._ (Heat, hear.)
Next he would advert to the average income of the
beneficed clergy of the established church. The state-
ment of the Noble Lord was, that it amounted altogether
to 580,0001. or 600,000/. ; he would take the larger
bapenpeefiaceredd bcyletrhgey reinturinrse,latnhdatwthaes
swatitjt,,ileof
number6oo, O 0001. f t
I, let
I.4ol—he believed it was I,424—however, he would
take the smaller number, and, dividing the whole income
,fasor,
onlyuol
lendv4gy2as
itmBtg,.hmeat
amount
yte,emt
oai t: would
Thusb be found
the
income
ell
e
th
eo f each
bene6we
earls
amongst them,
cuetdy ifwiroogom3u6ledsutl:b.aee
at eye'e only
ar tithesi f.4a2Ti Btph/re.ewb tnee
iyrnueeer
nafireoe each.equally
But b y
a Bill brought in last session, the landlords were empow-
-I:i..erkenrdegfiYtc:eddeecxdlecuri 63a
In.d taking that from the of 15
cli:cr perg!eyrg ye e,
cent.
, and would reduce the income of the
how-
ever, paid 662 curates, and supposing that the average
of their incomes was thirty pounds each, it made a further
reduction from the incomes of the beneficed clergy, so
that it did not exceed three hundred and thirty-five pounds
fur each beneficed clergyman. He knew that the church
property was not divided in this way, but the dietrihutit n
was a matter of regulation, and if equally divided, which
silowed that the church was not extravagantly endowed,
it would only amount to 3351. for each. Let pluralities
Ire done away with, hut let not the property of the church
be taken from the church. The House had been le.l
astray by what bad been said of the great and enormons
pluralities which existed in Ireland in the hinds of one
Protestant clergyman. He wished to disabuse the House
en that point. What was the fact ? Why, he knew one
union of 17 parishes, which did not produce to the incum-
bent more than 2501. What was the cause of this?
Why, a vast nnmber of the parishes that contri-
buted to form the unions, did not contribute to the
remuneration of the clergyman, It had been found
necessary to unite a great number of parishes toge-
ther, and they made a union enormous for its extent
—enormous for the duties the clergymen had to perform
—but not enormous for the remuneration which they
gave to the clergyman. If his statement were correct—
and he challenged contradiction—it was not consistent
with justice to take anything from a church so mole-
lately endowed. Further—the property of the church
was to be reduced by the commutation of tithes for land,
one-fourth part. An additional 15 per cent. was to be
given to the landlords, for taking upon themselves to levy
the tithes. Twenty per cent. would be lost on the ex-
change of tithes for land, and 7 per cent. was the average
ef the tax the Noble Lord proposed to levy on church
property ; which altogether made 42 per cent. Ns hich was
to be taken from church property. That was not suf-
ficient to enable the clergy to maintain their station in
ti aciety. Why, he asked, should they take anything from
the present incumbents? Why should the vested inter-
ests of the clergy be dealt with in a manner with which the
House never before dealt with any of the vested interests
uf the community? Was it because the clergy had not
seats in Parliament? The justice of the House must re-
volt against such a proposition.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
It was said there was no principle in the resolutions;
but did not the Noble Lord propose to abolish the vestry
eess because it was disagreeable to the Catholics? That
was a principle. Let them take care, there was a prin-
ciple in the resolutions, and if that principle were acted on
towards the Catholics of Ireland, it would be impossible to
,•efuse to act on it towards the Dissenters of England.
However reluctant the Members of the Cabinet might be
to face each other on the subject of church property, it
would be much better than submit resolutions of this
kind to come honestly and boldly forward at once, and
submit tl.e question whether there should be a church
establishment or not.—(Hear.) If the House thought
there should be no church establishment, let them come
to such a resolution ; but if it were still admitted that
there ought to be a church establishment, let them not
!I i
icf
ot
mt uphaeno
en s
te a
Catholic,bi principleis hrn
etbut he
h ewhichHe
objected
e ewa dtiedsd a
nottviolationo relieve
object
to
thei
oni relieve
at
the propertyetxhe
-
pence of the Protestant clergy. There were many lay
impropriators in Ireland who did not pay a farthing to the
service of the parish. Why should they be exonerated ?
The Marquis of Drogheda was a lay impropristor of 28
parishes, containing 10,481 acres, and he did not pay one
farthing towards the spititual duties of these parishes.
Why should the Marquis of Drogheda be relieved at the
expense of the clergy? The spiritual duties of these pa-
rishes were performed at the expense of the clergymen of
the adjoining parish ; and why should the Marquis of Dro-
gheda, he again asked, put this tax into his pocket? There
was an old statute which forbade this, and they ought to go
back to the principle of that, and make the lay impropria-
tors provide for the spiritual wants of the people. The
Hon Member adverted to three other lay impropriators z,
one possessed of 6.886 acres, and the other of 9,6(17
' ores, who paid nothing ; while the third, who possessed
15,000 acres, paid only 311. 4s. 3d. Why should that
he ? Again; the Earl of Shannon, who had seven pa-
rishes of lay impropriations, contributed only 351. per
year. Again; there were the great London Companies,
who possessed much land in Ireland, who were, he ad.,
initted, as good landlords as absentee landlords could Yik,
and why should they be relieved from payment of the
vestry cess? They spent their incomes, he had no doubt,
very joyously in London ; but why should they draw such
large incomes, and now be enabled to draw larger, at the
expense of the working clergy ? Why were ecclesiastical
corporations the only corporations that were to he subject
,(i the tax ; It was said in justification of this proceed.
ing, that the church derived its property from an Act of
Parliament. That he denied. Such an assertion was
totally unfounded in history, fact, or law. The church
of England owed all its property to original grants from
private owners, or from the crown. It was neither just
our right for the Legislature to divert that property to
other purposes. It might as we'l say that some of the
nobility of England had too much property for the general
good, and it might as well set about taxing or reducing.
that property.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He had hitherto;
directed the House to the precedents which might be
considered to apply to this case, but he would now pro-
c-ed to invite their attention for a few minutes to the
expediency of pa-sing such a measure. The first result
which might be anticipated was the direct dismissal of a
large body of poor curates.—(Hear, hear.) It was utterly
impossible that the Irish beneficed clergy, if such inroads
were made on their incomes, could afford to maintain
those meritorious clergymen who were so great an orna-
ment to their profession. He then proceeded to eulogieee
the Irish Protestant clergy' generally, and observed that
no set of men more faithfully and unostentatiously dis-.
charged the duties of private charity than the vlergYtreqt
of Ireland ; but that measure would tend to stop the
stream at the fountain head. Another result which was
to be feared was, the great dissatisfaction which this mea-
sure would create amongst the Protestant population of
Inland. It would excite dissatisfaction and disgust of the
most dangerous character, and would very probably lead
them to join the ranks of those who wished to put an end
ea the union between England and Ireland.—(Hear,
bear. ) If the King violated the compact under which
he held his Crown—.the Protestants of Ireland won
begin to ask whether they were not entitled to think tle.eme
'elves exempt from their reciprocal allegiance ? These
were the days of liberal opinions ; and though be did set
think so, others might, and succeed in inducing the
people to accept the interpretation —(Oh, and Hear.) If
this measure were to lead to the separation of the Legis-
latures of the two countries even, not to speak of the two
Crowns, what, he would like to know, would become of
the property of absentees.—(Hear, hear.) Confiscation
and ruin stared them in the face. He threw out these
observations for the consideration of the House, believing
them to be well worthy of its most serious attention. He
felt this to he but the commencement of a system which
n
he would not say was intended to lead to, but tylk;eht
certainly would end in, the overthrow of the estaa4liahe4
church. Let them try what experiments they might with
politics, but let them not make the awful experiment of
trying how a nation could prosper without religion.
The CHAIRMAN inquired whether Mr. Leroy had
toy amendment to propose ? but the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman intimated, as we understood, that his amend.
moat was reserved for a future resolution.
Mr. COBBETT and Mr. PAYMK rose together, but the
former gentleman gave way, and
Mr. PRYME proceeded to express his surprise at the
arguments just addressed to the House. In his opinion
the legislature had a perfect right to deal with church
pronerty, if they did so for the public benefit.—(Hear,
near.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had compared
Cie imposition of a tax upon the clergy as equivalent to
raking away the estltes of an individual. There was,
however, no similaa ity between the two cases. The estates
af private individeals were gained either by the industry
d. she present possessors, or by the industry and services
sa
f their ancestors ; whilst the income of the clergy was
They
stipend paid for public eervices.—(fhers bear.).
or t; .
*., Hon. Member
ieverintendence of the Legislature. were public
u be had given of the
-as mistaken in the history wau.... ,
drat fruas. Thea
That was
the
ed I
icoonn.yearntded
Learned
rnt I:de use of
not
ife
uathaue
•lergy themselves.
aid Learned Member would call au act of spoliation
fact was, theywiwiactr
he e taken
aup:ii:uyieagot hent eht re: IR, gills and
''ti!fcstfauten,eatinotnl aarsiessuacsh much
wei:. rniehr ee
t
hUrtte about to be .taken by the Protce•
tii;due.g,invtefirnuaaotilotlntwhwePbociloci