The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-14 00:00:00

MINISTERS' MONEY.

Mr. N APIER then resumed his observations in refer-
ence to the motion on this subject. He took his stand
on the Act of Union, and asked a Protestant House of
Commons not to agree to the proposition now made to
it, which would have the effect of weakening the Pro-
testant Church in Irelarul. He asked the House where,
but for the Established Church, would be the connexion
between the two countries? The Protestants of Ireland
did not send Members there to declaim against England
or to denounce Imperial policy. He thought that any
inconvenience or irregularity in the mode of levying or
assessing the tax should be rectified. He had no objec-
tion to make it just and fair, to transfer it like the rent-
charge from the occupier to the owner, or to assent to
any proposal for its amendment which did not involve its
total abolition. _ _

Mr. SIIEIL made great allowance for the vehemence
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who had just
addressed the House, having come hot and reeking from
the hustings of the University of Dublin, but the
Honourable Gentleman would forgive him for telling
him that many who had heard him would lament
the resignution of the Right Honourable Frederick
Shaw. The Honourable Gentleman was mistaken
in supposing that the proposition made to-night
for the abolition of ministers' money involved the
abolition of any part of the Church property. It did not.
It was not proposed by any man in that House to de-
prive a single Protestant clergyman, performing duties
in the respective towns of Ireland charged with mini-
sters' money, of a single shilling of his revenue. Nay,
more, it was not proposed that the successors of the
actual incumbents should be deprived of their revenue,
because the clergy in the great towns of Ireland were
not sinecurists; they had real duties to perform; and he
was not acquainted with a single Roman Catholic gen.
tleman who held that a Protestant clergyman ought not
to be paid in a manner most fully commensurate with the
functions he had to discharge.—(Hear, hear.) The real
question to be considered was, whether a most obnoxious
tax—admitted to be so on all hands—might not be
abolished consistently with the principles preferred by
Hon. Members on the other side of the House. In his
judgment the ecclesiastical fund in the hands of the
Commissioners was fully adequate to discharge every
purpose to which it had been applied, and might be
used in the same way as it was employed for the pur-
pose of removing church-cess, an impost of the most
grievous and galling kind. By the Church Tempo-
ralities Act it was provided that churob-cess should
be abolished, yet that impost was not of so
obnoxious a character as this, it being a charge at com-
mon law, whereas this was statutory. The Act pro-
vided that churches should be built, small livings aug-
mented, and diocesan schoolmasters supplied with the
means of livelihood, and that without trenching on
church property. Could it possibly be maintained that
they would be alienating church property, when they
proposed to apply to an ecclesiastical purpose the same
fund which was used for other ecclesiastical purposes?
He did not coincide with his Right Hon. Friend the
'ecetary for Ireland, when he said he did not believe
the Eccesiastical fund could be used in substitution for
the impost.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—I never said anything of the
kind.
Mr. SHEIL begged pardon, and was glad to find he
was mistaken. He had the accounts before him, and
they furnished this statement. The Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners were authorised by Act of Parliament to
borrow 100,000/. from the Board of Works; that the
debt had been reduced to 40,000/ ; last year they paid
10,000/. in liquidation of that debt. What, then, was it
requisite to do? To leave the debt of 40,000/. standing,
to pay the interest of that at five per cent., and to
.bolish ministers' money until a new fund should arise.
But there was a new fund as it was.. The Eccle
siastical Commissioners stated in their last report that
upon the death of the present Bishop of Clogher their
unds would be augmented by the sum of 8,6801. a year.
Why should they not pay the interest on that debt, and
abolish ministers' money? On the death of the Bishop
of Clogher they would come into the receipt of 8,8601.
a year ; and why should they not then be able to re-
plenish the coffers of the Established Church ?—(Hear,
hear.) If this was practicable, why should the abolition
of so odious an impost be stigmatised as robbery of the
Established Church? The Church Temporalities Act
might be amended, and ought to be amended. Was
the House, was the country, aware that by the Church
Temporalities Act larger revenues were secured to the
Bishops of Ireland than to the Bishops of England?—
(Hear, hear.) It was understood that the Bishops of
England were to receive no more than 5,0004 a year.
But how were the Irish Prelates paid? Take the case
of the Archbishop of Armagh. Before the enacting of
;he Act in question, his revenue was 16,0001. a
year. It had been reduced by the Act, but it still
amounted to as large a sum as 12,0001. That, to
be sure, was the case of an Archbishop. But take
the case of the Bishop of Derry. When that prelate
was appointed, it was stipulated that he should
acquiesce in any terms which the Government might
'link fit to propose. The condition they imposed was
,hat he should pay 4,0004 a year into the ecclesiastical
fund. The balance, however, was worthy of acceptance,
The splendid residue amounted to 8,000/. a year, and
;hat sum was secured to him and his successor. Not
ono shilling would ho (Mr. Sheil) take from that
meritorious Christian bishop—(Laughter)—but he was
most decidedly of opinion that the revenue of his suc-
cessor ought to be curtailed—(Htar, hear)—and so it
should be with all the Irish bishoprics. The revenues
of the Irish bishops exceeded those of the English.
Was he to be told that that anomaly ought to continue?
Assuredly it ought not. But to go back to the tax.
there was a remarkable historical fact connected with it,
which showed how obnoxious and detestable it had
ever been considered. The circumstance had been
already referred to by the Hon. Member for Cork; but as
the House was thin at the time, he would make no apology
toe repeating the allusion. The Catholic Parliament of
James 11., following the example of the ProtestantParlia•
went that had gone before it, seized the whole of the
Church property for Catholic purposes. The property
of the Protestant Church was transferred to Catholic
priests. But what was done with ministers' money?
Was it too transferred to the priests? No; the Act of
James 11. expressly recited that ministers' money was
not recognised by the common law, that it was imposed
by statute, that it was a grievous imposition, and in
conformity with the wishes of all parties it was de-
clared to be abolished for ever.—(hear, hear.) The
thorn was small, but it was attended with peculiar ex-
acerbation.—(Hear, hear.) He would advocate its entire
abolition. lie was as convinced as that he was speaking
;hat moment, that unless the ecclesiastical institutions of
Ireland were modified, unless Government dealt boldly
and promptly with respect both to the Protestant and
the Catholic Churches, wretched, paltry, and temporary
neasures of amelioration might be applied; but that for
he evils of Ireland they would not be able to devise an
frective cure.—(Hear, hear )
Mr. CALLAGHAN supported the motion. The tax
vas Mt to be a badge of servitude, and a galling injus-
tice; and in the name of the Irish people, he called on
the House to abolish it altogether.
Mr. GROGAN objected to the mode of settlement
suggested by the Right lion. Gentleman the Master el
the Mint. It would not do to abolish minister's money,
and to substitute pay ment out of the ecclesiastical fund.
that fund was already a portion of the revenues of the
Church, and if it were to be applied to other purposes
than those to which it was at present allecated, in order
that ministers' money might be abolished, it was clear
that the 12,0001. a year now received under that head
would be alienated from the Church.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL was of opinion that the tax
was a grievance in principle, and that it was inflicted
under circumstances which aggravated its injustice, the
burden being heaviest on these towns where Catholics
most abounded.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL did not rise to reply to the
heroics of the lion. and Learned Member for the Uni-
versity of Dublin (Mr. Napier), but merely to say, that
if the Right lion. Gentleman the Master of the Mint
intended, by anything that had fallen from him that
night, to advocate the pensioning of the Catholic clergy,
he for one would not give his assent to any such proposi-
tion. He considered the tax a gross injustice, and
therefore would vote for its abolition ; but he did not
want to have the revenue that was realised from it trans•
ferred to the clergy of his own Church.
Mr. FAGAN replied. lie belie►ed that an inquiry
before a Select Committee would not satisfy the people
of Ireland on this question; they would be content with
nothing short of a repeal of the Act of Charles.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment

Majority
The amendment, with the addition proposed by Sir
W. SOMERVILLE, was then agreed to.
STAMFORD ELECTION.

Mr. WOOD postponed till after Easter his motion for
a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of cer-
tain petitioners, complaining of the interference of the
Marquis of Exeter at the late and former elections for
the borough of Stamford.