The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-26 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 26, 1833.

cotnmon sense of mankind if Commissioners so appointed,
and for such sacred purposes, were to be guilty of a dere
liction of their duty.—(Hear.) Now who were the Com-
missioners under this Bill ? Why, they were the Most
and Right Rev. Prelates of the Irish Church ; and if the
Most Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) were not
now in the House he could speak of him in terms which, if
he were absent, every Noble Lord would admit to be emi-
nently deserved. The Commissioners were to be eleven
in number, of whom at least some eight (if not all) were
to be clerical persons. Then their Lordships also had the
security of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, an indi-
vidual too eminent and too high for any panegyric which
be could pronounce upon him : they had also the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland for the time being, in whom he
would confidently express a hope that the Protestant reli-
gion would never suffer. Upon these grounds he must
oppose the amendment.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said that if this clause
were agreed to it would go for ever to prevent the per-
formance of divine service in any parish in which it had
not been performed for three successive years before the
passing of this Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER begged leave to state that he
meant to give no vexatious opposition to the Bill. His
object was, as far as he could, to improve it, and preserve
unimpaired the undisputed jurisdiction of the Bishops. A
good deal had been said about the patronage of the Crown
in these cases. For his own part he hail no apprehension
from its exercise or its influence, and it was an undeniable
m isrirn of law that no laches cunt(' conclude the Crown in
the exercise of its proper patronage. This Bill, if it
passed in its present state, would be a great infliction upon
the Irish clergy ; it would, in fact, be a Bill of pains and
penalties, and he therefore hoped that this clause would be
abandoned.—( Hear.) There was a great outcry through-
out the country against pluralities, and no one could more
strongly deprecate sect: abuses than himself ; but if this
clause were passed into a law it would increase plurali-
ties, and as such he felt it to be his duty to oppose it. He
believed there was no indisposition in the clergy of the
church of Ireland to perform divine service, except in cases
where there was no church or licensed building in which
to perform ir. He had a return in his hand (the only
one, be it remarked, to which he had access) that in the
diocese of Cork and Ross sixteen new churches had been
built wiibin a few years, and that no less than thirty-
three communicants bad presented themselves in the
course of each successive year. Now did not this fact
show that if the Irish people had churches there would be
no want of Protestants, and no lack of zeal in the Pro-
testant clergy ?—(Hear, bear.) In several parishes
throughout Ireland there was an anxious desire for the
increase of churches ; and in the parish of Balinatnona the
parishioners offered to build a church at the expense of
of 3501., which would have been accomplished if it were
not for the threats and intimidations of the Catholic
priesthood and the Irish agitators.
Lord MELBOURNE was surprised at hearing the
Noble and Learned Lord (Wynford) evince a disposition
to support sinecure benefices. He could assure the Noble
and Learned Lord that this Bill was not intended as any
insult to the Bishops of Ireland. The question was one
of great delicacy; indeed it might be considered one of
great invidiousness; but this be was prepared to say, the
nomination to vacant benefices would be much better
placed in the hands of the Board of Commissioners than
in the discretion of the Ordinary of the diocese. The
great object of this Bill was to conciliate the Protestants
of Ireland, but in so doing not to interfere with the general
interests of any class of his Majesty's subjects.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that the
clause before the Committee was a very proper subject to
be inquired into. He would not believe that benefices
could be called sinecures, because divine service had not
been performed in certain parish churches within the pe-
riod of three years. He held in his hand an account of
all the benefices i❑ Ireland, and he found that there were
only 66 in which divine service had not been performed
fur the last three years. It certainly was a melancholy thing
that in so many parishes divine service should not have
been performed.—(Hear.) But yet he would contend that
the non-performance of divine service, under the peculiar
circumstances alluded to in the course of this discussion,
did not prove that such benefices were sinecures. He did
not think that the clause would have an injurious effect
upon the interests of the Irish Church if the modifications
which he recommended were adopted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR looked upon the clause
as one of very great importance. He felt much satisfaction
at the calm consideration with which the subject had been
treated by all sides of the House. But, looking at the
way in which the Board of Commissioners was to be con-
stituted, he could not see any ground for the apprehensions
which some Noble Lords entertained. There could scarcely
be a more episcopal body not strictly episcopal. Out of
eleven members there were seven either Bishops or of epis.
copal nomination. In whatever way he considered the
clause, be could see no grounds for the jealousy which was
supposed to be likely to arise from the manner of its con-
stitution and from its authority. He could see no objection
on the part of the Crown, which had in the first instance
the nomination of the members of the Board as Bishops, and
none on the part of the Bishops, as so large a majority of the
members of the Board was to be nominated by the Bishops
themselves. As to the proposition that the suspend-
ing of benefices should be in the discretion solely of
the Bishop of the diocese, he thought that the inte-
rests of the Church would be more certainly secured by
the discretion being vested in a Board of several members
and of episcopal constitution ; and for the Bishop him-
self of a particular diocese the clause as it stood would be
a protection from the imputation of exercising the power
improperly. He believed that in some parishes in which
service had not been performed for three years the fault
had not been in the clergy, and the application of the
funds under the clause would serve to remove the causes
which prevented them from attending to the duties of the
parishes.
The Bishop of LONDON was desirous of bringing their
Lordships' attention to one view of the clause not yet
noticed by any of the Noble Lords who had spoken to the
question. In the evidence given before the Committees of
both Houses of Parliament respecting the state of Ireland
it had been admitted on all hands that the residence of a
Protestant clergyman, a man of education, even in a parish
in which there were few or no Protestants, was of the
greatest possible benefit to the people. He was, there-
fore, strongly opposed to any measure which could have
any tendency to diminish unnecessarily the number of such
residents.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that it would
be more appropriate to term those benefices with which
the clause proposed to do away non-cures than
sinecures. It way to be considered, however, that a great
many causes interposed to prevent the church service from
being performed in many parts of Irel Ind ; and those
causes had been in most active operation precisely in the
three years previously to February, 1833, being the period
chosen in the clause as that during which non-residence
should cause the suspension of the benefice. Now, really,
he thought that if it was intended to prevent non-residence
the best way would be, if three years were the disqualifying
term, to say that a benefice should be suspended for non-
performance of service during three years from the last
vacancy, and not in those three years in which in many
parts of Ireland the performance of the Protestant service
was rendered by the circumstances of the country totally
impossihle.—(Hear, bear.) If the regulation could be
carried into effect in a just and equitable manner he was
sure that every Noble Lord in that House would be glad
to see an end put to what he would call sinecures, the
existence of which was not attributable to the clergy, but
was an evil growing out of the circumstances of the
country of late years.
The Earl of SUFFOLK said that the distinction drawn
by the Noble Duke appeared to him to amount to this,
that sinecure benefices in Ireland were parishes in which
there were no churches, and non-cures were those in which
there were no souls.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He supported
the original clause because he did not think it well to leave
so large a discretion to the Bishop of the diocese as would
be given by the amendment. He agreed with the Noble
Duke that it would be a very desirable thing to put an end
to these non-cures.

The Earl of WICKLOW had always objected more to
this clause than to any other part of the Bill. He was far
from finding fault with the desire of his Majesty's Mini-
sters to diminish the number of non.cures, as the Noble
Duke below him had very aptly termed certain benefices,
in which non-residence and non-performance of clerical
duties had been within late years caused by those instances
of Ireland of which, and of the effects of which, their
Lordships were well aware. From the returns laid upo❑
their Lordships' table it appeared that out of 200 parishes
which would come under the operation of the clause, there
were but 66 in which the Commissioners would be war-

ranted in suspending the benefice, and of these 66 there
was a large majority in which the non-performance of the
Protestant service was occasioned by circumstances over
which the clergymen had no control. He objected,
therefore, to the choice of those three years in which there
hid been the greatest agitation in the country, and the
greatest obstacles to the residence of the clergy, and to the
performance if the church service. At the same time he
did not think it well to leave the suppression of benefices
altogether to the discretion of the Bishop of the diocese ;
and he thought that if the clause were properly amended,
so as to make any other three years than those of agitation
the ci iterion of suspension, and to give the Bishop of the
diocese a share of the discretion, but not the whcle
responsibility of the suspension, there would be very little
of further opposition to the progress of the Bill through
their Lordships' House.—(Hear.)
Earl GREY believed that the gravest and most success-
ful charge made against the Church of Ireland by its ene-
mies was that it derived a large revenue for services which
were not, and which in many cases could not, be performed.
Now he thought that the best mode of redressing any
grievance which might really exist in this respect was to
apply the funds derived from emoluments of benefices to
which that change would apply to the removal of those
causes which occasioned the non-performance of clerical
duty. Noble Lords had said that the non-performance of
that duty had been caused by many circumstances, and
not always by the want of a church or of a congregation,
but by terror and intimidation.—(Hear.) Well, then,
surely the Board could discriminate between the various
causes, and their Lordships bear in mind that a full discre-
tion was left the Commissioners—(Hear)—and where the
non-performance of his duty was occasioned by violence
offered to the clergyman they would take care to put him
in such a situation that he could perform his duties. He
had no objection to the obligation that in all cases of
suspension a record of the causes of suspension should be
kept by the Commissioners ; but, looking to the constitu-
tion of the Board, he could not think that any apprehen-
sion need he entertained that they would use the power
intrusted to them for any other purposes than to promote
the interest of the Protestant Church itself.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY felt the saute
confidence in the commission as that expressed by the
Noble Earl (Grey) and the Noble and Learned Lord. He
had no doubt that, with a commission so constituted, the
interests of the Church of Ireland would be in no danger.
There was one point on which he differed from the Noble
Earl, but it was not one of great importance. He saw
no reason why, in the case of a benefice to be suspended,
the Bishop of the diocese should not interfere. It was
most desirable that this respect should be shown to his
authority. What he desired, therefore, was, that his
consent should be necessary to the suspension of any bene-
fices within his diocese. If it should appear that his assent
was refused from any interested family motives, then the
matter might be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant i❑
Council. He did not apprehend any difference of opinion
between the commission and the Bishop, unless the com-
missioners should he in error. When a benefice was
suspended, he thought it desirable that the funds of the
benefice should be allowed to accumulate .`or the purpose
of building in it a church and a glebe-house, in place of
going to the general fund. If there was no Protestant inha-
bitant, then the income of the benefice might be handed
over to the general fund. He wished it also to be left
at the discretion cf the Bishop whether a curate should be
appointed, with a reasonable stipend, to perform the duties
in a suspended parish, or whether they were to be per-
formed by the clergyman of the neighbouring parish.
Earl GREY would suggest a proposition which he
thought would satisfy all parties. It was, that the Bishop
of the diocese in which a parish was proposed to be sus-
pended should have a voice in the Commission, and thus
a conflict of opinion between the Bishop and the Commis..
sion would be avoided. There was more difficulty as
regarded the revenues of the benefice. He thought it would
be better they should go to the general fund.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the alteration sug-
gested by his Noble Friend would get rid of much of his
difficulty.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE suggested that the Bishop of
the diocese should have a voice also where the question was
whether the suspension of a benefice was to be taken off
or not.

Earl GREY had no objection that the Bishop of the
diocese should have a voice in that case also.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said the solid
objections of his Noble Friend (the Dike of Wellington)
to the clause were not yet answered.
Lord BEXLEY recommended that the clause should
be postponed for the present.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE objected to that part
of the Most. Rev. Prelate's amendment which provided
that the revenues of any suspended benefice should go, not
to the general fund, but to the building a church and
glebe-house i❑ the particular benefice.
Upon this last point the House divided--
For the Amendment
Against it
Majority against Ministers
On re-entering the gallery, we found that Earl GREY
had moved that the House should resume.

Lord KENYON complained of that course of proceed-
ing. He had heard no satisfactory reason assigned why
their Lordships could not then proceed with the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW was understood to say, that
it was quite unusual to resist a motion similar to that
made by the Noble Earl.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his Noble Friend,
who had the conduct of the measure, desired to have time
to consider what other alterations might be necessary to
make in the measure in consequence of the alteration
which their Lordships had just made. If the Noble Baron
desired to take the conduct of the measure into his hands,
he had no doubt that his Noble Friend would readily agree
to place it in the hands of the Noble Baron. But it that
were not the case, it was necessary that the alteration
should be considered.

The Duke of WELLINGTON was understood to sly,
that he thought the further consideration of the clause
should be postponed.
The House then resumed. The Committee to sit again
to-morrow (this day).
Their Lordships adjourned at eleven o'clock.