The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-15 00:00:00

l'e inlet
tPpree„iticil, of the whole of the Irish clergy—the most
11.
o.clat4 of his Nlajes-y's sulijeets.
ienulrd n °NNELL • Pill that the present discussion
t plain °' i'le Persi,oed in.—( Oh, oh.) It ever there was
for,,,,Pr'llisition, th it was one—that the Bill then be•
tile
in, in laid tax.—( Heir, hear.) When they heard
eat „%4ItY with which the 'former, and a less strong
ahnuid :„,are"edt he thought they should feel alarmed, and
eetich
...,4,,, time to consider before they amititt d a course
ced,t might lead to more inniiv oions. It S., strong a pre-
of the
rouse
made of the Curates' Salaries Bill in favour
I/111;0:4 theY were pursuing reg ading the present
'mileca,,, ' would not Ise made rit the present Bill in future
"titi„ 1 they found in eleven sections of it the word
if 4
ever lis could never regret doing a public duty, iut
Peep, 4grettial it it was then for he did not wish to
b.,4? th'htih' enutch Reform B 11 :but he wished to know
,11111,:Ur!Litr Was committed. (Cheers and laughter.)
alizon'vnit line of the preamble it W,9 cared a tax, and in
kit onit ery section after they would find the same; but
l
debt, dYn that, but it was mime a preferable claim over al
k4e to his Majesty's subjects ; so th it it was put on
kg. 'e
fuctieg tviih the debt due toy subjects to the
.
retched iiA,'d it this were so, how happened it that it
eto, 'second reading without the blunder being t law-
it he tailed 11" w came it to be overlooked ? What could
cif hi Af. but a tax? If it were to be paid by one class
t", I):,:.aPtY'ssulij.cts to another and not only that, but
niteetii: annually out of their property—what was it to
Ater
Balm if°°t a tax? As for the augmentation of the ce-
fortnatalaries, that was merely a penalty for the non-pr•
„Ns 4tc„e„af duties ; but, if the y were to extend the prlo-
ritli 4-1" e Bill then before them, what would future
th
14444n041 50y ?--(Cheers.) ' He was sorry to votewi
0.. eve,
voii Were cheering him ; but the circumstancet
k*.tao
til!Wlth them would not prevent him from making
..diai
Printi,i r what he considered a great constitutional
11,.`;;*--(Cheerte)
41' -It RVME maintained that the present was notd aa
1 W4' like a Turnpike Bill, which really impose
eitegy
ttliWe4•l ha. erely intended for the general benefit of the
Lom
.._opseives,
l''troduejti°liN RUSSELL did not think
.that the
bring
tllir Bill ti f the word " tax" was sufficient to (Lord j within
He
the rule laid down by the House. 1
. 114a'iell) thought, however, that the. case of t le
thell'e,enliary Curates Bill was strongly in point.. It. teas
liarisl)Puvide'll that if a clergyman did not reside in i
Ittitti; he Should Pa.), so much, and that was, therefore,
g .131it.ix' The Hon. Gentleman then cited the case
lit 4the " Introduced fir raising eightprnce in the pound
Villith hPurposes of the new metropolitan police, sn
Ittitee all r‘beol granted as an ordinary Bill, without refer
teast" `-'ortitnittee of the whole House ; but, however,_
Pt'ettlatilluestiita of the utmost importance as a matter of
lila (I' ' 'l'd he should therefore be very happy to have
/t.iliclosi'ea„"irt extended, so as to insure the opinions and
ir-1;n the whole House.
Pti, "ea ,PR;ERT INGLIS contended that this Bill imi tor, ',attn. ' • • the property of
t 15,., Lt tax on distinct property— .
l!'ere Pr? 1 and, therefore, unless the Solicitor-Generoil.
tie Xinf,.1444 to show that'
the clergy were riot a class I
be eii,,s°llects, this Bull was clearly a Tax Bill.
He
tiptely
.311INGTON wns of a different opinion.
t:at chic wised with every Hon. Member who hard spoken,
ues.
'tin w'' Wati a case of considerable difficulty. The q f
11,ketajavIt Whether the present was a Bill which must, o
-.(It? int" citiginate in Conimittee of the whole House or
ail!? -,tOther words, awhether ;
.t was or was not
la
cToahx_
t 41,441 that Right Hon. Member for l'amworth had
n'teror„ It Was essentially a Tax Bill, and e notiulwd,oie
Niue ' ertjiatiate except from a Committee of the Oh
is
Ik4iti .i, ,1"' Right Hun. Baronet, in support of t
beta bade cited several alleged precedents or standing
..ter
laqt q the II • id be therefore necessary tn. it th,, ouse—it would
- N. -t4terpletation put by our predecessors on those
141tird 1'4,0 when he looked at the precedents brought
dr,°'ett, 11,Y the Right Hon. Baronet, he felt considerableßill.
'-'4egri4'' their validity, referable to the presi nt. f, -, the,. as in Westminster
the e precedents related to a tax
Now, to this alleged
Prectd 141,08-s of the police. as it could tie
lir,l
i't", he had very strong doubts whether
ca_sein
tlitt g:t to heir effectually on the present Bill, b u,.
~,,
4'el 1,1.44, there were • rtain st inip diiiies to be
.imp stun
'''el 'quad, 01 Course, certain at nip dri'ies to be iunpsed.
POsed
a tao'° Course, uiever heard of statnp_dutwiens bei,Tne_ idui
clot
'la '!l't a" a tax for the service of the Ut o . ne
iill4:-;,',,-w47,:,,,t,heao?er pr,emeeedent cited, arising out of ther
satisfactory than the former.
14:3ntation amosurnitYedttno this, was the money proposed to
4',1 to be appropriated to the service of the
could the
tiiit:4l'), to
it to be pin this way—
tals,, ee of the whole House prove tthaaxt;thner micieinaeYit.%us,
t° Ott, fro4l certainportions of the clergy was to P. II `la
4 other v,
L 41411 "4,1 ecclesiastical purposes ? There was to be
Net latlc'a of certain property, and an impo-tt uponi,
a`nb Pi.°Perty uf o r class of the clergy, for the rei....fihe
,gil.4,,:,,antgge of another branch ot the clergy' 'I..
41)11., -..4 lea! daM
ber, after a few other oiiserva
li'rktiet'l. till' Hnone. B' tetionnet's, argument, called upon the
~.1 t R,"„r his .pinton.
44'• ''''''.ARlElt ~id the que-tion was whether. a ciehr:
ilt444ti4t,°° ro' erty could be con•iidered as Corn
ust
-tat' -, head P "taxes" or not. The House Int
I),
1 t';;',4l," t" a dear understanding of what was ineani
edit
01. Wiz 4ee"rdidi to former orders un •er.
.that i
the
Iltil '14411., he took it to mean the imposition on
- „at' t't'adY of the subjects, or particular pertions o them,
ofthe
4, ti'l.,a.° Payments, th i• fur tie general service
nkt.:?i Or for certainei'
special purposes. The House would
itt, sn toed air'
. rat* ier whether or not .1
Li their delibe
'l/4ti,,,,,, cattle under this denomination.
,Itto'b the proposed abolition of Church Cess would form
`l,e 11.1 l'lont in directing their judgment to whet her
al,.
giving an
til'iri4,4 ,eiluld be considered a 'lax Bill. As
0,._,,..
l''‘ltins• !`1 genelal as to tile propriety or impropriety.. r the
b, • - itio, •
o it swore within 1
-44 in ,or whether in his opine,
SO Peet g °t Public taxes or not, t e House of couhreser,lvi,dddr,iiod:
thertina°Y t.ucla from him, in his situation ;
ainue 4' ,Oneittde his observations by repeating u
.h. s d.enfid..-
ta),ttis liihif a tlx---that it was Ihe levylni.: of eel talonn t
any
this
°f the
the whole body of the subjects, or utpr
put-
ii
liole, ~theni, either for general purpose', 'T
, 'te-1,'"(r: beyond the interests of that particular class
Ir 'loin it !hay be levied•
,i/ill a„IItPAIE - • , • 1 • opinion, considered this
certainty, in his+Jil,- Nem
hdi the meaning of a
.Tax
Zl4:4,,:hi,tilieatiliit)Psibeuctli:lddYthueshrietto.e come before a Comaiittee
to 4,1115,,, ,1_ use, just L (vastascertain as any tither questiund
e,ton, t(i:.' Means. There .
kY k '', levied on the pensions of _ the clergy, which
NY a,tileriu,,a 4111 ch a direct tax as the
.thity upon s sap or
Of /37' llit-Natnnaodity. At the same time, dhe would sub.
ar ili la„, °We Lord that there were numerous precieidoeandders,
',ten the el „
'''
f • it" a Cototnittee of the whole
t°l,4ti t):":Leirer(ead a second tune ; and whaieverre
*II t7I, -Tht ben made by the House thus in Committee,
iia..4e '4,lBeineorprorated into the Bill. He thoughtthe
rand 8 (Nally competent to
id do. this on the present
Lord A uteh a course he shot recommend.
L'lne i -‘ll-101IP thought it extremely di sirable that on
4Nlld4t-h°4 °f such great political innporance, the House
4,kt,,, 4ve fuil time allowed them before they came to a
'eadi,' "' He shotud therefore prop ise that the second
l'h! of the Bill be postponed to some day next week.
14.,(lUestion was put.
tilt 1,4 J. RUSSELL -aid that thought it was correct, as
bed '"n• Member for Middlesex had stated, that instances
iitl:)tnairedof Committees of the whole House sitting.
te ~,,"ll after its second reading, yet these were only in-
'' ' dents rate Committees, in easel where the tax was inci-
:l 16t.11,111 the course of the Bill, and not whenthe object of
ajr°°le Bill was a tax.
Thor LIU nE , eplied.
iselti SPEAKER corroborated the statement of the
b -' Lo . Devonshire. The question
'i-• tt, -1..., the Member fur
titgt I.' Plesent Bid, whether the large part—the promi-
-4 tki 5411 We 1 the Bill—did not assume the character of
I\4l4`tead of a regulation.
Iv 4, iItIAIE had considered the great object of the Bill
'lth tr,'' redu :Con of the bishoprics, and the reformation
l'4'4l'es'thuareh,Lbly---turning immense sums of money in
Ll 6 Rehnannel
t 6 6e
said, that this would not appear to be
4, 41,tv , •
Lott',' liv object, according to the preamble.
ile 1 ~,lIE (us we understood) said the preamble was
1,0„lr 11:i,,•-• (A laugh.)
th:tli, v..EL slid, that the House, in an ordinary way,
~" th t,'"re enlightened on the subject by Monday next
ISt.° u etcsvt're enlightened
I ould therefore, be ot little use.
`l.l";:r,4_ll.illng.tponct..l‘,v,unles's, as lie should suggest, a
44' I Aiinntee of Precedents were formed.
h. at'tap 14011 P thought the House would derive matinelti,
e; tiler ..f5 trout the formation of such a Committee., 1
.4:;e4.1,',:h..nu1it. main! a motion to that effect in the
oir..r. -v,,
r,° d it h ArrwooD would beg leave to ask the Noble
.
~4,,, e 'ight be allowed to make a motion for a Select
oft ..iti,., ,0
__,
l' " rake "'to consideration the general distress
"'able to "' n°ol the best means of Tenet? He had been
12Lid A4take this Motion earlier.
‘11,4,,411e fuLrl'liiCtilP wart Ile did not think it would be
it',,,r• 41 00 comply with the wish of the Hon.
• tetitte,„l.• ATT,,,,
shied 5t tai, " 00D then asked leave to bring in his
m vita „ Y a day as possible—say Thursday next--
(
-t, ~ gr..„l
~.. •
nue", i ••••IkS% '-"
13141,1in°1t Iton,,,,,tive notice that he shod I in Committee
Lord Lord 'wful-t( "Thl to make the notes e f the B
be .., Al.'tiv, ender.
. -rilpitlttli tc,'_llP then moved that a Select Committee
t44llinue Precedents, and report to the
I

House whether the Bill, to alter and amend the kiss relat-
ing to the temporalities of tie Church of Ireland, should,
according to the rules and /infers of the House, originate
in a C mmi-re of the whole House.
Mr. HUME thought its the Bill related to two objects,
the temporalities of the Church, and the appropriation of
money—it would he advisable that the Noble Lord should
separate these things, and confine his motion only to that
part at the Bill which related to taxation.
Lord ALTHORP thought the two subjects were so
intimately connected. that the whole question should be
referred to. the Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL would recommend the Noble Lord
to form two Bills out of the one. That part of the pre
si-nt Bill which related to the lessees of Bishops' land.,
would meet with great difficultiea in its details ; and, in
the present state of Ireland, persons with a command of
capital would have great advantages, while persons of
straitened means would be exposed to great disadvan-
tages in purchasing this property. He would recommend,
therefore, that the Bill should be divided into two parts,
one part should be referred to the Committee, and the
House should proceed with the other.
Mr. STANLEY was sensible that the proposition of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had much to recommend
it, but there was one circumstance which rendered the
proposed separ ition a question of much difficulty. The
part relating to Bishops' leases hung so much together
with the other that it would be almost impossible to run
the risk of passing one and of not passing the other. One
of the leading piinciples of the Bill was to suppress ten
Bishops' sees, and place their revenues in the hands of a
permanent Board. At present the possessors of Bishops'
lea-es derived many of their advantages from the appre-
hension which the Bishops had to run their lives against
the lease., which induced them to renew these leases every
year for a nasonatile fine. But of course no motives of
that kind could exist in an undying Board. There was a
necessity, then, to give an entire security to the holders
of Bishops' leases, by enabling them to purchase them in
perpetuity. There were certainly grounds in the length
of the Bail why it should he separated, but the connection
he had pointed out between the suppression of the bishop-
rics and the holders of Bishops' leases was of such para-
mount force as made it impossible to separate the measure
into two Bills.
Mr. O'CONNELL admitted the existence of the diffi-
culty pointed out by the Right Hun. Gentleman, but it
might be obviated by ascertaining the average fines paid
by the lessees of Bishops' lands, and compelling the Board
to renew the leases at a similar rate, or to make the lease
perpetual on the term, regulated: by that average proposed
by the Noble Lord. Allow him then to say one woid of
himself. He hid been represented in the newspapers, both
of England and Ireland, as giving his support to this
Bill because he possessed property of this description. He
had not, however, a single acre of land in his possession
held on lease from the Church, and was not in any way,
either directly or indirectly, interested in Church lands.
Mr. BARING made some observations (which were
only indistinctly heard in the gallery, owing to the noise
in the House) relative to the impossibility of now getting
anything like a proper value for the Church lands in Ire-
land, owing to the state of the country, should they be
disposed of. He suggested, therefore, that the average
fines heretofore obtained by the Bishops should be ascer
tained, and that the Board should be compelled to dis•
pose of the lands at that rate.
Mr. STANLEY said there would he a considerable loss
if the Board should be bound not to ask a higher auto than
th,,, average of that paid to the Bishops. There was a con-
siderable difference in the value of a lease for 21 years and
for perpetuity, and if the Hon. Member's advice were
f 'Rowed, the holders of Bishops' leases would obtain all ti e
advantage of the perpetual lease without paying for it.
The object of the Ministers was to make the tenants pay
for that advantage, and the surplus thus obtained would
he placed in the hands of the Board, to be disposed of as
Parliament might please.
Colonel CONOLLY said a few words, but their pur-
port could no he made out.
Mr. HARVEY said, that the question had been treated
only with refer, nee to the Church and the holders of the
leases, but there was a third party who ought to be consi-
dered—the pen le. It was of great importance that they
should not lie lust sight of. The lessees of that property
had no more interest in Church lands than bad the lessees
of any other property. They were only leaseholders, and
he wished that the value of their leases should be ascer-
tained. He wanted to know why these lessees should be
allowed to acquit e these lands in perp- tuity for six years'
purchase ? He hail heard the subject discussed in several
places, amid hail heard only one sentiment of astonishment
at the low rate at which the statement was to be made.
He hail not met with one person who thought the leases
should be acquired in perpetuity tor less than 12 years'
purchase. He should, therefore, call on the House to in-
terfere fur the protection of the interests of the public.
The money to be realised by this aunt was estimated at
three millions, and he hoped the time was nut far off when
this and other sums, which were now devoted to ecclesi-
astical purposes, will d he applied to the exigencies of the
State. He wished to know how the amount was ascer-
tained of Church property in Ireland? Ir was said that
the property of the B shops was only 600 0001. a year,
obtained from 700,000 acres of land—t, a• of this sum
the Bishops only got 100,0001.--and that the interest of
the lessees in the 500,00(11. was to be made perpetual, fur
a suiti equal to six years' purchase. The Hou-e was cer-
tain y not acquainted with the nrure and extent of that
property, and he. therefore, thought it right that attention
should he directed to the subject.
Mr SHAW and several other Members rose to ad-
dress the House, but
Lord ALTHORP deprecated discussion on the detags
of the Bi I, and the House would not suffer the other
H in. Members to proceed.
Tire question was then agreed to, and the Committee
appointLd.