The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-05 00:00:00

e-e"'":1
He was not sure that the effect of leaving the case as
originally stood would not have been to endanger, sei
greater extent than it would be endangered by the propSd
arrangement, the landlord's rent ; because the ocolics
tenant might not only suppose that part of the rent he joi
called on to pay was charged with a view to tithes, bet ti
of
the landlords had been making bargains for themseires'ex
which they alone would reap the advantage.—( Hear.)
..4
much doubted if that feeling would have tended to the seer,Ol
of rents in Ireland. His Right Hon. Friend then sP°""op
the lay tithes, and said that they were nothing more than 111°,i
gage on land. They were, no doubt, a mortgage on thel'e;!,
but a mortgage of a peculiar nature. The produce was
lected, by taking, not from the owner of the land in the
instance, but from the occupier of the land.—( Loud crieso
" Hear, hear.") Did his Right Hon. Friend mean to
that there was as much danger and difficulty—that there ;
as much chance of exciting tumult in endeavouring to ree°,,
the interest of a mortgage as there was in attempting to ti
cover tithes ?—( Hear.) -His Right Hon. Friend then sro
to the principle of the measure, and he asked to what coned;
sion they were to come with regard to the PerpetuityPio
he asked his Majesty's Ministers whether in the scatty
which they now brought forward, he was to consider 0
Perpetuity Fund stood on precisely the same footingco
the rest of the funds to be submitted to the Ecclesiastteo
Commission, or on a different footing. He thought that
some respects it was a different fund. Unc.tuestionable,o
Right Hon. Friend had a right to urge that in the bill et 'd
year it was treated as an essentially different fund. lie tvlo
admit for the sake of argument, that the Perpetuity Felled
decided by the Church Temporalities Bill of last year, se;
on different ground ; but still, though it was ecclesias,t!i,
property, it never had been the property of any individesPeo
the Church, or of any corporation in the Church. When
tlemen were ready to exchange from one corporation to we
ther property belonging to such corporation--and he belie;
there was not a gentleman in the House who objected to s°,ol
change—he did not see on what principle it could be said
be spoliation and plunder to change property (not from el
corporation, because the church was not a single corpora
from a mass of corporations, and apply it to another perffe
Moral and religious instruction were the purposes to tii
they intended to apply the money ; and he would say, tu
by doing this they gave greater security to Church property
if by doing this they facilitated the collection of Church
perty, he did not see that in taking that step they were gee
so entirely away from the protection of Church properttee
his Right Hon. Friend seemed to imagine.—( Hear, ",,,o
hear.) His Right Hon. Friend said that he ("ty
Althorp) had thrown out some words of doubt on
subject. What he meant to declare was, that 0
inquiry was to be gone into, to see whether 0
amount of the revenues was more than was required liY,e
Church of Ireland ; and if the report which was theresf,o
this inquiry should prove that there was a surplus, ceert'ie
according to all the doctrines he had ever held in that Woo
or elsewhere, it would be in the power of Parliament to i
cide in what manner the surplus should be applied. (Chi'
He did not wish to conceal his sentiments on this subject' 0
had no hesitation in admitting, should gentlemen forced,/
question, that if by appropriating the Perpetuity Fun of
they were now doing, in the measure before the House, 0
were bringing the question of appropriation to issue, lied
no objection to put the question on that issue. (Much e'ee
ing.) His Right Hon. Friend, referring to the Ecclesiavy
Commission, spoke of it as if he had never heard of one
fore. He was surprised at his Right Hon. Friend Ole
short a gestation to that Commission, because he should to
thought that it had gone its full time. (Laughter.) $e a/
at all events, sure that the idea of instituting such an in;
could not have been new to his Right Hon. Friend—thseo
could not have been much surprised that on his retiree,:
from office such a measure had been adopted. In ta I/
these observations, however, he was prepared to confill°4
statement of his Right Hon. Friend—though he was net °oo
that any one had asserted or insinuated anything to the o°t9
of either his Right Hon. Friend, the Right Hon. Barenceroe
or his Noble Friends who had retired from the Administret
that they had never given their consent to take the qii e
into their serious consideration. He (Lord Althorp)
quite ready to state, if any such insinuation had been, or to
made, it was entirely without foundation. His Right 1;1
Friend required that the effect of this measure should
permanent change, and he objected to charging such a sill!'
this on the Consolidated Fund. He (Lord Althorp) 111'
ted that it was a question for the House, seriously to em;
whether the case made out, and the proposition now sub
,
to them, were such as would justify them in makingthis es .
on that fund. His Right Hon. Friend seemed to think
the whole of the charge on the Consolidated Fund could e
be got back. He (Lord Althorp) entertained a different
nion ; but he would say, that if it amounted to from O' •
to 60,0001. a year, as it could equal that amount only 111
of the landlords of Ireland generally taking on themseleel
payment of tithes in place of the occupying tenantry thre
out Ireland, who would thus be relieved from an impost 11
had been vexatious to them in every way in which an impost ,
be vexatious—which had produced discontent, crime; iee6eo
every species of social calamity—if, he repeated, the en
this measure should be, by placing these charges on the reit
of the country, to induce the landlords to take on t 1
selves the payment of the tithes, the money would be wee".
out for the country.--( Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. rif
asserted that the measure would not give peace to 'relent'
he would say, that if the tithes were paid by the landlord
stead of by the occupying tenantry, by a rent-charge inste,
by collection as heretofore, as far as he could reason frog
experience that he had, he did think that it would give a V
chance of tranquillity to that country than any other melt'
All he wished to urge on the committee was that the eb
of producing tranquillity by such a measure, was very ;,fit
and he hoped that they would therefore think it worth wit
agree to the resolution proposed.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said that it was very unpleasant to be sit
as he was at the present moment.—_(A laugh.) He could
agree to the proposition of the Government, neither coin?,.
vote with the right hon. gentleman, the late Secretary irse
Colonies, disagreeing with him as he did in the greater i
his speech. He objected to the resolution, because it p 9
the House to charge on the Consolidated Fund wh',/
amount might be necessary. No sum was specified-10'4
might be the consequences of any act that might be pas;
whatever the extent of the deficiency, the house wove
pledged for ever by the arrangement proposed to in'
good. He would do the Honourable Gentlemen neat,
the justice to say, that they had been at least consistent.
had objected to any interference with church property
they did so still. But to another individual holding e
guished appointment in connection with the present c
ment, he could not accord similar praise. That individe't
in former times denounced, as contemplating spoliati,°,l,
robbery, the very principle which characterised the BP,
recommended by his Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear, hear./
had no hesitation in saying, that a person who had s°
mitted himself, if he continued his connection with the g°,ol
ment, must either recant, or be disgraced for ever.-4
hear.) They ought to know what was meant by such cgr
—they ought to know how it was that Lord Plunket
sanctioned the principle which he called robbery in 1824e' 1
(Mr. Hume) was in that year told by the Noble Lord, tv
and all who advocated his motion must be prepared to,
with their property—to submit to its being plunderee>
them, as they would plunder the property of the Cheros
(Hear.) Seeing the difficulties into which persons ,$„
inconsistency, it behoved the House to be part` ,
cautious as to the manner in which they pledged thentscio
the votes they were called on to give. According WI et
mission of the Noble Lord opposite, 50,0001. a year see; or
sacrificed at least. Now, he would ask, on what green of
the Noble Lord oppose his (Mr. Hume's) motion for a J
tion of taxation, when he was ready to charge the sirPre
the Irish Church in this way on the public purse ? It ero;
possible for him to agree to this vote ; if he did so, !t el
be tantamount to saying, that the Church of Ireland, 11l
imperfections, was to be maintained.--(" No, no," ae,,o;
hear.) At any rate, it would be so as regarded titlwo
Hon. Member near him said that the Bill specified as?
If this were not intended, why not manfully avow it
could not say that the avowal of the Noble Lord 011
cientty distinct, He said if there should be a surplus'
there were indeed so many " ifs" and " ands" in the
Lord's speech, that it was difficult to make out his ' ,
meaning. Ministers ought to act on one of the ole tt/
either they should agree that Church property ought no
touched, or that it ought to be dealt with by Parliamell'e
were led to believe that the latter principle would be
but was he now to be called upon to pledge himself ter t'
up a deficiency without knowing either its extent aeof,
it was to be done ? They were soft enough last 1 9
advance a million for the support of the Irish clerglki
see
had before voted 78,000/. ; were they now to oil,
couple of millions after the former sums ? for such ery
the result if this proposition were agreed to.--(Heat,
Had not the Church of Ireland funds enough for
port without taxing the people of England for that Pl 4
—( Cheers.) He begged the Noble Lord to bear Le;11,
what were the consequences of the policy of the Rigmfd j
Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), when he was Secretary P
Ireland. No doubt the measures introduced by thitt4
Hon. Gentleman were well meant, but they failed err°
their promised effects. There were some people eir`tieo
could be induced to take a right course. His IVla.les.'
nisters were not in the right course now.—( Cheers.) 01
Hon. Gentlemen took their seats on the other side d
his
House, their views underwent a great change ; on ce
the House they saw clearly enough.--(Laughter and to
He would ask the Noble Lord, would it not be better lei
to act up to their own principles, and manfully to
.5
they would proceed as was proposed last year--tbatt 0,
was a deficiency, that deficiency should be made up Ire
Perpetuity Fund ? But if the contrary principle "we for
on—if they were prepared to do what was proooseerd 1,
land, would it not operate as a premium to the 'roll e 11
land to refuse the payment of tithes. __(Loud cries of
hear.") lelf the Government continued' a cowardlY 'pa
policy, they would be loaded like asses, and would
to Di
they must bear the burden.—( A laugh.) Could t" eel
Lord, after having relieved Ireland from tithes, at the'te 1
of the public Exchequer of England, o
refuse to relic
land from tithes when called on to do so ? It really r t4l
as if his Majesty's Ministers had been made to fele se
bolder policy might subject them to a repetition of wtted,.
licking which they had received from those who Ogee"
sacredness of church preperty.—( A laugh.) To eeoleedei
self from the difficulty in which he was placed, he 1
move an amendment as follows : the
That it is the opinion of this Committee, that far 4
moneys to the credit of the Ecclesiastical Commissiolleri de ,
land, in the Perpetuity Purchase Fund to be kept._ of ke
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, pursuant to the provisioir Ail ',",i,
passed in the last Session of Parliament, intitulecit_iitieot, i
alter and amend the laws relating to the TemPor'ooo '
Church of Ireland,' shall be applicable to such PI