The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-25 00:00:00

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

The House resolved itself into Committee on the Church
Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
The NOBLE. Cll-1 IRMAN having put the 49th clause, re-
lating to the rotation according to which the Irish Bishops
are to sit in Parliament,
Lord PLUNKET moved an amen,iment to the clause,
the effect of which was to insure the attendance of one of
the It ish Archbishops every year in Parliament.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH considered this arrange-
ment highly objectionable and unfair.
The Eul of WICKLOW should concur in the amend-
ment.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY expressed his
readiness to accede to the proposition of the Nohle and
Learned Lord, deeming it, as he did, a better arrangement
than the present.
Lord BERESFORD suggested whether that was not
the prop .r time for determining the expediency of nomi-,
natinz certain of the Irish Bishops as the perpetual repre-
stative of the Irish Episcopacy in their Lordships' House.
The amendment, and also the clause, were then agreed to.
The 50th clause, relating to the revenues of the bishop-
rics of Armagh and Derry, was struck out, and a new one
substituted for it.
The 51st clause, exempting- the bishoprics of Derry and
Armagh from the annual tax in respect of the sums paid
by them, was agreed to.
The :odd clause having been put,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected to it on the ground
that its preamble and that of the Bill were inconsistent.
The Bishop of LONDON suggested whether it would
not he htter, instead of saying " it is expedient to diminsh
such excess," to say it is " expedient to apply some part
of such excess to the purposes of this Act."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH could nut adopt the sugges-
tion of the Right Rev. Prelate.
The E tri of RIPON was convinced the anticipations
of the Noble Baron would turn out a total failure.
The Duke of WELLINGTON should move an amend-
ment to ti e following effect :—" And whereas the revenues
of the archbishopric of Armagh and Derry having greatly
Increased, it is expedient that a portion thereof should he
applied to other purposes connected with the Church of
Ireland."

- The qoestion Lavine.' been put,
The Archbishop of CANTERBUkY said, that unless
the Church Establishment in Ireland was properly kept, the
result would be a loss of congregations, and a comaquent
prejudiee to the religion established by law in that country.
He was anxious to have the church property supported.
The Earl of HADDINGTON had strong objections both
to this and the 53d clau-e ; and, if not anticipated in his
intention by stone other Noble Lord, he should, on the
bringing up of the report, move that the clauses he had
nomad he omitted altogether, and that the schedule be
altered accordingly.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH insisted that, from all the
calculations which had been made, there was little prospect
of small livings being augmented within any reasonable
rime. It was not a little singular that the calculations of
the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Each, quer agreed
with his. He disapproved of the amendment as he had
done of the preamble itself, for if either were adopted it
would ultimately lead to a reduction of the incomes of the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, as
well as those of the other Bishops.
The Earl of RIPON wished to set the Noble Baron
right with respect to the calculations of his Noble Freud
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Noble Friend at
first thought that the perpetuities would bring six years'
purchase and yield 3,000,000/, hut having, at the sug-
gestion of a Noble Lord, altered his calculation, by taking
two instead of six years' purchase, he reduced the amount
to be produced to 1,000,060/. ; but as to the reduction to
200,0001. or 300,0001., he had never heard of it.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH had read the statement to
which he now referred, and believed it to be correct.—
(Where, where ?) He had not access to such accurate
information as the Noble Earl, but on referring to the
report of a Committee of the House of Commons, he had
mood that the Noble Lord (Althorp) had made a gross
misstatement of what was the foundation of the statement
to which he (Lord Ellenborough) had alluded. The Noble
Lord had in fact mistaken gross for net value.
The Marquis of BUI'E was understood to be in favour
of the amendment.
The Earl of WICKLOW did not think they had any
right to take from the Archbishop of Armagh and Derry
soy portion of lei' income.
The Duke of Wis LLINGTON withdrew his amendment.
After a few verbal amendments the clause was agreed to.
The 53,1 and 54th clauses were also agreed to, with
same verbal amendments.
Upon the 55th clause being proposed,
The Duke of WELLINGTON was anxious to protect
the Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, from any undue or
unfair operation of this Bill. His object was honest and
sincere ; but if his object were considered to endanger the
passing of the Bill, he would not press it to a divi-ion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR considered the clause as
absolutely necessary to the vitality of the Bill.
Lord WYNFORD was opposed to the Bill, and parti-
cularly to the clause now under the discussion of their

Lordship'.
Lord PLUNKET considered the clause so necessary
that if it were not agreed to the whole object of the Bill

would be destr:yed.
Toe Duke of CUMBERLAND had much at heart the
dhjects and interests of the University of Dublin, and hence
;t was that he was comriled to vote against the clause
pow under the consideration of their LordshipQ.
The Earl of WICKLOW expressed a hope that the
Noble Duke would withdraw his intended amendment.
The Earl of BOSSE had great respect fur the Univer-
sity of Dublin ; he wished to see its interests proper; but
he thought, in the present stsge of the Bill, it would he
quite as well if the amendment of the Noble Dube was
postponed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, if it was tl:e plea.

sure of their Lordships be would not press his amendment.
his only object in proposing it was to give equal advan-
tages to the junior and senor Fellows of that Univemity,
ss was enjoyed by the Fellows, lay and Cerical, of the
jUnivrrsities of Oxford and Cambridge.
he Archbishop of CANTERBURY was very much in-
t) support the amendment of the Noble Duke, and
that without the slightest wish to destroy the main pro-

visions of the Bill.
The Duke of GLOUCESTER said, the elections o
Fellows were conducted at Cambridge with the greatest

Impartialiiy.
The Earl of ROSSE also bore testimony to the ability
and learning of the Fellows of Dublin College, and their
fitness ro discharge the duties of parochial clergy.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER was anxious to see
acme such measure passed as that recommended by the
Noble Duke.
Earl GREY looked upon the amendment as one of very
great importance, and he was sure not one of their Lord-
ships approached the consideration of it with any other
reeling than a desire for the security and improvement of
the learned body whom it affected.—( Hear.) The Noble
Duke had shown that there were 1,700 pupils to be di-
vided amongst the 18 junior Fellows; and as the fellow-
ships were admitted on all hands to be very valuable, there
mould be, he thought, no objection to leave those college
livings in the suppressed dioct se to the disposal of the two
Archbishop:, and to extend the selection to the scholar,
( Hear,
be ,i.)---for the purpose of giving encouragement
to that branch of the University. At the same time, he
should be very
glad if the Noble Duke would have the
goodness to postpone the am-ntlinent for the present, to
allow time to consider in what shape it might be intro-
duced in another part of the Bill,
The Duke of WELLINGTON had no objection to
withdraw the amendment for the present, and to. leave it
to the Noble Earl to bring it forward at another time.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND said that the Fellowshrps
were not so valuable as the Noble Earl supposed. The
Junior Fellows were only allowed a stipend of 1001. a year,

besides the fees of the pupils, which were uncertain and
fluctuating.
Lord BERESFORD believed that it was the wish of
the Senior Fellows of Dublin College that the number of
junior Fellows should be increased on account of the great
increase of the number of pupils since the termination of
the late war.

The clause was then agreed to.
The 56th, 57th, sSth, 59th, and 60th clauses were also
agreed to.
On the reading of the 61st clause,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that be would not object
to the imposition of a tax upon the more opulent clergy
for the purpose of making up for the deficiency of the in-
comes of their poorer brethren, but be was strongly opposed
to the substhution of a tax upon the clergy for the church
cess, which was now paid by the land. It appeared to him
to be most unjust to require the clergy to pay for the
sacramental wine and for the salaries of their clerks. He
should propose that the produce of this tax should be solely
applied to the augmentation of the small livings.—(Hear.)
lle might, he was aware, be met in limine by the objection
that the other House would not consent to his amendment;
hut, notwithstanding that, he trusted that their Lordships
would show to the clergy that their case would be dealt
with in that House at least (the House of Lords) fairly
and honestly.—(Hear.) He moved an amendment to the
effect that the proceeds of the tax upon the incomes of the
clergy should be appropriated solely to the augmentation
of small livings.
Earl GREY thought that if the tax was imposed at all
there could be no objection to the application of part of the
proceeds to the expenses of the Church service.
The Rail of WICKLOW was decidedly opposed to
applying any of those funds to the relief of the land from a
burden which it had hitherto exclusively borne.

The Marquis of BUTE supported the amendment.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH entirely concurred in what had
fallen from his Noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe), and he
thought the amendment of very great importance.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE admitted th it his amendment
did not quite get rid of the injustice of the clause.
Lord CARBERY supported the amendment.
The Earl of HADDINGTON considered the amend-
ment very important.
The Bishop of LONDON would vote for the amend-
ment if his Noble Friend pressed it to a division, as it
would save their Lordships from the danger of establish-
ing. a Precedent for the application of the revenues of the
clergy to purposes which, in law or justice, they had no
right to defray.

The House then divided—
For the original clause
For the amendment
Majority
The Marquis of BUTE proposed an amendment which
went to limit the operation of the clause to such time as
or her provisions might be made by law for the cess in
place of this tax on the clergy.
The ani,ndment vas negatived, and the clause agreed to.
Clause 62 was also agreed to.
Clause 63 being put,
The Earl of WICKLOW said the clause as it now stood
was likely to create much confusion. There were two
hi unchrs of cess in Ireland, only one of which was
to be abolished by this Bill. Many, however, would sup-
pose that it put an end to all cess in Ireland, unless the
point was rendered more clear.
Lord PLUNKET thought the Bill was sufficiently
clear upon thii head. He had no objection to any amend-
ment by which it might be rendered more clear. He
would tike time to consider the matter.

1 lie Duke of WELLINGTON having proposed an
amendment which went to exclude parish applotmenta
other than those contemplated by the Bill from the opera-
tion of this chose, the clause was postponed for the
preient.

Clauses 61 to 70 inclusive were Olen agreed to.
'The clauses from the 71st to the 75th were severally,
with verbal arrwrilimeres made in them, agreed to.
On the 761 h clause having been put,
Lord CARBERY moved an amendment to the effect

:bat it should be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commis-

sioners to advance such sum or sums of money for the
building of churches or chapels of ease in any parish or
place in Ireland, provided application for the same should
he made to them in writing, and that they were furnished
with a plan or estimate of the expense necessary to be
incurred fur the same, on the condition, however, that
they should be allowed to employ their own architect,
and were not to be required to pay the last instalment
until they were satisfied the building had been erected in a
sufficient and workmanlike manner.

The Earl of DARNLEY expressed his intention to
vote for the clause as it stood.

The Earl of GOSFORD sail that if the erection of a
new church became desirable, there surely could be no
difficulty in obtaining twenty signatures to the application
for the advance for the purpose ; neither did he think a
church should be built unless at least one• fifth of the
expense had previously been contributed by those who
wished for it. _

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not think the
amendment called for.

The Dill of WICKLOW said that the amendment of
Noble Friend was well deserving the support of every

!rue friend of the church.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it would be
better to invest the Commissioners with a discretionary
power as to the application of the fund at their disposal for
the building of new churches than to tie them down to a
particular line of conduct. At all events the House should
know exactly what the object of the amendment was
before their Lordships were called upon to decide upon it.
Lord CARBERY explained that his object was to re-
move the obstacle which the clause placed in the way of
building new churches, however desirable, in places where
contributions to the amount of one-fifth of the whole
expense could not he raised.
aThe Archbishop of CANTERBURY observed that it
was their Lordships' bounden duty to do all in their power
for the miintenance and preservation, if not far the spread-
ing, of the Protestant religion in Ireland. This was the
obj,ct which the amendment of the Noble Lord seemed to
have in view, and, therefore, it should have his hearty
concurrence.—( Hear.)
The Bishop of LONDON said that the Commissioners
for promoting the building of churches in this country
had in many instances borne the whole expense of the
bui!ding out of the funds at their disposal, and be, there-
fore, could see no reason why the Irish Commissioners
should not act upon the same principle where they were
sati•fied of the necessity. Indeed the difference of the
circumstances of the two countries, the population of the
one being altogether Protestant and that of the other for
the must part Catholic, rendered their doing so the more
necessary, and on that ground it was that he and his
Right Rev. Brethren felt themselves not only fortified but
ustified in voting for the amendment.
Earl GREY should not have the least objection to re-

duce the number of persons signing the application to
thireen, or the amount of the contribution to one—eighth
instead of one-fifth. It was, however, necessary that the
Coaimissionors should have some general rule to go by,
although he was perfectly ready to enable thorn in parti-
cular instances to dispense with the prescribed formalities.
Ti:e LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the whole
matter might with advantage be left to the discretion of
the Commissioners.

Lord CARBERY wished the principle adopted by the
Board of First Fruits to be extended to the Commissioners.
The Earl of RPON hoped the Noble Lord would not
press his amendment to the full extent. The proposition
of his Noble Friend was as fair as could be made.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the osject of the
Board of First Fruits was to repair and enlarge chapels
rather than to build new ones. Upwards of 700 chapels
had been built in Ireland within the last twenty years;
but, if he understood the proposition of the Noble Earl
(Earl Grey) right, the ecclesiastical revenues were not to
be laid out for church purposes unless the application was
signed by a given number of Protestants and a certain sum
contribtred.—(Now he could tell the Noble Earl that
there were many places in Ireland where not only no sub-
scription could be raised, but it would become baz trdous
to a Protestant to be a party in such a proposition as that
of erecting a new church.—(H-ar.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said all his Noble Friend
intended was that a general rule as to the application of
the fund should be established, but without meaning to
prevent the Commissioners departing from that rule
whenever the circumstances warranted their doing so.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY had an amend-
ment which he thought would at the same time be liable
to less objection, and accomplish all that was required.
The Most Rev. Prelate then moved an amendment to the
effect that the Commissioners should be at liberty, on being
sstisfied of the necessity, to advance any reasonable sum or
irins for the huildit,g of churches or chapels of ease in
Ireland.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed that this amend •
meta would leave that part of ;he clause requiring twenty
signatures to the application untouched.
Earl GREY expressed his entire acquiescence in this
amendment.
soopmoef further
,obEs
rr
iv aGt
roenys, f rLoom,
aLord
bEelrl
ye bt oh reo
Earlugb
theAlf3tiesrlt
of Wicklow, and Loid Plunket,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that a proviso to the
following effect be added to the clause Provided
always, If it 6,311 appear to the said Commissioners that,