The Sun.
London, England, 1805-05-22 00:00:00

For4ign Service; but when the situation in whiCh
haa stood for some years was considered, it
could not be denied that it might have been neces-
sary to expend Money in Ireland for correspondence
from abroad. Upon these- grounds he must resist
the Motion.of the.lion,Bart. and really if he could
account for the Expenditure of 'the Secret 'Service
Money he should feel it his duty not to do !t, from
a convitinn of the fatal consequences that .alight
r)sue

The Hex. DENNIS 'ROI/WE also opposed the
Motion, mad observed, that certainly the NOble'
Lord did carry the measure of Union which the
Hon. Baron had so highly praised, and admitted to
be of such high importance ,to the Empire ; and it
was rather extraordinary that an Inquiry should
now'be msved, under the head of Secret Service,
which seemed invidiously 'to glance at the carrying
of that measure. Certainly large sums had been
f,und necessary to be disbursed in the Secret Service
of that Country, in order to deteet and frustrate a ja.
cobinical Conspiracy, which had its origin so early
as 5790. and the,application of Secret SerVice Mo.
ney, under the direCtion and talents of Mr. Edward
Cooke, then Secretary in the Civil Department,
was most effeelual for the purpose.
The. Question being loudly called for,
Sir JOHN 'NEWPORT replied in defence of his
motion. He observed, that as to Secret Service
Money disbursed for the suppression of rebellion,
the Ministers Were not called on to account, as that ;
was specially excepted by the Aet of Parliament ;
but this wils no reason why nu inquiry shottld he
made respecting the expenditure of the sum not so
granted. He dict not wish to disguise the °hied of
his inquiry. Rupour had very strongly stated,
that very large sums, to the amount of more than
twenty times five thousand ponnds,had been expended ;
by the GovernMent of Ireland of very late years,
Ida very improper and unconstitutional way ; and
'to investigate this was the Objed he had in view,
' The question being put, the House divided,
Ayes - - 47
Noes - - - J 3 •
Majority against the Motion. —46
Read a third time the Military and Naval Corn.
missioners' 'lnquiry ;Bills, passed, and ordered. to
the. Lords. .
The Order of the Day being read' for going into
a Committee on the Stipendiary Curates' Bill,
Lord PORCHES7'EI opposed the Bill as unjust,
and' unconstitutional in its, principle, and
unwarrantably disposing of the property of Beneficed
Clergymen, who, from illness, infirmity, or other
unavoidable causes, might becOme nonresident; in
which case, at the option or caprice of the Diocesan,
a Gentleman was liable, by the Bill, to he deprived
of one fifth of the value of his whole living, to en.
rich a Curate appointed by the, Bishop to do duty in
his Parish. The Noble Lord considered thetiving
of Clergyman as much his private property as if it
were his landed estate, and at considerable length de-
clared against the injustice, the Cruelty, and tyranny, .
'of taking it from him against his will, sto endow a
Curate forced upon hint against his choice, and who,
in many instances, would :become much richer than
three.tourtha of the Beneficed,Clergyeaen in Eng-
land. The pretence for On Bill was to bind the Redtior
to residence on his living, as if.it were a settled faft
that a good benefice and a comfortable glebe.house
necessarily conferred upon him,a kind of centrifu.
gal force, and sent him rambling about the, coun.
try, while it was Os' have quite the contrary effed
upon a Curate, who, by receiving 2sol. a year, and
without arty penalty for his. non.residence, would
cling to the spot. The Noble L"rd considered .the
Bill rather a Bill of Nos and Penalties upon age
and infirmities, than of any bail effeCt upon those
who were non. reSident without excuse. He there.:
fore should dexidedly take the
,sense of the House
upon it. •
M. I. liawitiNq BROWNE supported the 13111, as
a mere Bill of nece'.sary regulation, indispensible to
maintain the religion and morality of the cOontry,
and could not at all view it in the sense light with
the Noble Lord.

Mr. 6R•robi sutsnorted the ; he denied that
it was either novel or unprecedented in its prin.
ciple, and ['hewed. that the idea had been adopted
boo years ago, in the reign of Richard'lL •
Sir W. W. WvNile, Mr. Fut. Lows, Mr. ST.
JOHN, and' Sir J. C. HIPPLSLEY, supported the Bill.
Mr. BARHAM and Mr. WESTERN opposed it.
Mr. PI IT c•reluded the discussion by-a short
but able and argumentative Speech, in which he
denied the principle. contended , for by the. Noble
Lord, and the other opposers of the Bill; thar the
property of a beneficed Clergyman in his Living
was of the same nature as his landed estate. Such,
indeed, was the propoTy of the Advowtion; but
such was the.jesl,msy of the law on this point, that
for the Patron to sell,.the next preSentation to that
Advowson, would be- a timoniacal ,hargain. The
Living, on the contrary, was to be considered
the, as a fieehold tenure held upon certain condi.
lions of i.rrvice ; bur hesshould like to know where
was.the injustice or the tyranny in obliging wman
to pay another for the perform:ince of that service
WhiCh he did not choose to perform himself, and
upon the condition of which ohe hell the tenure...—.
The tenure of a Clergyrrian in his Living was also
held upon the indiwensible condition. of rendering
services inieparably eontieEt; it with the reli-
gion, the morality, and the loyalty of the COno.
try. To whom must, the ',country look f
the support of loyalty amongst the People, but
to the resident Clergyinen of the Est,,hlished
Chlurch, who, by their own doctrine ' and example,
have at all times, ao eminently proinoted the cause
Of loyalty amongst their parishioners ? A Bill had
- been recently passed by the I-Luse, enforcing the
re‘,ldence of the Clergy under the direction of the
Bishops, tolwhom it .gave extensive powers ; which
powers this „Bill restrtard rather than enlarged;
for it only a!ithorized the Bishops to assign
of the income of the living, where it exceeded
4001. a year, to the maintenance of a Citrate to
ds the duty of . a Clergyman who did not chuse
to do it himself, or provide any other resident
Clergyman to di) it. Now, what portion of the
whole minis ',of the Beneficed Clergyin' England
would this go to etfeCt t Why, not, a fortieth part :
1.,r -a greatolumber of the Beneficed Clergy already
stood excused .from residence on account Dean,
• cries, Chaplaincies, Fellowship', and vther duties
elsewhere.