The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-22 00:00:00

NEWCASTLE RAILWAY BILL.

The Bishop of HEREFORD, seeing a Noble Lord oppo-
site, who some time ago had made a statement respecting a
Gentleman, one of the promoters of the Newcastle Railway
Bill, which statement had been greatly misrepresented, was
desirous to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of explaining
on a subject which had given great pain to the party imme-
diately concerned. The statement made by the Noble Lord
was, that the individual in question had received 3,0001. to
give his cnnsent to the Bill. This was understood to refer to
the Bill then in progress, whereas it actually referred to a
former Bill on the subject.
Lord WALLACE stated that when, in reference to the
Carlisle and Newcastle Railway, he spoke of an indivi-
dual as having received 3,000/. for his assent to the 13i11,
he intended to convey that that individual had received
such a sum for his assent to the first and not to the se-
cond Bill.

ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES BILL.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY rose to move that
the Ecclesiastical Revenues Bill should be committed, pro
forma, in order that two additional clauses might be added as
amendments, and that, so amended, it might be printed. In
doing so, the Right Rev. Prelate took occasion to say that,
since the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had presented their
first report, they had continued their labours without inter-
mission; but notwithstanding, they had found it impossible
so to conclude the inquiry submitted to them that, without the
inconvenience of partial and ill-digested legislation, they could
present any measures to Parliament during the present session
with reference to the great question of pluralities and non-
residence. So much progress had, however, been made, that
early next session they would be able to proceed with the
great object they had in view, namely, the bringing before
the consideration of Parliament the whole question o eccle-
siastical revenues. In the meantime, in order to prevent any
inconvenience which might arise from delay, and in order to
enable the Commissioners to act with greater circumspection
and caution in a matter of such great importance, he had to
state that his Majesty had determined not to appoint a succes-
sor to any preferment before it came under the consideration of
the Commission.—( Hear.) This determination had been
followed by the late Lord Chancellor, and the several Bishops
and Archbishops on the Commission, and one or two private
patrons had intimated that they were disposed to concur in it.
This made it incumbent on the Commissioners to provide for
three things; Ist, to secure the revenues of such dignities and
benefices as might become vacant ; 2dly, to secure such dig-
nities and benefices from lapses to any Bishop or Archbishop,
or from any other lapses to which, from the new regulation,
they might become liable • 3dly, it was necessary to provide
for the cure of souls in such benefices by the residence of their
respective incumbents. To accomplish these objects the pre-
sent Bill was introduced, and in its clauses the requisite pro-
vision was made. There were, however, two parts for which
the Bill did not provide, and, in order to do so, he intended
proposing the introduction of two further clauses, Ist, a clause
preventing any retrospective action of the Bill, in cases where
ecclesiastical estates or emoluments had been already divided ;
'and, secondly, a clause, providing that nothing in the Act
should prevent a patron exercising his patronage should he
think proper to do so. He proposed that those two clauses
should be added to the Bill, and that it should be printed be-
fore it proceeded further.
The clauses were brought up and added to the Bill. To be
further csinsidered in Committee on Friday next.
Several Bills on the table were forwarded a stage.—Ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 21.
At the request of Lord MORPETH several Hon. Mem-
bers who had motions standing for this evening postponed them.
Sir R. PEEL presented petitions from various places in
York, Gloucester, and from the Brethren of Sion College, in
London, against the Irish Church Bill.
On the motion for the House resolving itself into a Com-
mittee on the Irish Church Bill,
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I now rise for the pur-
pose of moving that instruction of which I gave notice,
namely, an instruction to the Committee on this Bill relating
to the Church of Ireland ; an instruction that that Bill should
be divided into two parts, in order that Hon. Members may
have an opportunity to give their support and consideration
to that part of the Bill which provides for the recovery of
tithes, and the realization of the property which justly
belongs to the Church, and to that part of the Bill which
provides for a new distribution and alienation of that property
to other than ecclesiastical purposes. Sir, I rise impressed with
a deep anxiety upon the subject—(Hear)--an anxiety
partly arising from an apprehension that I shall not be able
to do justice to my own feelings and conviction ; being chiefly
impressed with a fear that the House of Commons will not re-
fuse assent to this proposition.—( Great cheering.) I rise
impressed with a natural anxiety, overwhelming one who fears
that in his hands full justice will not be done to this
cause, and that I shall have difficulty in the mode of stating
my arguments—arguments which fall upon my mind
with irresistible force.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.")
I know that there are great impediments in my way—l know
I have great obstacles to contend against. In the first place,
I have to contend against those prejudices which -are so diffi-
cult to be overcome—prejudices which have arisen from re-
peated exaggerations as to the amount of Church property. Iwish
most sincerely that in arguing this question nothing shall be
taken for granted. I wish to establish every conclusion I draw
upon evidence which appears irrefragable ; and in the first place
I will apply myself to those prejudices which have been raised
upon this question, and to the gross exaggerations as to the
amount of Church property in Ireland. I have beard it stated at
different periods, and it has made a great impression. I have
heard much upon this subject—much discussion upon it, and I
have heard exaggerations with respect to the amount of Church
property, and the number of the ministers of the Established
Church—exaggerations, almost taken for granted, and not
denied, because there might not be means of contradicting the
statements that were made. I have beard those exTgerations,and
having heard them, I am not surprised at the impression
they have made upon the public —( Hear, hear.) I have
read a letter, addressed by a Roman Catholic Prelate
of high reputation, and supposed to have an intimate
knowledge with the circumstances of Ireland and the condition
of the Established Church—l mean the late Dr. Doyle. I
will road his statement with respect to the revenues of the
Established Church, and the number of those ministers to
which its spiritual interests are confided. In a letter to Lord
Farnham, Dr. Doyle says—" Can you Lordship lay your
hand upon your breast, appeal to your conscience or honour,
and then say that the Irish Church Establishment requires no
reform ? It is impossible that you could, my Lord ; because it
is monstrous to think that an annual income amounting to seve-
ral millions sterling, being appropriated in such a country as
Ireland to the maintenance of the pastors of less than one-
thirtieth part of the population." That is to say, that this
gentleman, of whom I wish to speak with no disrespect—the
late Dr. Doyle—intimated the amount of the revenue of the
Established Church at several millions sterling, and the amount
of the members of the establishment at about 260,000. Am I
surprised, then, that upon such an exaggerated estimate
Dr. Doyle should draw an erroneous conclusion. He proceeds,
" A man of reflection, living in Ireland, and coolly observing
the workings of the Church Establishment, would seek for
some likeness to it only among the priests of Juggernaut, who
sacrifice the poor naked human victims to their impure and de-
testable idols." Such was the conclusion drawn by Dr. Doyle,
irom the grossly exaggerated views which he took of the
subject at the commencement of his letter. I come now to
members of the Established Church, and members of the Le-
gislature, arguing the necessity of Church Reform, and with
their impression upon the subject, imagining, not unnatu-
rally, but in perfect conformity with reason, that the necessity
for that reform is urgent and immediate. When the Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Middlesex, some eight or ten
years ago, brought forward a motion upon this subject, his
impressions with respect to it were nearly as erroneous as
those of Dr. Doyle. On the 6th of May, 1824, the Hon.
Member for Middlesex stated, that having attempted to ob-
tain the most accurate information upon the subject—now -I
am not blaming tl o Hon. Gentleman for the .exaggerations
into which he fell, because he had not access to the sources of