The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-28 00:00:00

would not, however, enter more into the subject at pre-
All he asked of Hon. Members was to waive ob-
lecti-ni to going into Committee, and di,cus, the great

sent,

pcinriples of the Bill in the only way in which it could be
properly done—namely, in a Committee of the whole I-I,use.
Mr. M. O'CONiNELL said it cis not a question
whether there were 31 against the measure, and 311 for
ir, but it was a question between the great body of the
. . .

riab people and those wheni they were t ixed to support.

He thouibt it not fair to take up the measure till they had

a full repor., or, at all events, till they had the repot t
wade to the Ilou•e of Lords. The evidence taken there

would be of treat service, and he, therefore, thought i,
hould be laid before the House in such a abape a 5 the Cum-
mitt, e could act on it.

Mr. S. RICE said the House was agreed on the prin-
ciple of the Bill; they differed only in details. They
•greed that pros ition ought to be made for the suffering
c;ergy, but the mode in which that was to be done was
matter of detail, and, therefore, a proper question to be
considered in Committee.

Mr. WYSE did not think the question could be fairly
discus+ed till the whole evidence was received, and parti-
cularly till they had the evidence of Dr. Doyle and Mr.
Montgomery. fie did not consider tie clergy entitled to
the sum iw irded to them.

Mr. BROWNLOW disapproved of a debate of that
kind on a preliminary motion, and thought it would be
better to go into Committee at once.

Mr. H, GRATTAN would rather poetpoce the coo-

silo ration of the question, but would not object to going
into Committee.
Mr. LEADER agreed in the propriety of going into
Committee.
After a few words front Mr. 'WALLACE the House re-
solved itself into Committee.
On the first resolution being put,
Mr. RUTHVE proceeded to address the Committee
amidst considerable interruption. He considered the sys-
tem of paying the clergy by tithes objectionable in every
instance, and. therefore, could not agree to the re,oluti.in
that the payment of tithes should be enforced to make
g..od the sum advanced to the clergy. He also objected
•to the plan on account of the expenses, which would, in
the erri, fall on the people.—(ll-ar, hear.) One of the
great objects of the meetings in Ireland in favour of Re-
form was to get rid of the payment of tithes —(Hear,
hear.) It was impossible that there ever could be peace
in Ireland so long as the population should not obtain a
fair remuneration for their IThour. It was the interest of
both Catholic and Protestant that the system should un-
dergo an alteration, and that the working clergy of both
persuasions simuld be better paid. The Hon. Member
was about referring to the evidence of Dr. Doyle, when
Mr. STANLEY inte-posed, anti said that the evidence
of Dr. Doyle was not before the Committee. He begg,cl
to remind the Hon. Member that the resolution now un-
der diAcum-ion was merely a resolution as to fact ; and,
unless he meant to move an amendment, it would be bet-
: ter, probab'y, to allow the other resolutions to he put seria-
tim, and take the discussion when the whole were moved.
Mr. RU YHVEN had an amendment to propose, and
although the evidence of Dr. Doyle was not before
the House in a Parliamentary way, yet it was sufficiently
known. He did not, however, mean to cast any impu•a-
tion upon the Committee. Al er some further remarks
the Hon. Gentleman concluded with moving the following
resolution:—•a That the state of the prop.rty of the
Church of Ireland requires revision and modification, and
that a reduction of the Church Establishment has become

necessary and expedient, so as to facilitate the ultimate ap-
propriatioo of its revenues to the uses of their oriental
objects—viz., the maint.nance of the clergy. the building
And due surport of churches and paces of public worship,
and the relief of the poor ; but that, under existing cir-
cumstances, the present incumbents of parish- s in Ireland
are entitled to protection in the arningement of Church
property, the future regulations of which should br made
upon a basis calculated to afford a proper and suitable
provision for the ministry of the several congregations in
the respective pirishes of Irel inil, 89 well as to supply the
means of materially relieving the poor."
Mr. STANLEY said, the Hors. Member who had
moved u resolution us an arnendment to the one which he
hid had the honour of moving., had been guilty of an ab-
surdity, for be had complained that the evidence was not
sufficiently developed upon the suject of tithes to enable
the House to come to a proper conclusion, and yet the
Hon. Member had now in ved a resolution founded upon
that evidence, which went much further, for it not only
went to pledge the Committee as to the state of the
Church property in Ireland, but that there should be fu-

tore regulations to afford a provision for the ministry of
the several congregations, as well as means for the relief
of the poor._( Hear.) He objected to this amendment,
and he did not consider the present as the most convenient
time for going into the whole question introduced by
the Hon. Member.

Mr. G. KNIGHT supported the original resolution.
He rejected with scorn the modern notion that church pro-
perty was national property.--( Hear.)
Mr. H. GRATTAN con.plained that the Right Hon.
Secretary held out no hope to the people of Ireland ot ul-
terior measures, although the report upon which the re-
solutions were founded, promised a less oppressive mode
of collection, and otln r measures of relief, lie considered
his Hon. Friend fully borne out in his amendment.
Mr. LEFROY said it was objected against the present
tithe system that the m jority paid the minority, but, as
seven-tenths of the property in Ireland was the property of
Protest.nts, it was folly to say that the Catholics paid
tithes, whilst the Protestants were landholders. Ireland
must either be governed eff,ctu illy or given up, and, if
the system of agitation were suffered to be prolonged, it
would speedily become anarchised
Mr. PENRHYN said that Government was bound to
legislate, not for any particular party, but for the nation.
The Government was in his opinion, perfectly justified in
taking the steps which they had done
Mr. JAMES GRATTAN did not look upon the met-
sure which the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland had it in
contemplation to bring forward as calculated to still the
agitation or to quell the unquiet feeling which was abroad
in Ireland on the subject of tithes. He was of opinion
that the Cocninittee on tithes was very unfairly constituted,
for the only witnesses heard were those of the Govern -
ment, whilst nearly all the evidence on the part of the
people had been rejected, only one witness on their behalf
having been called before the Committee. Above all
things he deprecated a hurried s, ttlement of the
question, for the plan proposed would nut succeed.
Io his mind, the Irish clergy received more than a tenth
of the farmer's produce. The tithe of dry and barren
cattle never was demandable in Ire'and. The people of
the north I.f Ireland, by their peculiar habits of industry,
or by composition, bad lowered their payments of tithes
very conveniently for themselves. The payment fell, with
the greatest severity, on the Irish Catholic tiller, who en-

ban Ced the value of the land, aid felt how very unequally
the burden fell on his industry.
Mr. HUNT, feeling there was no likelihood of conclud-

ing to-night, said he should move that the Chairman do
report pro2ress, and amk leave to sit again.
Mr. STANLEY opposed the postponement.
After a few observations from Mr. Mullins, Mr. Wyse,
Mr. Lambert, and Mr. O'Connell, the adjournment not
being pressed by Mr Hunt, the Committee divided upon
Mr. Rutliven's amendment—
Ayes •-7
Noes 12.`i
Majority against the Amendment —l36
Upon our re-admission, we found
Mr. NYSE stating his objections to the three first re•
solutions.

Mr. J. GORDON defended the c; nduct of the Irish
clergy generally, and particularly panegyrised the character
of the R. v. Dr. Hamilton whose name had been frequently
alluded to in the course of these discussions.

The first resolution was then put front the Chair, and
agreed to.
The question being put on the second resolution,
Mr. HUNT objected particularly to this resolution. He
thought it preposterous and unjust to vote a sum of money
out of the public treasury for the support of the members
of the rich church of Ireland. He did not know what

course the Irish /11..mbers meant to pursue on this resolu-
tion ; but he should divide the /louse on it he stood alone.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were...
For the resolution 86
Against it 11
Majority —75
The second resolution was then agreed to, and the ques-
tion was put on the third resolution, which was carried
witnout any discussion.

The House then rebumed, and the CHAIRMAN reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
:he House adjourned at Half-past Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAficil 27.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented papers re•
lative to the population in certain boroughs.
Lord KING presented a petition from Stoke Daveril
for an alteration in the law relative to tithes. Also one
from a parish in the county of Meath for the abolition of
tithes, and praying for the compulsory celibacy of clergy-
men. The Noble Lord presented several other petitions
against tithes.

- The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from Gor-
manstown for the abolition of tithes.

VISCOUnt CASTLEREAGH, 1.9111 STANLEY, Mr. TREvoit,
and orhers from the Commons, brought up the Belfast
Harbour Bill, and several private Bills.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from
Dartmouth, against the new system of education in Ireland.
The Earl of ERROL (as we understood) presented a
petition front the Noblemen, Gentlemen, Commissioners
of Supply, end Freeholders of the county of Aberdeen, in
favour of the Reform Bill.

The Earl of RODEN presented petitions from Shel-
burne and Market Raisin, against the new s:,stein of educa-
tion in Ireland.

On the motion of Lord Tenterden, the Couits of Law
Process Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
e:,mmitted on Wednesday sennight.
Toe Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a peti-
from Canterbury against the overworking of children
in factories. The most Reverend Prelate tben
moved that the House go into Committee on the Plurality
of Benefices Bill, and having moved some verbal amend-
ments on the first clause,

Lord SUFFIELD said be must object to this clause,
because it left open that great abuse, viz. the
commendants. He did not object to the poorer Bishops
i•eing provided for, but he did object to that pro-
vision being made in a way which had proved
itself to be open to such abuse. He instanced the
ca.e of a Bishop, who at the same time held two
Deaneries, a Chancellorship, two Rectories, and a perpe-
tual Curacy, and for all this he was informed that he was
a poor Bishop. Surely this required
it. He
and he
did not see how this Bill would give t. He was also in-

forn:ed of the case of a clergyman who, in 1829, having a
cure of 120,000 souls, was presented to a Prebendal StalP,
in consequence of which he left that large cure for 18 months
in order to attend his stall, where he believed he hid to
officiate as Dean, and he had only been three times in his
own parish. Fur these reasons he could nut consent to
this Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON believed the Niible Lord meant
a large parish in the metropolis in his last remark.—(Hear,
hear from Lord Suffiield.) Then he (the Bishop) was
aware of the case, which stood thus :—A Clergyman was
presented to the living of S•. Mary le-bourn, by
the late Lord Liverpool, and afterwards was pre-
sented to a Prebendal Stall in C•nterbury Cathe-
dral, by the laws of which he was obliged once
in turn to attend for a twelve-month to perform the du-
ties of Via: Dean. Thee fore, what the Natile Lord had
stated was in part true. He, as well as the Noble
Lord, thought it was wrong that a CI. rgyman who
had a large cure of souls, should also have another
preferment which required his absence from his duty ;
but the statement of the Noble Lind was rather exagge-
rated, the parish was a large one, but it had been divided,
and taere were now five chur,•hes, so that his cure only
amounted to one• fifth of the 120,000 souls, and while he
was absent, the Church had been well supplied by other
clergymen
Lord SUFFIELD observed, that it was with unfeigned
satisfaction he had beard the atati-ments of the Right
Rev. Prelate. But he roust leg to remind him, that
this was a Bill professing for its object the restraining of
pluridities, and he thought great odium would attach to the
church after the Bill passed into a law in its present shape.,
for the puolic would never believe that a Bill admitting
of such abuse as the present one did, could be founded upon
a real and sincere wish to reuse ly the abuses of the
Church. It was on that account that he felt so anxious
a desire to introduce the amendments he had proposed.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, befere he an-
NI ered the observations that had been made by the. Noble
Barr, toast make a few remarks with reference to
the character of the clergyman who had been so invidiously
named. It was highly creditable to that individual,
and the appointing him to the living he then filled, re-
' fleeted the highest credit upon the Minister who had
placed him in that situation. That clergyman hid for
some years been a minister in one of the most
populous towns in this country (Birmingham),
where he had lived respected by every person who knew
him. As a clergyman he had been most exemplary in the
discharge of his duties, and when the !wish of Maryle-
bone fell to the Crown, Lord Liverpool, who had not
the least personal knowledge of Dr. Spry, knowing him
only by report, gave him that living, which in his (the
Archbishop of Canterbury's) opinion, could not hive been
better bestowed. The Noble Duke opposite (Wellington)
being aware of his merits, bestowed on him a Prebendal
Stall in the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, and a more
worthy individuil lie could flat have se'ected. The Most
Rev. Prelate considered the amendments of the Noble
Lor.J were most irreeular, and he could net; therefore,
consent to their forming part of the Bid.
Lord KING thought it no palliation of the abuse that
it was old and custemacy. The law gave the power to
Bishops to compel Rectors to make a reasonable allowance
to the clergyman who officiated for them ; but that did
not extend to Colleeiate Bodies. He had heard of an in-
stance where the Clergy of Exeter Cathedral drew an in-
come from a certain parish of six or seven hundred pounds
a year, arid allowed the officiating clereyrnan only fifty or
sixty pounds a year; and he had presented a petition from
the parish, complaining of this.
The Bishop of EXETER had made inquiries into this
case, and found that the Noble Lord, as often happened,
had been misled by the statements in the petition. The
fact was, that the officiating clergyman had an income
of above 1001 , instead of 501. or 60/. The 501. or 60/.
was allowed from the Choral Fund of the Cathedral, and
the rest of the income was made up in another way.
The clergyman in question had never made any complaint,
and the clergy of the Cathedral had since agreed to make
up his income to 150/. a year.
Lord KING—His case was made out on the Right
Rev. Prelate's own admission. He had not advocated the
cause of the clergyman, but of the parishioners, who com-
plain: d that while a large sum was raised front the parish,
so little was paid to the clergyman who did the duty ; and
it was quite coalmen for a parish to make an additional al-
lowance to an officiating elrrip man who had two little from
the tithe-owner. It appeared that the clergyman in
questian really had only 50/. or 60/. from the Choral
Fund of the Cathedral, which was made up to about 100!.
by the parish, and now, alter the case had been exposed,
the collegiate clergy had been at last induced to mike the
~aine allowance as a rector would have been compelled to
make.

The Bishop of EXETER denied that any part of the
officiating clergyman's income bad been made up by the
parish.
The Earl of .HARROWRY—The question was, whe-
ther the Bill would no good as far as it went? and he
thought that it would. Another opportunity would soon
occur of legislating generally respecting the property of the
Church. He found, by returns on the table, that there
were 2,200 livings where the clergy were not resident,
and would support the Bill b•cause it would at least dimi•-
nish by that evil. In his opinion, the persons ss ho enjoyed
the great tithes ought to intke due provision for the per-
form ince of the parochial duties; and with regard to
pluralities in general, he thought it would be a great im-
provement upon the present system, or even upon that
which the Noble Lord intended to introduce, if certain
small Church prefern•ents, without cure of souls, were
permanently added to extensive livings where there were
heavy duties to perform.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY admitted that
there were great abuses on the part of imptopriate
Rectors, both lay and ecclesiastical ; and he should cer-
tainly not be opposed to any reasonable plan for remed; ing
those abuses.
Lord SUFFIELD should be quite ready to give up his
amendments if he could look forward to any assignable
period at which a remedy might be introduced for the
evils acknowledged to exist. He recommended the Most
Rev. Prela'e to withdraw his Bill for the present, and
bring it forward again in a more complete shape when
aufficierit information was before House.
The Duke of WELLINGTON considere l that the Bill
went as far as any Bill could at present go. He was per-
fectly ready to admit that there was not much informa•
tion before the House respecting Church property. In-
deed, on the coot, arv, he thought it particularly want-
ing in that knowledge ; but he was at the same time of
opinion that they possessed sufficient information to form
a judgment upon that Bill. He entirely dissented from
the N..ble Lord opposite in thinking that the House could
with propriety fix the amount which a Bishop should en-
joy ; they would not under take to say that 3,500/. would
be toa much or too little for a Bishop—the Crown alone
wle the fitting judge. There were some Bishops whose
incomes were as low as 8001 , and he knew one al low
as 5001. He would contend that arrangements connected
with those matters could only be carried into effect upon
the r, sponsibility of the Ministers of the Crown.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA, as a sincere friend to the
Church, was extremely grateful to the most 11,-v. Prelate
for the Bill then on their table, for it certainly would
eff,ct a great improvement in the Church.

Earl GREY entertained no doubt that the Bill then
under consideration would be beneficial to far as it went.

With respect to the amendments of his Noble Friend near
him, he should strongly recommend him to reserve their
proposal until that further information of which he spoke
should come before the House, and he should advise him
not to press those amendments ❑ow. The present Bill
should throughout have his support, for lie thought that,
to the extent it went, it would prove highly beneficial.
The present was a Bill which, as most Noble Lords must
know, went to affect the Royal preroptive. He had,
therefore, found it his duty to take his Majesty's pleasure
upon the subject, and he was authorised to state that the

had his Majesty's sanction.
Lord SUFFIELD should
greaonntsienngt
ditstp:s•i:thiu7swwibtihs
amendments; but be did hope that sorne arrangements
would be adopted to put an end to comma:darns, and to
fix the sole responsibility of

the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Lord KING looked upon the present Bill as the mint.
Manz of Reform. If there were to be pluralities, and great
prizes in the Church as they were termed, he thought
,hey ought to be reserved for the persons most distin-
ffilisbed at the Univer,ities.
The clause under discussion was then agreed tie, as were
several others, without observation.

Lord KING moved the omission of the clause &lowing
the union of benefices distant so far as thirty miles from
each other.
Lord SUFFIELD recommended his Noble Friend to
put his amendment, so as to prevent the union of bene-
fices unless contiguous:.

Lord KENYON wished that the Bill should be post.
poned for the present.
Lord WYNFORD also was of opinion that it would
be better not to legislate at all on the subject, until the

House was put in possession of the information which it

was intended to lay before it relative to the state of church
property.
Lord HARROWBY supported the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in the opinion