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

surplus to be appropriated. I protest against any question of
detail being entered upon now.—(l-tear, bear, bear.) Imy
self am ready- to argue it, but lat once declare thrt I will not
do so on the present occasion, because I will not give the
Right Hon. Baronet the advantage of joining issue with me on
that part of the question, and then calling upon the House to
divide with hire on the general principle.(Cheering.) We
will contend with the Right Hon. Baronet in the committee as
to the details, but ire will not, I repeat, be driven to give him
the advantage of a debate on the details before we get into
the committee.—(Cheers.) The more straightforward course
noeld have been for the House to have been called on tys-
ind its former resolution.—( Hear, hear, hear.) And; any
lion. Gentleman thinks he can vote for the present resolution.
without rescinding the former one, let him call-to his receotee-
tien the cheers with which the announcement wos received by
the Hon. Gentlemen upon the opposite benehee, that it was
intended to negative one part of thin Hill and to carry the
other part.—( Cheering.) The Right Hon. Baronet his not
in effect. notwithstanding the appearances to the contras's',
grappled with the question of figures ; nor have I; tate-seise I
say this is not the right place to go into thee-Leo( WA cheer-,
ing.) They wish us to argue one proposition, and they ask
us to divide on another.—( Renewed cheers.) lam prepared
to argue, and will go into all the facts of the case, when we
get into the committee, after having negatived this resolution,
as trust the House will do.----(Cheers.) But I will not
allow what was a Parliamentary minority on a former occasion,
to convert itself into a majority now, by a little slight-of-hand
and legerdemain dexterity, such as moving a resolution which
is apparently one thing, though most unquestionably it means
another.—(Great cheering.) I say I will not, under these
circumstances, give to the Hon. Gentlemen opposite the
advantage of a discussion on the details one single hour before
the time arrives for entering upon such a discussion in due
course, and according to Parliamentary usage.—[There was
protracted cheering after the Right Hon. Gentleman resumed
his seat-
Mr. LE FR OY contended that the resolution agreed to by
that House amounted to no more than this, that if there should
be a surplus, that surplus would be applied to the moral edu-
cation of all classes of the people.—( Hear.) A charge had
been brought against his Right Hon. Friend for want of can-
dour in his statement, respecting the parishes of Cullen and
Glengoriff. That statement he considered could he main-
tained. It was intended that the Bill in its operation should
be imperative ; and was he to be told that there was not an
infringement of Church property, when that property was
laid at the feet of Commissioners appointed by Government,
by a Government that would go beyond, if that were possible,
the present Government in its proceedings against the Church ?
—( Hear.) Was there, he would ask, no danger to the Church
when such discretionary powers were given, as those conferred
by this Bill, to deal with Church property ? Property could
mot be consistent with such powers in any Commissioners; be-
cause the holders 'of it could not be secure of it for one hour.
The principal part of the Protestant population was in
the diocese of Armagh and Dublin. In Armagh were the
largest endowments of the Church, and yet the Noble Lord
would not aid those parishes with funds; but he would make
them liable to be cut down to an income for the clergyman of
300/. a-year.—( Hear.) What provision was there made for
the Protestant population in Armagh and Dublin ? They were
told that there were 500,000 members of the Established
Church in those provinces. Let it be so ; but why should
the Noble Lord take a provision from them and reduce it to
3001. a-year, though in some of those parishes the population
amounted to 4,000? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
taken a list of parishes, in which there was a scanty number
of members of the Establishment, and in which the amount of
the tithe composition was comparatively considerable. He
admitted that the members of the Establishment were very
scanty, and the provision very large; but then, upon the other
hand, he bad taken a list of parishes in which the population of
the Established Church was immense, and which would show
that the endowments were proportionably small ' • in fact in the
same proportion in which the income exceeded the population
in the parishes stated 'by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There were 103 livings, in which the population at the lowest
exceeded 2,000, and in the highest was beyond 5,000. In 103
benefices of this description there were not less than 30 endow.
meats having considerably less than 3001. a-year. In one of
these parishes the population was 3,543, and the endowment,
including tithe and glebe land, 2961. a year. In another the
population was 3,422, and the total provision was 1661. a
year. In a parish with a population of' 2,240, the provision
for two curates' salary, with a rector, was 294/. In a parish
with a population of 4,032, having two churches, three curates,
and a resident rector, the endowment under this Bill would he
2591. In a parish with a population of 3,700, having two
churches, a resident rector, and two curates, there was an en-
dowment only of 2351. For a population of 3,735, where the
tithes were partly impropriate, the provision only was 791.
For a population of 4,026, there was to be but an endowment
of 1501. a year, with 51 acres of glebe. For a population of
2,184 there would be but an endowment of 1401., and no
glebe whatever. For a population of 2 586, with a church,
a rector, and a curate, the endowment was but 266/. For a
population of 2,700, the provision was 170/. ; for a population
of 2,246 there was but a provision of 165/.—(Cries of
" Question, question.") He begged to state to Honourable
Members that when the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who disclaimed entering into details, had yet
come down to that House with details cut and dry for the
question—when this was done upon the other side, he could
not avoid entering also into details, in order that full justice
might be done to the eause.e--( Hear.) He was quite prepared
to lay all those details before them ; but he could state to the
House this, that there were thirty of these parishes in which
the members of the Established Church were from 2,000 to
4,000, and in not one of which was there a proviSion for the
clergyman amounting to 3001. a year, after this Bill should
come into effect. In one of them the provision was only 791.
a year, and in none was it so high as 300/.—(Hear, hear.)
There was, at present, a deficiency of 200 churches in Ire-
land. How much greater would be the numbers, when the
larger unions were broken up—when 1,121 utlions would be
broken up into 1,545 parishes. In these there were but
1,358 churches. There was, then, a deficiency of 207
churches ; 190 places of worship had been provided by clergy-
men. Some of these were in stables, others in Petty-session
Courts, and some in the clergymen's houses. In fifty-two of
those places, as we understood the Hon. Member, the popu-
lation of the Established Church exceeded 500. The ave-
rage accommodation of the churches of Ireland was for 350
persons, which would leave a deficiency of 150 churches,
where the population exceeded 500. The calculation of his
Right Hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) placed it beyond the
possibility of a doubt that a surplus would be hoped for ; but
when his Majesty's Ministers declared that they would give
100/. for a place of worship where there were but fifty mem
hers of the Established Church, why should they refuse to
build a church in a parish where there were 1,000 members of
the Establishment. There were 52 parishes in which the
members of the Established Church exceeded 500 ; there were
30 parishes in which they exceeded 1,000; 16 parishes in
which they exceeded 2,000; and 11 parishes in which the po-
pulation exceeded 3,000. These parishes should be provided
ith churches before the surplus was applied to other purposes.
—( Hear.) What was the state of Ireland with respect to glebe
houses ? They were told that there were above 200 parishes
from which the incumbents were absent. He did not vindicate
those who absented themselves from their duty. He agreed
with them who thought that all such abuses ought to be cor-
rected. But then this Bill did not promote residency—it did
not provide for glebe houses. The Commissioners remarked
that it was of importance to promote residency, and yet that
they were from want of funds unable to provide for this defi-
ciency. There were 381 parishes in which glebe houses were
not to be kept up, and there were not less than 695 parishes
in which there was not a single glebe house. Now as regarded
the Established Church, he did not see any reason why his
Majesty's Ministers should not be anxious to remedy those evils.
The Hon. Gentleman then alluded to a letter which he had
received from a clergyman, in which he observed that when he
took his living, it was then worth 9001., and a glebe house had
been erected which cost 1,8001. That living had been com-
pounded for at 525/. He asked upon what reason then a man
in such a position could be called upon to repay his instal-
ment cf the loan ? Let it be recollected that there were 715
parishes in which there were Protestants, and where the duties
were regularly performed. Here the whole amount of income
was 72,4530.1. Now taking the average of these parishes in
every one of which the duties were performed, in 161 of them
there was either a glebe house, or a church, or both. The
Noble Lord proposed in such cases to provide for the Esta-
blishment at 1001. a year; here he saved 2/. a year for the glebe
bailee, and in the rest of these parishes he proposed to allow the
establishment, when the Protestants increased in number, a
certain sum (from 101. to 501.) when they gave them in charge to
an adjoining rector. But the Noble Lord forgot that he would
find it in some parts of Ireland extremely difficult to get in-
cumbents to take upon them such a charge, because in some
parts the operation of the Bill would be to take away all the in-
cumbents in some of the dioceses. Then what was the Noble
Lord's principle ? Why, that he gave up the Establishment.
He would ask him whether he could do this with due regard to
the bone* of the Establishment, and how was it possible that
the duties of the clergy were. to be kept up in the way he
proposed? How was he to dispose of the 715 parishes amongst
the remaining incumbents, who would have their hands full?
Would they not have sufficient to do, because the Noble Lord
was not to separate parishes where there was no duty to per-
form ? Now, independent of the impolicy of removing so large
a body of resident gentry, he would put it to the Noble Lord,
be put it to the tender feelings expressed for the clergy,
whether it was right openly to overload these incumbents with
parishes of the extent they were in Ireland, and which were
adjoining or contiguous only to the parishes of these incum-
bents ? If the 13ill went to force a man to perform this ad-
Otitional duty, he might say that he had not undertaken to
execute it, and thus an excuse would be furnished- to any
idle or indiffeeent clergyman to neglect the discharge of an
onerous. key, Then, with respect to the case of small pa-
rishes, ny the effect of withdrawing the clergymen from 715
parishes, it would seem that Protestantism was put out of
existence. It was not like the case of England, because in
Ireland they had a rival Church in all their parishes. The
non-maintenance of the Protestant Church in Ireland, was, (Ic
facto, the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion—
that religion being that of the rival Church. Therefore, lie
contended that the system embodied in this measure amounted
to th© establishment of the Roman Catholic religion, and the
destruction of Protestantism.
An Hors. MEMBER next rose to address the House, whose
name we were unable to discover, said,—With reference to the
question of the union of parishes, he should concur with the
Riabt lion. Gent. in the amendment which he suggested.
The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue that whilst he
highly approved of the general principle of the Bill, still there
were some details which be thought might be opposed to his
views. But was it not fitting that the Church Establishment
should be made more commensurate with the wants of the
people generally in Ireland ?—( Cheers.) After the two great
medsurcs'of Roman Catholic Emancipation and the Irish Re-,