The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-27 00:00:00

an wcr to tars sceorill question, he proposed to recover from the
brad landir .d, and if they did not succeed they would descend'.
till they •.,it to the oecuNing tenant.
Ler?. 'B.l' ANL E Y observed that the head landlord would
bay e4the means of recovering the amount of tithes on all per-
Imes aetween himself anti the occupyiag tenant, and any of
&hi! ,e could recover on the body of the tenant.
..ord MORPETH said he would proceed to answer the
oti questions with respect to the case which his Noble Friend
had pot regarding the unions of parishes where there was a
great rumlier of Protestants in one parish, and other parishes
wi ere there was a small number of Protestants and a large
ntnrber of Catholics together formed into a union ; what his
Noble Friend anticipated would not take place. His Noble
Friend was mistaken also as to the amount that would be de-
ri' the suppression of benefices. In addition to the
amount stated by his Noble Friend a sum would also arise
from the sale of glebe houses and glebe lands. The net an-
nual value thetefore given to the Commissioners for •natioaal
education would be much larger than his Noble Friend con-
te.aplated. Ilis Noble Friend should recollect that it was in-
teaded to make up the incomes of clergymen to the net an-
nual amount of 300/. a-year. The sum derived from these
sources would be sufficient, in many cases, where there was
now no church or chapel, to supply adequate means for the
performance of Divine worship.
Sir ROBERT PE EL would not detain the House at anq
length, because at that period of the night, and until he I.a
s..eri the Bill in all its details, there was not much difference
between occupying their time at great length, and saying hut
a very few words. It appeared that the Bill proposed to be
introduced on this important subject was a perfect anomaly
when compared with that proposed to be introduced by his
Right Hon. Friend ( Sir H. Hardingc.) It agreed, however,
avith it in some points ; and first cf all, with regard to the re-
mission of a million of money formerly advanced to the Irish
clergy, he fully agreed with the Noble Lord on the difficulties
of levying that amount upon tithes. It was, however, to
Le remitted for the benefit of the Church of Ireland or it!
clergy ; but it was for the benefit of those from whom the
debt was due to its clergy,—viz. the landlords of Irela•ad. It
would he a mockery to call on the clergy to reply this ma-
ney, without giving them the right of recovering it from the
occupying tenants of Ireland. He did rot disagree, also,
with the-Noble Lord very materially as to the amount of the
bonus to be given to the landlords. As for deducting 25 or
30 per cent., there would be not much difference of opinion
as to the sum, when the p.rincirle of the thing was agreed to.
The Noble Lord's Bill differed from that ofhis Rightllonour-
. •
able Friend, however, tn some most important matters. In
the first place, he n!,.aposed to take away the papment of an
annual sum in lieu of tithes. It was-so.far-less glvantageous
to the Irish Church than that of his Right Hon. Friend. The
principle of this part of the Noble Lord's measure would go
to open all the commutations entered into. He must, in the
first place, hear the details as well as the principles of the Bill,
before he proceeded to argue this part of the measure. In
the agreements entered into he might conceive one or two
cases injurious in their nature, against which objections could
be urged, but they ought to have many proofs of injustice,
and show that great advantages would be gained by both par-
ties, before they opened agreements entered into by two par-
ties, and sanctioned by the Legislature. With respect to the
details of the Bill, he would say that, even if he agreed on its
principle—if there was no great difference of opinion between
the Noble Lord and himself as to the question of appropria-
tion—he believed that the invention or ingenuity of man
never could have devised a more objectionable mode of attain.
ing or executing the object, than that proposed in this mea-
sure.—(Cheers, and Hear, hear.) The proposal not to allow
a clergyman to a parish where the number of Protestants did
not amount to fifty, appeared to him to be so objectionable,
that even no difference between the Noble Lord and himself
as to the principle of appropriation could ever induce him
not strongly to oppose such a principle. It appeared, also
most cruelly unjust, to propose to allot to any clergyman the
paltry stipend of 65/. a-year.—( Hear, hear.) It was an
amount of salary utterly inadequate for the payment of any
person of education, such as a clergyman, ought to, and must
receive, for the performance of his sacred duties.—( Hear.)
The Noble Lord must be fully aware of the education a clergy-
man must necessarily receive • and he (Sir R. Peel) hoped
that he had misunderstood him on this point. The Noble
Lord had said 65/. a-year, but he had never understood him
to say 701. He admitted that the number of Protestants
in some parishes was extremely small ; but was that sufficient
to justify them in giving such a pittance to what the Noble
Lord was pleased to call a separate curate? Such a stipend
to a clergyman as 70/. a-year was equally injurious to the in-
dividual clergyman as to the welfare of the church of which
be was a member. The Noble Lord said that lie could quote
cases in this country where the curate only received 70/.
a-year, but this was no answer to his objection ; for whenever
be, as well as others, had admitted the propriety of ma-
king a • new distribution of the revenues of the Church, it
had always been urged, as the first and most important point,
-to give a better income to the subordinate clergy.—( Hear,
hear.) This bad been repeatedly urged on both sides of the
House. It bad repeatedly been said in that House, that the
great advantage of a new distribution of the revenues of the
Church would be, that it would .allot to every clergyman,
who had a separate cure, a sufficiency for the decent mainte-
nance of himself and fainily.—( Hear, hear.) Indeed he had
repeatedly heard the lion. Member for Middlesex urge with
great force, that wherever it was necessary to maintain a se-
parate clergyman, they should take care that he ought to
have a fair and moderate income, and that he was fairly en-
titled to at least 300/. a year—( Hear, hear)----this was not
merely for the advantage of the individual, but also for that
of the flock over which he presided. If, then, a clergyman
was settled in any parish in Ireland, it was for the interest of
the Church—it was for the interest of religion, and was for
the interest of the Roman Catholics—that he should be
guaranteed a moderate and decent income ; and that 3001.
a year would not be too much. It appeared to him to be
most extravagant and absurd to invite a person to go to the
expense of getting the education of a clergyman, to in-
duce him to settle in a parish where he would have an in-
come utterly unworthy of him, and not exceeding that which
gentlemen gave to some of their servants. He trusted that it
would be the generally expressed feeling of the House that any
such sum for the income of a clergyman was utterly in-
sufficient.—(Cheers.) Another point was the great prin-
ciple of appropriating a portion of the revenues of the
Church to other than strictly ecclesiastical purposes. It was
hardly necessary for him to say that it was his intention to
offer any such principle his most strenuous opposition.—
( Hear, hear.) He did not know that their opinions would
differ more- strongly on the point, if the Noble Lord at
once stated that there would be no surplus,. after they had
allowed not more than a decent maintenance for the Protestant
clergy—after they had provided for this by adopting a new,
distribution of the revenues of the Church—by having a new
fair, and equal graduation of salaries, he was satisfied that it
would not be difficult to show that there would no surplus.
If the Noble Lord admitted the principle to be,. that even
where there was a single Protestant—or where there was none,
but where there might be, still it was their business to provide
for the performance of religious duties, and if he admitted
that where there was a church established, the clergyman
ought to be able to maintain himself in competence—admitting
all this, it was not difficult to show that they were fighting
about a shadow, and that in point of fact there was no surplus
to deal with.--(Cheers.) If that were the case, they would
gain nothing by this principle beyond causing discord amongst
them.---( Hear, hear.) Could the Noble Lord believe that lie
would realise his extravagant expectations of 50,000/. ? Did
the Noble Lord believe that there would be a surplus to that
amount after all existing interests were provided for—after
paying the debts of the perpetuity fund—after deducting thirty
per cent. from the present revenues of .he Church—after
every allowance that was to be made for the great deduction
• which would be the consequence of converting his tithes into
a rent charge, after he had opened his composition, after the
erection of the new churches and the new glebe houses they
would require, and after the allotment of the curates in those
new parishes ? The Noble Lord might depend upon it that
he need not provide in detail for the disposal of that surplus,
for his calculations were erroneous, as he would find that he
had not 50,0001. to distribute.—( Cheers.) He would say
then, let them make a new distribution of the church revenues,
let them do away with curacies of 651., and let them allow a
sum amounting to about 250/., to enable a mar, in decency to
maintain himself and his family, and the Noble Lord would
find that he had no surplus. Let them maintain the principle
and do away with all pluralities and with non-residence, and
with all sinecures in the sense in which this word was used,
hut let them in every parish provide a clergyman to afford re-
ligious instruction and consolation, giving to him a decent
maintenance, and there would be no surplus to appropriate and
no quarrel to maintain--( Cheering.)
Lord .1. RUSSELL said, the Right Hon. Baronet had
observed that he would not enter on the present occasion into
any of the details of the measure, yet in a small compass hp
• had alluded to many details. In order to save time, he would
not say a word with respect to that part of the measure w).),c-h
related to tithes. On an after occasion he should be
''ole to
compare this measure with that of last year, awf. with the
measure of the Right Hon. Baronet. But he
few remarks in reply to some other portions • ofv.ould make a
the speech of
the Right Hon. Baronet; and, first, he 'would refer to what
the Right Hon. Baronet had stated wi':n respect to the stipend
of Si., which he treated with so 'much contempt. He had
now in his hand a Report sign,".l by two of the Archbishops
of the Church of Ireland a':,d
the three Commissioners, two
of whom, Mr. Sadler awl.. another, were appointed by the
- Government, and the other by the Primate and Arch-
bishop of Dublin. The Right Honourable Baronet could
not suppose the.'c these individuals were not attached to the
interests of 'die Church. (The Noble Lord, here quoted
from the deport, which was to the effect that in certain
parishes where there was but a very small number of
Protestants, they did not consider themselves warranted in re-
commending the appointment of 'a separate clergyman; but
in order that the Protestants in question might not be neg-
lected, they approved of the diocesan appointing the clergy-
]nen of the neighbouring parishes with a stipend of 5/. and
upwards as a consideration, for their extending the sphere of
their labours for the cure of souls in the said parishes.) This
provision, then, which the -Right Hon. Baronet thought ought
to have been omitted from the Bill as a provision which it was
unworthy a clergyman to accept, the Commissioners had spo-
ken of in their Report with approbation.—(Cheecs.) But
the Right Hon. Baronet was equally indignant about the
sum of 75/. a year, which lie sa'd was to be given to cu-
rates under this Bill ; , and he stated, and with great truth,
that it had been often felt to be an injustice, and had been
often complained of, that such miserable. sums should be
allotted to persons who were performing the duties of the
Established Church. But the complaint had really been
this—which the Right Hon. Baronet did not mention, and
which was the whole pith and substance of the complaint—
that where there were many duties to perform, aes4 where
there was a large income to be received; that it was received
by one man, while the heavy duties were' left to another with