The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-24 00:00:00

IRISH TITHE,

Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition from a parish
in the county of Meath in favour of the coramutatioa of
tithe.

Lord KING bad several petitions to present from various
parts of Ireland upon the same Subject. He considered
the question as much settled as if tithe in Ireland were
already abolished. He hoped Government would not
commit itself in a contest with the Irish people, in which
it would certainly be defeated, for the collection of title,
for be knew thlt the people of England would not willingly
pay a single shilling for the m iintenance of the claims of
the Church of Ireland. The Irish petition he should offer
to their Lordships was from a parish of the county of Louth.
The Earl of LIMERICK would ask the Noble Lord if
he was prepared to give the weight of his character and
talents to the lawless destruction of property ? Was ha
aware of the extent to which that principle, if once adopted,
might he carried ? Anti as the highest- authority of the
State had sworn to maintain the rights and property of the
Church, was the Noble Lord ready to vindicate or to re-
commend thi, violation of that oath ?—( Hear, hear.)
Lord CLONCURRY supported the petitittn.

Lord KING would inform the Noble Earl that be was
aware of all the consequences of his doctrine. The in-
stitution of property was intended to promote the culti•
vation of the soil and encourage production, but tithe was
an anomalous species of property, inasmuch as it prevented
production. His advice to the holders of this kind of
property was to make the best compromise they could.
The Earl of ELDON would refrain from any discussion
of the merits of the Bill intended to carry their project
with respect to a new arrangement of the tithe in Ireland
into effect until the measure should be before the House.
But he would now say to their Lordships in general,
" For God's sake, rake care how you deal with acknow-
ledged pi 'perry." As to the abolition of tithe, the reason
why the Nil Lord said, " You shall do it," appeared
the best possible reason why they should say " We will
not do it." The petitions presented by the Noble Lord
had nothing to do with the character or services of any
clergy. They desired the total abolition of tithes. He
asked their Lordships if they were prepared to submit, in
reference to the abolition of any description of property, to
be told by any portion of the community that they must
do it? A demand so urged was the best reason why they
should refuse it.— (Hear, hear.)
Lord KING had another petition to present from a
parish in the coon.), of Louth, which applied only to ec-
clesiastical and not to lay tithe, if this could afford any con-
solation to the Noble Lord.

Lord WYNFORD observed that, if once they touched
the right of property, propel ty would go altogether. His
object in rising was to say that when the petitioners stated
that their object was only the property of the Chinch of
Ireland, they evidently misunderstood the suhj et or mi.-
represented their own views. There was no Church of
Ireland. By the Act of Union the Prote-tant Church
in Ireland was inseparably united with and became a sub-
stantive part Of the Church of England. They must
stand or fall together. And if they fed, every thing worth
preserving in the country would fall with them.—(Hear.)
As a proof of the wisdom of conceding to the wishes of the
Roman Catholic party in Ireland, he would adduce the
language of an eminent Prelate of their Church, who had
stated that if Catholic emancipation was granted they
would be perfectly contented to leave the tithe as it was.
But this person had now forgotten all he had said, and,
he might add, all he had sworn before the Committee of
that House. He was now actually exciting disturbance
in the country on account of tithe, and there could be no
doubt that he was the source of all the disturbance which
had taken place upon this subject in Leland. If 'he Irish
Church was to fall, the English Church must fall also;
and if the English fell, the Monarchy of England roust
speedily follow. He believed the very petition now in
the hands of the Noble Baron came from the diocese of the
person to whom he had alluded.
The Mai quis of CLANRICARDE must say that the
Irish people were misrepresented by those who described
them as desirous of the extinction of Church property as
such. They only desired the extinction of tithe as a spe-
cific grievance.
The petition, which was from Old Leigblin, was then
laid upon the table.
Lord KING said that the argument of the Noble Lord,
which assumed that when Irish tithe went English tithe
must also go, was not much calculated to add to the secu-
rity of that description of property in England. Noble
Lords did a very bad thing for property in general when
they embarked it on the same bottom with the tithe in
Ireland, and said that all must go together. He hop,•d
and believed that no such consequence was to be appre-
hended. _

Lord WYNFORD would off•r a single word of ex-
plana ion in reply to the defence offered for Dr. Doyle by
the Noble Marquis. He would not, of course, hold that
gentleman responsible for any change which might have
taken place in the opinion of others had he not contributed
to produce that change. But the fact was, that after
swearing that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would he
contented with the boon of emancipation, he had ever
since that boon was granted, laboured strenuously to make
them discontented. . .

Lord KING presented a petition from the National
Trades' Political Union of Dublin, complaining of the
great amount of tithe and the enormous value of Church
livings. The Noble Lord stated in detail the contents of
the petition, which consisted of an enumeration of the va-
luable livings in each of the dioceses of Ireland.
The Marquis of SALISBURY doubted whether their
Lordships could with propriety receive a petition proceeding
from an illegal body.
On reference to the form of the petition the Noble
Marquis withdrew his objection, and the petition was laid
on the table.