The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-08 00:00:00

bol and an assurance to others, that if they resided in the
parish and conformed to the worship of the Established Church
the means of religious instruction and consolation would be
afforded to them.—( Cheers.) Concurring thus far as the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman does with me, I will ask him
when he divides the amount of Church property between every
parish in Ireland which has four Protestant families, where
will be the surplus ?—( Cheers.) What sum will he have to
give practical effect to the principle of the resolution which he
advocates ?—( Loud cheers.) He takes 2501. as the minimum
provision which ought to be made in any parish having but a
small number of Protestant inhabitants. But if I agree with
him in this, will not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman agree
with me also, that in large, and populous, and wealthy towns,
having a Protestant population of 1,000 and upwards—will
he not agree with me that a higher income will be necessary,
if it, were only for the purpose of enabling the Clergyman to
exercise that influence upon the higher classes which he ought
to possess, and to maintain his family in a respectable and be-
coming manner.--( Hear, hear.) Taking 2501., then, as the
minimum, and allowing that there should be an increase with
the increase of duty to the proportion of the population, there
is no arithmetic which will work out a surplus. I object to
the parochial part of the observations of the Hon. and
Learned Member, but I agree with him in his desire to re-
move all abuses. lam as desirous as he of maintaining the
efficiency of the Ministry.—( Cheers.) I care not who the
rector may be who spends a large income apart from the living
from which it is raised. lam ready to subject his conduct to
some episcopal authority ; I am desirous of amending the law
upon this point ; and I am content to compel the Ministers of
the Church of Ireland not to spend the money in other coun-
tries which they raise out of that.—( Cheers.) The measure
which it is the intention of his Majesty's Government to pro-
pose has this for its object, and if it passes into a law this will
be one of the conditions of the Bill ; but I am not prepared
to say that the parish itself has a vested right in the tithes,
which only belong to the Church.—( Hear, hear.) If this
doctrine of the tithes belonging to the parishes be allowed to
obtain, what will become of the appropriate tithes ? Will not
the parish have a right to complain if its claim to these also
be not admitted ? Do they belong neither to the parish nor
to the Church ? How will the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
defend the lay impropriations if they were granted for the use
of the parish, and separate from the portion set apart for
spiritual instruction.

Mr. Sergeant PERRIN made some remark across the
table which we did not catch.

Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says
that he does not defend them, but that they are protected to
their possessors by length of time. He pleads prescription.--
( Hear, hear.) Is there nothing in a prescription of 300
years ?—( Loud cheers.) The Church can assuredly plead the
same right upon a similar title.--( Hear, hear.) The object
of the proposition now before you is not so much to assert
the principle contained in the resolution as to obstruct the
passing of the Tithe Bill which the Government is about to
submit to the House._( Loud cheers.) The object of the reso-
lution is in reality to notify in a most unusual manner, in a
manner wholly without precedent, the determination of those
who support it not to permit you to pass the Bill which Go-
vernment is about to submit to you. It is saying, in other
words, " We will not allow you to discuss it in Committee,
but will propose this resolution, which will preclude the pos-
sibility of your proceeding with the measure, and signify to
you, by our majority upon this resolution, our determination
not to suffer a Tithe Bill to be passed upon the principle an-
nounced by you." Sir, I object to the principle which the
resolution maintains. I object to the introduction of such a
resolution in the absence of all necessary information upon the
subject. I object to it, because it proceeds upon erroneous
data, and without any means afforded to us of ascertaining with
anything like precision the amount of the property of the
Church, or the degree and quantity of education which the ima-
ginary surplus is demanded to supply.—(Cheers.) It is not
known whether the Church property is 200,0001. or 50,0001.,
and yet without any knowledge of this, without knowing the
revenues of the Church, without knowing the demand to be
made upon the surplus mentioned in the resolution, without
•ven knowing whether there is a surplus, we are called upon
to adopt a principle which has no limit.—( Cheers.) I shall
now advert to a topic which has not been before touched upon
in this discussion. But first I must call your attention to the
fact that we propose to give up a fourth of the Church property
to justify the rent charge, which will amount to the sum of
136,0001. Now, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Staffordshire, and the late Secretary for Ireland, said the
other night that he would not consent to any measure which
was not as favourable to the landlords of Ireland as the Bill of
last year; and that when any measure came on he would insist
on such terms. The Right Hon. Baronet here entered into a
calculation, to show that by the proposed reduction the pro-
perty of the Church, which he insisted was not more than
550,0001., would be lessened by the sum of 218,000/., and thus
reduced to 327,0001. Thus, continued the Right Honourable
Baronet, you see how rapidly the Noble Lord's sum of
800,000/. comes to be reduced. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Staffordshire will not agree to any measure
which does not hold out the great premium to the Irish land-
lord which the Bill of 1834 would confer upon them the
600,0001. of the Noble Lord will be at once reduced to the
sum of 327,000/.—( Hear, hear.) To those who are inclined
to press the resolution of the Noble Lord I would only say,
you may succeed in carrying the resolution—you may gain a
temporary triumph, but can it be a good triumph on a ques-
tion upon which you are possessed of sa little and such
erroneous information? If you are a majority I would beg of
you to contemplate what will be the result of your success.
If you are accessible to reason I am confident you must see
the injustice of your proceeding. It is unjust to the Church
—it is unfitted to the object which you profess to have in view
—it will not be sufficient to satisfy the country—and there is
no necessity for your proceeding in it, ignorant as you are of
the facts and information upon which such a resolution should
be founded.---( Cheers.) We have called for the returns; in
three days we might be able to procure them. You reject
information. You proceed, ignorant of the amount of the
suns to whose appropriation you pledge yourselves. Not
knowing the extent of the wants for which you propose to
provide you blindly pledge yourselves to an abstract principle,
and you will listen to nothing but the resolution by which you
will become bound.—( Loud cheers.) Ido not hesitate to say
that. happen what may, be the issue what it will, I will not
adopt your principle. (Loud cheers.) The expectation
which you have created in bringing forward this resolution you
never can realize. The resolution cannot take effect until
the existing interests cease—not until the present incumbents
are no more. This seven days' debate, the promulgation of
this principle, what will it effect, what advantage can accrue
from it ? When it is told in the South of Ireland that