The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-20 00:00:00

ELECTION PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented against the election returns
of Dublin (City), Lisburn, and Bury St. Edmunds.
SHEEP, &c., CONTAGIOUS DISEASES
PREVENTION.

Mr. LENTINOK moved for leave to introduce a hill
to amend au Act passed in the Session 11 and 12 Vic.,
c. 107 ; also to amend an Act passed in the Session 16
and 17 Vic., c. 62 ; also to amend an Act passed in the
Session 19 and 20 Vic., c. 101, intituled, "An Act to
continue certain Acts to prevent the spreading of con-
tagious or infectious disorders amongst Sheep, Cattle,
and other Animals."
Leave was given accordingly, without opposition.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL.

Mr. DILL WYN moved the second reading of this
bill.
Sir G. GREY opposed the bill on various grounds,
amongst others that giving summary jurisdiction to one
magistrate, and in some instances to two magistrates, to
inflict a flogging on adults, was contrary to the principle
of the present law, which provided that that description
of punishment could only be inflicted by a jury. He
moved that the bill be read a second time this day six
months.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority against the bill —135
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) ACT (1836)
AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion of Mr. MA.GAN, the house went into
committee on this bill, when Chairman immediately re-
ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on
Thursday, the 4th June, to enable Lion; members to coa-
sider the probable effect of the bill.
MINISTERS MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. FAGAN moved the second reading of this bill,
and, in doing so, he repeated the arguments used by
him when he brought forward this measure in the last
session of parliament, when the Government promised
him their support. He entered into a history of the ques-
tion, remarking that it was first imposed in Dublin in 1675,
in the reign of Charles 11., after which it was imposed
on other corporate towns. The tax was origi-
ginally imposed on Protestants for the maintenance of
protestant ministers, and he contended that it ought not
to be continued now that the inhabitants were Roman-
ists. In 1689, 28 years after its imposition, the Irish
Parliament under James 11. repealed it, and it was not
heard of again in Ireland till 150 years after, in the
reign of William 111. The hon. gentleman then referred
to the proceedings in this house in 1842 with regard to this
question, recapitulating the circumstances connected with
it from that time to the present, quoting Lord Derby's
opinions with reference to the Church cess in Ireland,
which, he said, was an argument in favour of the pre-
sent bill. He was sure that when the measure went
up to the other house it would be found that Lord Derby
would not be found to have changed his sentiments. He,
and those acting with him, had not proposed as a substi-
tute for ministers' money, to tax any churchman, or to
reduce any bishopric. They had merely proposed that as
by a recent act of the Government, the ecclesiastical com-
missioners were in possession of ample funds to pay
12,5001., they should not come down to seven towns
and create and intensify religious diaereuces by the col-
lection of that tax. Largo as were the increasing funds
of the ecclesiastical commissioners, they might be still
further increased by judicious management of one of the
sources of revenue—that of .converting the bishop's
leases into perpetuities. For that purpose he would sug-
gest that there should be a larger bonus given to the
purchaser and to the new tenant, to enable them to go
on, and where those purchasers left the purchase money
en mortgage in purchasing the land, that they should
only be called upon to pay 3 per cent. interest instead of
5. If that suggestion were adopted, the result would be
an almost unlimited income to the ecclesiastical commis-
sioners. In 1843 their income bad reached 70,0001., it
was now over 100,0001., and would be still increased.
How was that money expended ? 35,0001. was spent
for church purposes, of which some 22,0001. went to
sextons and clerks—out of that 22,0001. at least 3,000/.
might he saved by uniting the offices of parish clerk
and sexem in the same person. The next item of expen-
diture was that for Dublin curates, and here he would
say that he believed it was entirely by inadvertence
that the ministers' money bad not been included
in the Church Temporalities Act of Lord Stanley.
The next item of expense was 6,000/. a year for commis-
sioners, and though ho would not be a party to injuring
any one, he had been informed by many persons well
acquainted with the subject, that one commissioner
would be ample to discharge the duties. The next item
he would allude to was the expense of the repairs of
churches, amounting last year to 2,500/.1 arger, with the
exception of three years, than it was ever before. In
the previous year the amount expended was 8,000/., and
he coull not understand why there should have been any
increase. He had been told that the expenditure was
wasteful and useless, and that the money was expended
upon churches where no divine service was performed.
Ho submitted the question with great confidence to the
house, although he feared from the party move which
had been announced in opposition to the measure, that
it would not receive the fair consideration it deserved.
The grievance which existed was one which pressed very
heavily upon the people of Ireland, and he hoped the
new Parliament would have the honour of securing its
abolition. (Hear.) Ile was well pleased that the noble
lord at the bead of the Government had taken Use mat-
ter in hand, and he assured the noble lord that the course
be had adopted would give the greatest satisfaction in
Ireland. At present a small abuse was kept up for the
purpose of prolonging a greater abuse. He had been
taunted with the charge that he as a Roman Catholic
had violated the oath which he took upois taking his seat
in that house, but he did not believe that he was in any
way infringing that oath, or injuring the Protestant
Church of Ireland, by attempting to get rid of this odious
tax. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving
the second reading of the bill.
Mr. BEA.MISH seconded the motion.
Mr. NAPIER moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time that day six months. He objected
to the principle of the bill, which was a violation of the
rights of property, and a violation of the final settlement
made by the Church Temporalities Act. The principle of
the measure had beru opposed by every Government dur-
ing the last ten years, and he believed that Lord Pal-
merston would not lend it his support if he bad ever
given his attention to the consequences of its adoption.
Sir G. GREY said the Government had decided upon
giving its support to this bill, denying that it was any
on n no better
that the Est a
violation of principle, and asserting that Mr. Napier was
hiilrd
treadingc ohnurdoahnogferiorielisigndrosutnd
01l upon
arguing
founda-
tion than did this charge of ministers' money. He felt
so strongly when a member of Lo rd J. Russell's Govern-
ob,alahnu balance
as iti
thatthe
objection no longer
Govern-
ment the serious objections to this impost that he had
met it, not with a direct negative, .but with the previous
handsquestion. o
fthe
ThEercleExisted the Government felt the
time bad arrived to put an end to the collection of
thcaotni ttnim isksa:
n no ors
ministers' money.
Ecclesiastical at
cal
Mr. WHITESIDE said the sum at issue was a small
one, but the principle at issue was a very large one; and
believing the bill to be founded on injustice, he would
gentleman with great force sought to fasten on the Go•
give it his decided opposition. The hon. and learned

vernment the charge of being influenced in the course
they were pursuing on this question by political consi-
deration s.

Mr. HORSMAN replied to the arguments of Mr.
Whitesile, denying that ministers' money could be con-
sidered in the same light as church rates, which always
pertained to the Church, whereas ministers' money was
imposed by a comparatively I': cent act of Parliament,
and an act of Parliament might be repealed without in-
justice.

Mr. BLAKE strongly supported the bill.
Sir F. THESIGER contended that ministers' money
was an obligation on property, and that its abrogation
would therefore be a spoliation of church property, unless
care were taken to provide a substitute.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND sup-
ported the bill, contending that it was hopeless to ex-
pect to recover the money from the Irish corporations,
many of which had no property whatever. The Roman
Catholics and Dissenters built their own churches, and
paid their own ministers, and surely it was not unrea-
sonable to suppose that the members of the Established
Church would contribute to raise a fund for the purpose
of adding to the salaries of their ministers. When a tax
like this created animosity in every part of the country,
it was, in his opinion, a wise policy on the part of the
Government to seek its settlement at the earliest pos-
sible period.
Lor J. RUSSELL said that he could not refrain from
stating shortly the grounds upon which he should give
his vote in support of the measure. He was not satisfied
that the necessity of this bill arose from the imp: rfec-
tions of the act of 1854. That act, as he understood it,
consisted of four parts. One was that it reduced the
amount of minister' money by 20 per cent. Another
part provided a remedy for that uncertainty that pre-
vailed with reference to the payment of the stipends by
the ecolesiast:cal commissioners. Thirdly, that the occu-
piers of houses under 101. a year should be exempt from
the tale; and fourthly, that the corporations should levy
the tax. The latter appeared to him to be the only part
that could be said to have failed ; but the Government
had the matter under their consideration, and he pre-
sumed that they had come to the resolutinu of support.
ing this bill from a belief of the impossibility of the tax
being successfully collected. He therefore presumed that
the difficulties spoken of arose rather from a difficulty
of the matter than from an imperfection in Sir J.
Young'sact. He (the noble lord) considered the Govern-
ment were justified in the course they proposed by the
act of 1833, introduced by Lord Derby, which took
away from the Irish Church the church cess, amount-
ing to about 70,0001. a year, on the ground of its being
vexatious in its collection, and felt to be oppressive by
the people. The same objection applied to this
12,0001. ministers' money, and he could not see that if
the bill passed there would be such a spoliation of church
property as had been stated by hon. and learned mem-
bers. There only remained one question, as it appeared
to him to argue, viz.:—whether or not it was possible
for the ecclesiastical commissioners to furnish from their
funds a substitute for this 12,0001. Looking at the great
increase in their revenne from 1848, he thought there
was nothing to apprehend on that head. After express.
ing his regret that the hon. member for Cork bad not
given up the bill to the Government, the noble lord
concluded by etating that he should support the second
reading of the bill. (Cheers, and cries of divide.)
Mr. WALPOLE called on Lord J. Russell to consi-
der the conclusion he had arrived at with reference to
this bill, which was directly opposite to that he had an-
nounced with reference to the church rate question for
England, viz, that if we took away- property belonging
to the churen that we were striking at the foundation of
all property and endangering the permanent institutions
of thecountry. (Hear.) The question of ministers' money
was not to be compared in amount with church rates in
England, nor the church cess in Ireland ; but the prin-
ciple if acted on, would lead to difficulties which the
noble lord would be one of the first to deprecate. The
first objection to that grant was that it was limited to
incomes of 60/. a year, and the second objection was that
certain tenements were kept up at the same assess-
ment though depreciated in value. For this reason
Lord Derby's Government consented to repeal the im-
post. Sir J. Young's bill received the sanction of
all parties. Every man of note on the other side of
the house was a party to the bill which they now
endeavoured to throw over. The third objection
was that if you continued this impost religious
animosity would be kept up in Ireland. But the
noble viscount had replied to this, that the question
could not be argued on the ground—that it was a tax—
not on religion, but on property. There was another
point he was anxious to press. The impost was estab
fished by Act of Parliament—it had existed for 200
years--it was not repealed in 1854, and was confirmed
by two Acts of Parliament. Now he would ask the
Government what had Maynooth in its favour. (Hear,
hear)! The agitation for Maynooth was unfortunate—
he was opposed to many of his friends on that subject.
He regretted it. But if they passed the hill they would
furnish arguments for the repeal of the grant which it
would be difficult to answer. Beth were founded on
Acts of Parliament—both were obnoxious to the feelings
of certain portions of the country. They must either say
that these things must be religiously observed as secured
by Acts of Parliament or to provide some equivalent for
them. (Hear, hear.) This led him to the observation
of the Attorney-General for Ireland and the noble lords
who argued that 12,0001. was easily to be raised from
the ecclesiastical commissioners. The answer to this was
that this was taking funds intended for one purpose to
apply them to. another. Another answer was this—that
till they were satisfied that adequate provision was made
for the poor clergy of Ireland, many of whose incomes
had been shown to be under 1001. a year, they had not
obtained the surplus that was claimed for the fund. If
they were just and did not break through the rights of
property, they would have a better chance of securing
the religious peace of the two kingdoms.
Lord PALNERSTOIi hoped that the house would
agree to the second reading of the bill. He hoped the
house would consider the question on its own merits,
and not be led by honourable gentlemen opposite
to combine it with other measures, or to make
their decision depend on hypothetical grounds.
The learned gentleman opposite bad introduced much
logical deductions to prove that the towns in Ireland
ought to continue to pay these sums. He trusted that
the logic of the hon. member for Enniskillen would con-
vince his clients that they ought upon every principle
to pay the money. (Laughter.) But the question was
not to be determined by such reasoning. The question
was one of State policy, and was to be determined on
other grounds. All had admitted that the tax involved
considerable objections. Successive Governments bad
endeavoured to remove them. The Government of Lord
Aberdeen, too, timught by the bill of 1854 to obviate
these objections. Those who said that the present bill
was depriving the Church of its property, should re-
member that at first the clergy had the task of collect-
ing the tax themselves. They did not succeed in col-
lecting it. In order that it might be collected 25 per
cent, was taken from the gross amount, The bill of
1854 had introduced great improvement—it increased
for the clergy the amount of their reduced stipends, by
placing them on the fund of the ecclesiastical commie-
sionere, and it was thought that by transferring the col-
lection from the commissioners to the corporations the
commissioners would be reimbursed for their advances.
Experience had shown that in this respect the bill did
not succeed. It was a subject of conviction and of great
expense. At the commencement of the present year the
Government bad considered what course it should take,
and on full consideration it came to the conclusion that
a substitute for the money would be provided by
the funds of the ecclesiastical commission. It ap-
peared that the commission had sufficient to pro-
vide for the sum of 12,0001. a-yeer. They hoped that all,
for the sake of peace, would consent to put an end
to the heartburninos which existed, and that a satis-
factory result would' ensue from the expedient of placing
the funds in other hands. They bad decided to take the
course in the early part of the year, and he hoped that
the house would sanction it by agreeing to the bill now
before them. The Government had been taunted with
taking the bill up with regard to elections. Now he did
not wish to say anything uncivil, but when they were
taunted by hon. members in this manner, he must tell
him that they did not stand in need of that slender sup-
port as such a stratagem would have provided. It was
not to that quarter of the house that they looked for
support. They looked to those opposite—to those who
looked them face to face. (A. laugh.) The Government
bad come to the conclusion that the grant should be
withdrawn for the purpose of putting an end to a cone
test concerning matters trifling in amount, and important
to the peace of the country. He was convinced that the
house would coincide in adopting theirconclusion. So far
from the Church of Ireland being injured, it would find
advantage and strength from the good will which would
fianmdptlleyatsutffihe-cifeunntdstoofetohne.
it
io hbielolnuspa.idNtohmat, .
ttebil
leeneealepeosritooandvseetuercepneaamdly
Government
aetmnnomdt to
ttohtwneoowchulttle:drvrege
clergy.
taken
t
It
had
the hon. member for Cork was identified with the mea-
sure. He had been its persevering advocate, and it was
ismogove to d
bya
take
as
due to him to offer him the choice as to who should con-
duct the bill. Ho had chosen to have the bill left to
himself, but it would be supported by all the force of the
member Government,
muchof
t he Government.
responsibilityan thed
as i
fGovernmenttchhe e
erbillwass w
willing )
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority --139
. REPORT OF SUPPLY.

The report of the committee of supply was then
brought up and agreed to ; and it was further agreed
that to-morrow the house resolve itself into a committee
of supply.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY
(IRELAND).

The rep2rt on this. bill was broUght up and agreed to.
Two petitions against the return for Berwick-upon-
Tweed, and one against the return for Newport were
received, and ordered to be referred to the general com-
mittee on elections.

Tho house then adjourned at ten minutes to one.

SUEZ CANAL.—The Charobsr of Commerce,
have resolved, that they are deeply sensible of the im-
portant wivantages to thc: interests of commerce and
civilisation which that project presents ; and they con-
sider that, provided means can be adopted to secure the
perfect neutrality of the canal, and to ensure a moderate
rate of charges on vessels passing througb, and a perfect
impartiality in its management, it will be eminently
entitled to commercial support.
NEW REMEDY FOR EraEra.—Sir Charles Locock
made known a very important fact with regard to the
treatment of some forms of Epilepsy, at the meeting
of the Medical and Chirurgical Society last Tuesday.
In cases of hysterical epilepsy in young women, he has
found the bromide of potassium, in doses of from five
to ten grains, remarkably efficacious. Of 15 cases in
which he had tried it, it had failed in only one.—
Medical Timm