The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-04 00:00:00

ARIGNA IRON AND COAL COMPANY.

Mr. R. GRANT brought up the Report of the Select
Committee appointed, to consider the present state of the
Arigna Iron and Coal Company.
The Report (together with the evidence) was ordeted to
lie on the table, and to be printed.
BOROUGH OF PENRYN.
Lord J. RUSSELL, adverting to the evidence which
was taken before the Committee on the Penryn Election,
wished to know what measures were likely to be adopted
on that subject, and gave notice that if the House should
agree to the disfranchisement of that Borough, he would
move that the elective franchise be transferred to the town
of Manchester.
Petitions were presented from Stirling and from the
county of Fife, praying that the bonding system of foreign
corn might be abolished, and that the corn should pay duty
as it WM brought into this country.
'On the motion of Sir R. WILSON, a return wass9r4eT7
ed of.the amount taken from the public stock of the county
of Surrey, for the building of a new County Gaol and Ses-
sions-house. There were also other returns ordered, con-
nected with the expenditure of the county.
EAST RETFORD ELECTION.
Mr. DYSON appeared at the bar, with the reduced list
of the Members appointed to try the petition against the
return for East Retford. The Members were—Lord Win.
Russell, Mr. E. S. Cooper, Mr. G. P. Rose, Hon. A.
Duff, Mr. F. J. Talmash, Mr. D. Barclay, Mr. T. Legh,
Mr. C. Tennyson, Mr. T. W. Beaumont, Mr. C. C. Wes-
tern, Right Hon. C. Arbuthnot, Mr. G. G. V. Vernon,
Hon. Sir C. J. Greville, Mr. George j3ankes, and Lord
Ebrington. They were sworn at the table, and withdrew.

BANFFSHIRE ELECTION.
The Clerk of the Crown attended' the House, and
amended the return for this county, substituting the name
of John Morison, Esq. for that of Lord Fife, who had been
declared by the Committee not duly elected.

CORNWALL AND DEVON MINING COMPANY.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN gave notice, that on Mon-
day next he would present a petition complaining of the
conduct of some individuals connected with this Company.
He was anxious to give this early notice, as the conduct of
some Hon. Members of that House was complained of in
the petition.
ELECTION RIOTS AT CARLISLE.

Sir J. GRAHAM said be was anxious to call the at-
tention of the House to two petitions, which he held in his
hand. The one was from R. Pattison, and the other from
certain citizens and inhabitants of Carlisle, complaining of
the unconstitutional introduction of a military force at the
last general election at that city, by which some persons
lost their lives, and others were severely wounded. He
would admit that the ordinary squabbles which took place
at elections were beneath the notice of that House ; but•
when the right of election was interfered with, an I the
free exercise of the elective franchise prevented by the in.
terence of a military force, he thought he should not per-
form his duty if he allowed any personal feelings to prevent
his bringing it before the House. The Hon. Baronet then
proceeded to give a detail of the circumstances attending
the contest at the late general election, the particulars of
which will be brought sufficiently within the recollection
of our readers by the following outline :—Soon after the
arrival of the writ, there was a meeting ; at which the
Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir P. Musgrave) was questioned
as to hie °plait:WS 011 ?lomat political points and pedlar

the system of badgering'r. a candidate, which the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer thought se wholesome on some oc-
casions, was, in that instance, carried somewhat to 'excess.
There was first some hooting, and afterwards some less
equivocal symptoms . of popular disapprobation, from
which the Hon. Baronet found it expedient to retire,
and from prudence or necessity, to shelter himself in a
house in one of the suburb". Thither the crowd followed,
and beset the house. The Mayor and two constables went
to his assistance; but they were pelted, and not being more
popular than the Hon. Baronet, were also obliged to seek
for shelter. Soon after, one of the County Magistrates,
who had experienced the displeasure of the House for call-
ing in the aid of the military in 1820, felt it necessary to
swear in some 300 special constables ; but another Magis-
trate went for military aid, and the two forces approached
the place together. The former Magistrate, remembering
the rebuke which he got on another occasion, was unwil-
ling to sanction such an interference by his presence, and
withdrew. The force then went up to the place where
the Honourable Baronet was under restraint, in the fol-
lowing order. First the artillery, then some companies
of the 65th regiment, next the Magistrate who had or-
dered them out, and who on this occasion did not choose
to occupy the post of danger. The rear was brought
up by the special constables. Some show of popular re-
sistance was at first made, and some stones were thrown.
The Magistrate then gave orders that the soldiers should
load and fix bayonets. The people retreated, but the sol-
diers charged them and fired, by which the lives of several
unoffending persons were sacrificed. The Hon. Bart. then
went on to show, that the use of military force was unne-
cessary, and that the civil force would have been fully
sufficient to quell the disturbance. On a recent occasion,
a force of 150 constables was found fully sufficient to take
12 culprits from the same part of the suburbs, without any
resistance. The petitioner, Pattison, who had a brother
killed on this occasion, stated that he would sot have
brought the case before the House, if substantial justice had
been done to him ; but he complained of the partiality of
the Coroner, who, be observed, was an active partisan of
the Hon. Baronet's (Sir P. Musgrave), and he offered to
substantiate his allegations at the bar of that House, • if
necessary. The Hon. Baronet then went on to state, from
the petition, that a large party of cavalry had been brought
on one occasion, by order of the Mayor, during the election
near the hustings, by which the passions of the people were
inflamed, and much danger might have ensued, if the Mayor
had not been prevailed upon to give an order for their re-
moval to a proper distance, on which the confusion ceased,
and the people became quiet, and the harmony continued
till the end of the election. That the Mayor should have
been a partisan, would not surprise the House, when
they learned that he was the accredited agent of the Lord
Lieutenant of the county—clerk of the peace. That he
could not have acted from ignorance of what was his duty.
He was a practised attorney, and, in, fact, Isis partner in
that profession (as we understood) was the agent for the
opposite party. The Honourable Baronet then contended,
that conduct such as that of the Mayor was highly repre-
hensible, and that the House on a former occasion had
severely reprimanded a returning officer for the introduc-
tion of a military force near the hustings during an election.
The case he alluded to was that of the High Bailiff of
Westminster, who, in 1741, was rebuked by the House for
introducing a military force near Coventegarden during an
election. He (Sir J. Graham) thought he would be
justifiable in moving that this case be referred to the Com-
mittee of Privileges, but he hoped the present notice of it
would be sufficient to guard against the future recurrence
of any such unconstitutional interference. He trusted also,
that the Bill now before the House for the regulation of the
police of that city, would tend to prevent the recurrence
of such events. he hoped that Bill would receive the
support of the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Peel),
though lie regretted he was rather tardy in that support.
In conclusion, be trusted the present case would be suf-
ficient to show that something should be done to prevent
the interference of the military in such elections. He
moved that the petition be brought up.
Sir P. MUSGRAVE said, the Hon. Baronet had exer-
cised a sound discretion in not referring this case to the
Committee of Privileges. The interference of the military
was, he contended, called for by the circumstances of the
case. The Hon. Member then detailed the occurrences of
the day in question, and observed that he bad felt it neces-
sary to take shelter, confident that, if he had not done so,
' his life would have been endangered. He denied that there
was, at first, a sufficient force of constables to assist. There
were, afterwards, some 240 special constables sworn in, but
they were weavers of the very lowest class, and such as could
not be relied upon for rendering any effectual assistance.
In fact, it could be proved that several of them had joined the
rioters, and were identified as encouraging the disturbance.
It was agreed between Mr. Ferguson and the Mayor, that
it would not be safe for them to proceed amid a crowd so
riotously disposed, with such a body of special constables, as
they would, by so doing, be placing themselves between
tiro fires. They, therefore, declined proceeding with the
special constables sworn in by Dr. Egsham. They went
down, however, with the usual civil power of the town, to
the place where the rioters were assembled. They read
the Riot Act to them, and had no sooner done so than they
were pelted by the crowd, and obliged to take refuge in a
house near to that in which he himself was shut up. Air.
Ferguson shortly afterwards made his escape into thexity
of Carlisle, and baying tried in vain to get the assistance of
a civil force sufficient to quell the riot in Canongate, ap-
plied at last for the assistance of the military. lie applied
for it at the Castle, and having obtained it, marched down
said, marched
musagr arclys einewsa,aets7sibi
lleetetryaug.igLel.N.arrotle:ae
tHoot.h.eßpalarcet.
terms—in thSh:hafrdeio.edneleitlehri(eSbedisar
he would tell the house what that artillery was.
Sir J. GRAHAM—I said the artillery. men.—(A laugh)
Sir P. MUSGRAVE begged the Hon. paronet's par-
don. He would now tell the House how the military were
received by the populace. When they came in front of
the crowd, they were received with a volley of atones,
could speak•ter that eircumetedee with some precision,
es he had been an aye-witness of it. A gentleman who
had seen mote pf it than 'himself, 'through a crevice , of a
shutter in the Honse its which they had taken refuge,
dom:it?ed the resistance which the people made to the mi-
litary-as very great. Several of the soldiers were wound-
ed by the stones, and the danger to which they were ex-
posed was so great, that the officer who commanded them
told Mr. Ferguson that his men could stand it Po longer.
Mr. Ferguson then gave the order for the military 0 act
on the defensive. In consequence, they drew up be-
o. red
hind a wall, loaded their pieces, and then came forward
and fi the
uponßaronet thate) nighte presented, stated that the soh
diers had fired precipitately. He believed the fact to bo
quite the reverse of that statement. After the crowd was
dispersed, the sergeant came to.take him out of the House
I. One of the petitions which the
Hon.
in which he was •shut up. The sergeant was Covered
with blood, and tad received a severe cut on the fore-
head. from 'etone,—a clear proof that his party must
have; been previously illetreated by the crowd. He
famented the consequences which had followed from the
firing of the military—but he believed that the magistrate
who directed it, did so from a sense of its necessity to
the preservation of the public peace, and not front any
wish to obstruct the freedom of election: ' With regard to
the alleged misconduct of the retucCubf offleer in. stopping
the polling on the 9th of Jun4' he-begged leave to say,
that the polling'
.v 7,4 completely obstructed by the
conduct of the party ivho opposed his election. Many
intlividstes, in consequence of that obstruction, dared
not-ittW.pt vote for him at all, whilst.. others who
-wade the attethpt, were insulted and 'sPitten upon, and
treated with every species of indignity. The riot in the.
streets was so great that the shopkeepers closed the windows
of their shops,—the pavement was torn up to supply ammu-
nition for the rioters,—his friends were driven from the,
streets, and then, when there was nothing snore to destroy,
a stern tranquillity prevailed in Carlisle.—(Hear, and a
laugh.)—The Mayor stopped the polling at 12 o'clock on
Friday, because he received from the freemen in his (Sir P.
Musgrave's) interest a representation that they could not
make their way up to the poll. There must have beets
some riot to make such a representation credible. Under
these circumstances, hearing that a legal gentleman of
great eminence (Mr. Holt) was in the neighbourhood, the
Mayor sent to him for assistance and advice; and, by Mr.
Hows recommendation, the Mayor again sent for a mili-
tary force. He admitted that Mr. Holt first advised tho
trial of the civil force; but the fact was, that at Carlisle
there was no civil force, no respectable man being willing
to act there as a special constable.—(Hear.)—Such being
the case, the Mayor sent an order to the cavalry, desiring
them to come to the precincts of the city and to hold thenle-
selves in readiness to act, in case circumstances rendered
their interference necessary to preserve the freedom of elec.:
tion. With respect to the circumstances which led the
people to know that the cavalry was in the neighbourhood,
he believed that it was occasioned by the officer's riding
in uniform into the city. How the officer came to do so
he did not know ; but the fact was, that the vicinity of
the cavalry soon became notorious. The people then be-
came so uproarious, Ana so incensed against the Mayor,
that he believed that they would have sacrificed the life of
that functionary if he had not signed an order commanding
the military to retire to a distance of four miles from Car-
lisle. Indeed, the Mayor was so agitated by the proceed-
ings of that day, that he fell down in a fit of apoplexy in a
house in which be took shelter not more than a few yards
from the polling booths. Under these circumstances he
trlleted thet the House would be of opinion; that the mayor,

in-acting a he had done, had not transgressed the line of
public duty. There- was a wide difference between the
present case and that which in 1820 was submitted to the
investigation of a , committee above stairs. In that case
the gravamen of the charge was, that the Magistrates had
called in the military without a requisition from the return-
ing officer—her- it was the returning officer who had eh-
eolutely called them in.
Mr. PEEL deprecated, in the strongest terms, any un-
necessary calling in of the military, to assist the civil
power. At the same time, he felt himself compelled to
say, that so long as the city of Carlisle remained as it did
at present, without any efficient civil force, the military
must occasionally be called in, to preserve the public peace.
The whole civic force of Carlisle, at present, was two
constables. It was not surprising, tlarefore, that the law
was not properly administered, consiTering that these two
men had to superintend and to check all the offences com-
mitted by a population of 50,000 or 40,000 persons. He
knew that a Bill was now before the House for the specific
Purpose of giving an efficient police to the city of Carlisle ;
and he made no hesitation in saying that some pecuniary
sacrifice must be made by the inhabitants to carry it into
execution. It might be a good system, four or five hundred
years ago, to trust to the exertions of a party of shop-
keepers and special constables ; but now, when the popula-
tion was so much greater than it was then, and so many
artificial wants were introduced among them, he thought that
they ought not to trust to such a corps ofvolunteer constables,
but to a well-paid and united police. He did not know whether
he should have taken any share in the present discus-
sion, had it not been for the charge of remissness which the
Hon. Baronet who presented the petition had brought
against himself. He thought that he could satisfy even the
Hen. Baronet himself, that the charge was totally without
foundation. The first riot took place at Carlisle on the
6th of June. On the 7th the Mayor wrote to him (Mr.
Peel) informing him of it saying that he had called in the
military, and hoping that he (Mr. Peel) would sanction,
not merely their being called in, but also their being re-
tained in the town. He received that letter on the 9th of
June. On the same da}• he wrote an answer to the Mayor
saving, that he could not approve retaining the military
force in the town during the time of the election, unless
there was a clear and undeniable necessity for it; and that
the sex of the two persons who were killed by the military,
made him pause before he ventured an opinion in appro-
bation of the Mayor's conduct. He likewise added, that
as to the propriety of retaining the military in Carlisle, lie
was not then in a situation to decide ; and that lie must
have snore facts within his knowledge before he gave to
such a measure his approval. He thought that the Hon.
Baronet would, upon this statement alone, acquit him of
the charge of remissness. But he would carry his defence
much further. He had written immediately to Sir J.
Byng, the,commander of the district, and had requested
that excellent officer to send him all the particulars which
be could collect relating to that unfOrtunate transaction.—
He had received such a report from Sir John Byng ; and
he owned that the impression en his mind was, that there
was no intention on the part of of the Mayor to interfere
with the freedom of election when he called in the military
on the sth of June. Carlisle was a garrison town, and
therefore it wee that a party of soldiers were left in it
during the electica to take care of the garrison. It was in
consequence of Carlisle's being a garrison town that it had
been so long without an efficient police. The people of
Carlisle had hitherto relied on the presence of the military
in case of any disturbance; but he most now tell them that
that reliance must be at an end—(Hear, hear)—for he
would not lend his assistance to calling in the
military on every trifling breach of the public tranquillity.
(Hear, hear.)---He then entered into a statement of the
circumstances of the riot of the sth of June, which cor-
roborated that previously given by Sir P. Musgrave. He
contended that the military had not fired till they were
compelled to do so in self-defence ; and he believed that it
was owing to their desire to avoid mischief by firing over
the heads of the people, that one of the women, who was
killed at her window, met her death. He then entered
into a similar history of the riot of the 9th of June, and
said, that the information which,he had received convinced
him, that on that day the mayor had been grievously as--
saulte&hy the rioters, and, indeed, had been confined to
his bed in consequence .of bruises he had then received.
He tbesefora thought, that it was possible that the mayor,
having imeik himself captured on the sth, and seriously
assaulted on the 9th, by the rioters, had conceived that a
necessity existed for calling in the military. It had been
asked, why he had not called in the infantry, instead of
the cavalry? It appeared to him that the mayor's reason
for calling in the cavalry instead of the infantry was, that
he did not wish to aggravate the feelings of animosity
Nvhch already existed between the working population of

stated the csisie as fairly as be could, for he had no triumph
to gain, being msconnected with either of the parties in
the city of Carlisle. Re thought the Hon. Baronet had
done wisely in not foundkg any motion on the petition
which he had presented, but in merely stating it as a rea-
son for securing •to Carlisle the benefit of a sufficient civil
force.
The petition was thee brought
_up. On the question
that it be printed,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the opposition to the Bill,
to which the. Right. Hon. Gentleman had been alluding,
did not come from his friends at Carlisle, but from the
Members of the Corporation, who were the very parties
who had acted in the improper manner of which the peti-
tioners complained. If the Hon. Bart. on the other side
of the House would move for a committee of inquiry on
the subject of these riots, he would be prepared' to substan-
tiate before it all the allegations contained in the petition.
He had not blamed the Mayor for calling in the cavalry in-
stead of the infantry. He blamed the Mayor on two dis-
tinct grounds—first, that on the sth of June he had not
timed any of the 300 special constables who had been sworn
in, to quell ts,2 riot ; and secondly, that apprehending a
riot on the 9th, he had created it by the means he took to
prevent it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PEEL explained. He contended that the Corpo-
ration and the inhabitants of Carlisle ought to share between
them the expence of giving to that place a steady and effi-
cient police.
Sir P. MUSGRAVE admitted the necessity of having
a rno,^ll more efficient police in Carlisle than was at present
to he found there.
The ret:tions were then ordered to be printed.
REpAI3 OF CHURCHES IN IRELAND.
Sir JOHN N WPORT rose in pursuance of notice to
bring under the vies.' of the House the state of the law for
c
rebuilding and repairing' of churches in Ireland. In con-
sequence of the Reforrnatto.:l in Ireland being subsequent
to that in England, it Iva jot till late in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth that the churches a Ireland were trans-
ferred from the care of the Roman Catholic to that of the
Protestant Clergy. In that state they re4ned till the
12th of Geo. 1., when an Act was passed for ties purpose
of putting those of them which had fallen into decay into
complete repair. The -Hon. Baronet called the attention
of the House to the preamble of the Act, in which it was
alleged that the reason of the churches falling into decay
was, that the Papists outvoted the Protestant parishioners
at all vestry meetings. It was therefore enacted, that from
that time henceforward, no Papist should be qualified to
vote at any vestry meeting. What had been the result of
that enactment? Had the churches been prevented from
falling into decay by it? No such thing. Though an un-
limited power of taxation was flung into the hands of the
Protestants, the churches—nay, in some cases, the very
cathedral..., were still permitted to sink into ruin. Being
in this lamentable situation, it was found necessary to re-
build them; and at whose expence did the House think
they were to be reisuilt ? Not at the expence of the episco-
pacy, who were bound 43 look to their preservation ; not at
the expence of the Church k.f Ireland, which had immense
revenues at her disposal ; but at the expence of the Roman
Catholics, who were shut out from the vestries, and derived
no benefit from the churches when rebuilt, The Hon.
Bart. then mentioned the case of a parish in which the
Protestants, 23 years ago, burnt down the Roman Catho-
lic chapel. The Catholics had never since been able to re-
build their chapel, but had erected their altar under any
place which afforded them shelter, and yet in this very
parish a new Protestant church had been built at the ex-
pence of the Catholics.—(hear.)--It was alone the Pro-
testant parish churches which the Catholics were called
upon to build and repair ; they were likewise compelled to
repair their cathedrals. . The preamble of the 21st of
.George 111. stated that in several dioceses the cathedral
.churches were so incommodiously situated, that they could
not be conveniently resorted to for the purpose of the per-
formance of Aivio: service, and that therefore such per-
tisrmance had not Laken place in them for many years, in
congecluenee of which t 1,4 had fallen to decay. What re-
medy did the House suppose was provided by the Act in
question—that the incumbents slimald support them ? No ;
but that they should be incorporated with the parish
churches, and supported at the expence of the inhabitants,
that is to say, the Roman Catholics. In Cork, the ,cathe-
-Aral church was supPoeted by a tau upon the coals con-
tistaect in that city. He was glad to state one honourable
eluttitO the general comb:Let of the Protesta,-it clergy
in- The deacon of the diocese of Down r01,4_
leafy Ifttiolita,„ to contribute from his war income 9001.
Per annul 4, fills, the, eupportation of the catbedr4 Church.
loheolt7feor9)lt*l2 avaalndividua• I ought to be
disintere,tedn
was the 13. Trent (as we understood.) He
the
was warranted in saying, tliat since the Union, no Jeu than

half a million had been raised, principally upon Roman
Catholics, for the support of Protestant churches in Ire-
land. It was stated in a petition presented to the House
from a poor retail shop-keeper in the parish of St. George,
Dublin, that he had been distrained upon for 15 years'
church rates. He had applied to the Irish Government for
relief, but they told him they could afford him none. He
trusted, however, the House would he of opinion that this
was a state of things in which the House was called upon
to interpose.—(Hear.)—The original estimate for building
the church which this poor man was compelled to contri-
bute to was 17,0007., and already upwards of 40,0001. had
been expended upon it. It really was a libel on common
sense to talk of extending equal protection to all persons un-
der even the existing laws, if abuses such as those which
be bad stated were to be tolerated. The Act of Parliament
which authorised the building of the church in question
originally contained a clause which authorized the erection
of an organ, but it was objected to and was finally struck
out. The trustees, however, had consulted counsel as
to whether an organ might not be introduced under the
name of an " ornament." The counsel had determined
that it might--(A laugh),—.and therefore an organ
had been placed in the church, in spite of the de-
clared opinion of Parliament. For this organ 500/.
had been paid, and 2001. more for fitting it up.---(Hear.)
The trustees of this church were not only self-elected, but
according to a clause of the Act, they were compelled to
account to nobody, but to each other—(Hear, hear. )—lt
was usual to hear this country spoken of as the paragon of
liberality, whilst Roman Catholic countries were equally
decried for their illiberality and prejudice. He would leave
the House to judge whether this character was just, after
he had stated the conduct which a Catholic country had
observed towards Protestants. In 1791, the Diet of
Hungary, which, like the Parliament of this country, was
composed of persons of different orders of the community,
to the number of 500 or 600, came to a resolution in the
following words :—" The Protestants of this state shall
not be called upon to contribute to the Catholics either in
money or labour, nor shall the Catholics, on the other hand,
contribute to the Protestants or to the establishment of
their churches or schools." This resolution was passed by
a majority of more than three to one. In the same diet
Protestants were declared equally eligible with Catholics to
fill every office and to hold every rank in the State. This
was the conduct of a Roman Catholic State, and yet it was
said that England surpassed every other country in the
world. He hoped that he had stated enough to induce the
House to take the subject to which he had directed their
attention into serious consideration. It struck him that
one means by which the existing evil might be remedied,
was the rendering of first-fruits available, according to the
intention of the Act of Queen Anne. Another mode was
a recurrence to the system which prevailed in the times of
Henry VIII. and Flivibeth, of making the clergy support
the churches and the poor out of the tithes. The Act of
Queen Anne operated differently with respect to England
and Ireland. In England the first fruits and tenths were
appropriated to the improvement of small benefices, but in
Ireland the tenths were remitted, and only the first fruits
reserved for that purpose, and yet the rich clergy of that
country called upon the impoverished laity to repair their
churches. In the first instance, therefore, he would propose
that the first fruits should be made available for the support
of the churches. If that should be refused, he would
then introduce a Bill to direct that, whenever any diocese
should become vacant, a report should be made to the Bi-
shop of the diocese as to the state of the church, and if it
should appear that the church was not in a state to allow
of the performance of divine duty, the revenues of the be-
nefice should be altogether applied to !the repair of the
church, with the exception of an allowance for a curate to
perform occasional service, and that the incumbent should
not enter on the living until the repairs were completed.
Some such legislative enactment was necessary to rescue the
clergy of Ireland from the disgrace of compelling persons
who did not profess their religion to support their curches.
The Honourable Baronet concluded by moving the follow-
ing resolution :—" That it appears by the Irish statute of
the 12th of George 1., cap. 9, that many parish churches
of Ireland, which were transferred at the time of the re-
formation into the possession of the established church,
were, in the year 1726, in a state of such great decay, that
divine service could not be performed therein ; and it is
also there stated that the said churches could not be rebuilt
or repaired in consequence of the Popish inhabitants out-
voting the Protestants in vestries ;—that the same and
many other succeeding statutes, for the purpose of remov-
ing such obstruction, continued to enact during an entire
century, that no Popish inhabitant in any parish in that
kingdom should be permitted to vote at any vestries ;—that
although the entire disposal of parochial taxes has been
vested in the Protestant inhabitants, and although those

sible interference with there, the churches in many parishes
have been allowed to continue in a state of progressive de-
cay; they became in many instances absolutely ruinous,
without any attempts being made by the Protestant inha-
bitants, or episcopacy, or Government, to prevent such
injurious effects ;—that it appears in the highest degree
unjust, to effect the rebuilding of churches, allowed to be-
come ruinous, by those who had the power to prevent the
dilapidation, at the expence of those parishioners who con-
stitute in most of the parishes of Ireland the majority of
the inhabitants, but whom the legislature has specially ex-
cluded, for being Roman Catholics, from all interference in
vestries." Upon this resolution, if carried, the Hon. Ba-
ronet stated his intention of founding a Bill.
Mr. GRATTAN seconded the motion.

Mr. GOULBURN denied the accuracy of the Right
Hon. Member for Waterford's position—that the churches
of Ireland, subsequent to the Reformation, had been suf-
fered to go to decay by the new authority which had taken
possession of them. Soon after this change, during the
Administration of Lord Strafford, the decayed state of the
churches in Ireland, and the absolute want of churches for
the purposes of ordinary worship in that country, had been
the subject of complaint. That the present state of ar-
rangements in Ireland, which compelled the Catholic pa-
rishioners to contribute to the building of the Protestant
churches, was a hardship, he did not deny; nor should he
be disinclined to consider of any course which might be
suggested for the alleviation of that grievance; but it
ought to be stated fairly what the real extent of the pres-
sure complained of was, and to what extent it had already
been mitigated. The circumstances of the parish of St.
George in Dublin were peculiar, and bad no bearing upon
the general question : the fact was, that the levy upon the
population of Ireland for the building and repairing of
churches was not in itself large, and its collection was so
managed as to press in the lightest possible way upon the
convenience of those who paid it. The whole sum allow-
ed for building each church was 1,4001. For the execu-
tion of the work, a large sum had been lent free of interest.
Sir. J. NEWPORT inquired if the Right Hon. Gentle-
man was sure that this was the case ?

Mr. GOULBURN was perfectly sure of it. The money
waslent without interest. It was to be repaid by instal-
ments—originally of 6 per cent. per annum upon the whole
sum, which was 841. a-year upon the 1,400/. ; but now of
only 4 per cent., which reduced the annual payment, on
the 1,400/., to 56/. Under the operation of this law 684
new churches, and 562 new-glebe-houses had been built
in Ireland ; each parish had now a place of worship, and
had a house which a minister could reside in. He had in
his hand a letter written by a clergyman, now, unfortu-
nately no more, but of whose character, if he were to men-
tion his name, no person could entertain a doubt, which
described the various heavy changes to which a living in
Ireland was already subject. The living held by the gen-
tleman in question was one of 160/. a-year ; out of this he
had to pay for his first fruits SL 12s. a-year, and other ex-
penses, amounting to 201. There was due to the late in-
cumbent, on account of the glebe-house, 1781. ; and 70/.
more he had to pay for expenses upon taking possession.—
Besides these charges, it was necessary, from the extent of
the parish, to keep a curate ; and was the House of opinion
that it would be possible, upon persons already so burdened,
to lay any additional expense ? The Right Hon. Gentle-
man sat down by moving the previous question.
Mr. JOHN SMITH had opposed, as might be in the
recellection of the House, the Parliamentary grant for build-
ing Churches in Great Britain ; and he thought it an ar-
rangement perfectly monstrous, that while churches were
built by this grant for the inhabitants of England and Wales,
who would have been content to build them for themselves,
the cost of building Protestant churches in Ireland should
be expected to be defrayed by the Catholic population.
There were instances of which he had heard, though they
were not recent, of the greatest distress having been brought
on individuals by raising money for building churches, and
that, too, in parishes where there were not above 10 or 12
Protestants. In conclusion, he thought that Ireland would
owe another large debt of gratitude to his Right Hon.
Friend if he succeeded in his motion ; and if he did not
succeed, lie (Mr. Smith) felt assured that 'the day would
come when they would be compelled to resort to some mea-
sures in consonance with common sense and common jus-
tice. What ought to be done he could not say. .But, not-
withstanding the present state of the finances, he for one
would not object to vote for a sum of money for the erec-
tion of churches in Ireland.
Mr. PLUNKETT -would not follow the course of the
Gentleman and his Right Hon. Friend. He put it
to the good dense of the House if it was quite.fait: and rea-
sonable to discusvmlny general measures of Government on
a Motion which concerned the building of churches only.
He- could's:tot see what connexion the St. George's Act of
1793 had with the question. Some grievvacei which be.