Star.
London, England, 1823-03-05 00:00:00

licte4le3*l464of'ieting'the probs,-
.Ikitiftl fink' it 'WWII! isi eli by any one else. If,
- iti tbsera of theirtitteraiits he' had to make to the
• • • •Hetiss;-it 'Amid be'thireight,he-izent teo much into
-detail, he truittid the icailiortance of the subject would
• • ht his *plot). hithe-opiniiitruf 'the House, for thin
unklecessarily •cettiirMing 'their • time—(Near).—He
• waslaware.that he 'Might be told, and' he expected
thathe should be told, that he eight tolave waited
until Parliament should have seen the nature of the
*plan which Mittlitth,iiitended to bring forward on
• this'iraryssiubjecteixdf,' whin 'he reihinded the House
that' he had last &islet stated hit intention to bring
' this Subjc4blidir 'the. consideration of the House ;
that laird also, on'tbe first day df the present Ses-
sion,zfeen a 'sintilar tristice, so that Ministers had
had a month'to anticipate him if they thought pro-
per; he -hoped the should not he thotight precipitate
by adhering to his original resolution—(Near).—He
• was anxious, in the outset, that the House. and to
should understand each other in their difinitien of the
• word." Church," or, if they could not agree in their
definition, that the House should know the sense in
which he intended to apply the word himself. People
Often talked of " Church and State," and held that
' I there could be no Church without a State, and no
State without a Church. Some applied the word

-41 Church" to the Clergy only; while others applied
it to all thneommsenity who were agreed in one form
• of worship. -1/t• was InspOssable to apply the word
•-• merely 10 the Wider of :the building in which Divine
• Service waspeefiledsitti Be was himself at a loss as
- to which of die setfief he ought to adopt in speaking
of the Church; bat; tail goingback in his researches,
. he •found that St. Paul treated the whole of his
• hearers, his community, as the Church ; and, on the
authority of Sr. Paul, lie should do the same. He
thought he might assume that the Protestant Esta-
- blished Church had no authority from Scripture. It
• • was the mere creature of the law. It owed its very
- existence to the Legislature ; and, as a consequence,
that Legislature might alter or annul the whole of
the Establishment. This being ascertained, it became
. proper to consider why the Legislature had, at the
• ltestoration, established this in preference to any
other Church. He took it to' be indisputable that,
religious instruction was the principal object in view.
In order to this, various duties were to be performed;
• and certain establishments, certain property, and cer- '
• tarn allowances were erected and appropriated to en--
courage and reward their performance. When, there-
-fore, he proposed' a Parliamentary interference with
these Establishments, this property, and these allow.
antes, he trusted be should not be 'charged with a
design to deprive people of their rights.- All the vast
property now enjoyed' by Bishops, Deans, and other
Ministers of the Established Church, had been. car:
ried away from those of another China. It hitt
been originally set ;pal for, and e*yed:by, the
• Ministerttf the Cittholk.ChurCh: ThelLegiglature
had deprived theni of it, and give* it to 'Otter:
sors of its prelentincuinbents :Aid how; tlienieoidd
it.be maintained fort lostant that Pirlfainent hid
no eootrool leer it ife "Avower* it Wight be kid
• that a hirge portion of tblipipperty had been given
by Lay individuals; but he 2^tasmieedaost
all the grams of this derieriPtion tei'which= be' Bad'
access, and he foand Ihiat t tiperty
was directed to be applied' `to' -pthroses of ebaritY;'
and it, therefore, could not be ignited as the
• perty of the Clergy. He expected -to tie-told that
this property of the Clergy was quite as Sacred and
• inviolable as any other property The eOnnection,
however, between the two rights was very slight ;
and, wherever it existed, supported his argument in
favour of Parliamentary interference. The property
of the Clergy was unlike that 'of individuals, inas-
much as the latter was absolute, the former tempo.
nary. Individual property was descendable, and dis-
posable by deed or will, which was not the case with
ecclesiastical property : the latter was given expressly
-for the performance of specific duties, and their per.
formance was the condition by which the property
was held. To prove this, he had only to refer to the
case of the Bishop of Clogher, who was deprived of
his property for misconduct, and many other cases,
all tending to shew, that where the duty was no
longer performed the pay was no longer to be al-
lowed—(Hear).—lt was rather remarkable th at, at the
'Reformation, there was scarcely one beneficed priest
who did not petforits hissdury On the spot assigned him.
It was since the pure -days of the Reformation that
abuses had taken place; and:Clergymen, insteal of
attending to the Cure of Souls, (as .it was: called)
in their different parishes, "Willi to be round Et' Bath,
'at Cheltenham, all over' the'Worhf ; its short, every-
•wheie but where they ought twbe.• 'lf he spewed
this to be the case withsregard to most of the Irish
Clergy, it was impossible to' resist the conclusion.
'lle was not to be told that the property of the Clergy
was not to be assimilated to any other species of pro-
. perty. Would it be tolerated that the public servants
of the Crown, the high officers of State, and the
officers of the Army and Navy—would it, he asked,
•he tolerated if they were to hold language similar to
that of the Clergy ? Their duties appertained to-their
'offices, and were inseparable from the possession of
those offices, and the receipt of the profits to be de.
rived from them. A military officer on command
received pay only so long as he performed duty.
The example to which he had alluded, and others,
all clearly shewea that neglect of duty and moral
disability were sufficient to deprive .a Clergyman of
his office, and consequently of his profits. A slight
reference to the feudal system would demonstrate
that the Army and Clergy were originally on the
same footing as regarded remuneration. The soldier,
like the Clergyman, was allowed a piece of ground
for his support, and, in return, certain services and
duties were required from each. Indeed, the services
of the Clergy were of a nature which rendered it im-
possible for them ever to be dispensed with. Then,
with regaid to their property, it was impossible to
contend that they had. any interest beyond a tem•
porary one; and that? too, .conditional on the per-
formance of their ditties. They could not pretend to
any care of' the rights of the successors; for they
could not tell who their successors would be. They
had no interest in the property beyond their own per-
sonal interest. In short, in almost every point of
view, the attempted analogy birtsveen ecclesiastical
and pi ivate property entirely failed. The question
.was, whetitcr this. establishment was too great or too
-small? If it was too small, in all fairness add. to it ;
it top great, diminish it. If no alteration had taken
•