The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-08-05 00:00:00

IRISH CHURCH ➢ILL.

• Lord J. Russet.s, moved the order of the day for the consi-
deration of the lords' amendments to the church of Ireland
bill. In rising to propose a motion on the subject of the
amendments which had been made by the House of Lords in
the bill which had been fixed for consideration that day, he felt
t incumbent on him, in the situation which he had the honour
to hold in the house—he felt it a duty which he owed to the
country—to call the attention of hon. members for a few
Moments to a question regarding the privileges of the house
which was involved in them. The chief alterations made by
the House of Lords in the bill under consideration might be
classed under four heads. The first was the alteration of the
rent charge on the landlords, by which it had been raised from
&,even-tenths to three-fourths; the second was the alteration in
the distribution of the fund firming the income of the parochial
elergy in Ireland, by which the amount in all cases was consi-
derably increased, and the whole arrangement of the former
hill overturned; the third was the taking away a part of a
clause which gave a surplus of the revenues of the church of
Ireland to the consolidated fund; and the fourth was the total
omission of that clause which granted £50,000 per annum for
the religious and moral instruction of the poor of Ireland. As
a consequence of these alterations and omissions a clause and
part of a clause had been left out altogether, and more than
half of the preambte of the bill hail been omitted. The ques-
tion for the consideration of the house was, whether these al-
terations did not constitute an interference with the pri-
vileges of the house. He should, however, wave this
point, and discuss the subject upon its own merits. Ile
was willing that the question should be decided on truth,
and that justice ioeitild dictate upon its real merits, and not to
make it a questiiet of the privileges of the house. The house
would understand him, and he wished to be so interpreted that,
in so doing, he gave np nothing. (Hear.) The first alteration
Made in the measure by the House of Lords was that by which
they raised the amount to be paid by the Irish landowners in
the nature of a land tax in lieu of tithes from seven-tenths to
three-fourth". He (Lord J. Russell) did not know on what
wound that alteration was made, but it seemed to him that
its effects would be to impose a burl hen on the landlords which
they had not on them before. Re (Lord J. Russell) thought
that 7-laths was an equitable arrangement, cud he was not at
all disposed to increase it. (Hear, hear.) He shoUld pass to
the second part of the bill in which alteration had been made
by the House of Lords. These alterations were of very great
importance. The distribution of the fund to be raised by land
tax was altered by it. so that the principle, as regarded the in-
come of the clergy in proportion to tlieir ditties, was entirely chan-
ged- The government, in framing the bill, had proposed what
they had considered a very adequate income for the parochial
clergy trf Ireland. Even the curates tinder the provisions of his
noble friend's hill were far better provided for than the gener-
ality of the Curates of :he Church of England. Having done
this, they had then provided that the surplus should go for the
religions and in prat instruction of the people of Ireland. That
object had been altogetheromitted in the amendment. (Hear.)
He would not go into the arguments on which that question
origically rested, but he'would merely refer to the various divi-
sions that had been come to last year upon that question After
a long debate of three nights on the 2d of April there was a ma-
jority of 33 in favour of that principle. On the 11 of April, in
committee, there was a majority of 38. On the6th of April there
was a majority of 25. On the (he 7th of April there was a ma-
jority of 27. That principle hail again been debated during the
present year on two occasions. and on both had been agreed to.
It was, therefore, not necessary for him then to contend with the
arguments that had been urged against that principle, or to
maintain its truth and justice; brit he did think it was necessary
to embody that principle in the present bill, and to make it a
substantial part or it. ( Cheers.) By reducing the essential
Principle of the bill the House of Lords had put an end to all
these prospects. They had sent the bill back, rejecting that
Which the House or Common had de:dared was an inseparable
part or it—they had sent it back increasing the amount of tithe
it, he paid, while they made the distribution of the church
esiehl P reve-
nues, if a
the • e, more obnoxious than before. How, then, was
House of Commons to deal with it? He (Lord J. Russell)
was
satisfied, as fir as regarded himself, with referring to the
debates and resole' ti,ins of the house last year on the subject—
the recognition
the hill preros4r the truth and justice of the principle which
it. (Iletr. hear.) ad saying that he should never depart fr
cider whether, nfter ttixight he a question for the house to con-
po
relfrigrepared, because
it. If the eat„e hairbsolernnly affirmed a principle. it was
rnemelen rejected by the House of Lords,
tnish
of the House of Commons went
with a nies;age to the bar
guise-agreeing to abandon the House Lords, in that humble
that they were in' error, and tuTinZiP e the bill. submitting
them the true mode of that the House of
Lords had taught
principle office which h
J. Russell) would not accompany them
enle.gislation, he (Lord
such a message. He
was prepared to standby the prin.
er Old be his duty to the op.
'when out of orate, and will; the effirinene,
of e had
posita principle. to that of coulee it'
and no longer pretend to got ern the enuncils of tiffs aiee.s_'gra
(Hear, hear, hear.) He was convinced; the house puir"s'it'd
that course which they had hitherto adopted, that although its
'lngress might be uncertain, although it might. aometitnes he