The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-15 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

altered until the leases ran out. That was the condition in '
which matters stood until the Archbishop of Canterbury intro-
duced, his bill in 1831. Up to that time the bishops could not
Jefiarge the tithesittith a higher remuneration for the clergy than
was fixed in the %aims. If the bishops had done as the noble
'lord wished them to do they would be unable to maintain the
dignity of their station, which was se. necessary, not for their
own aggrandisement, but for the interests of religion. The
language in which the noble lord had indulged with respect to
deans and chapters, and " all the rubbish of cathedrals, ' was
not new. Precisely the same language had been used before
the great rebelliOn by harry Martin and Sir Harry Vane. Ile
could assure the noble lord and the house that the governors of
Queen Anne's bounty dispensed the funds at their disposal with
the utmost impartiality, and that in no instance was any fa-
vour shown with respect to livings held by bishops or ecclesi-
astical bodies.
The Bishop of' CHESTER stated that he. had seen a petition,
a _Pc-simile of the one lately presented to the other house of
parliament by &noble lord, which was full of the grossest mis-
statements, and displayed an utter ignoreuce of the whole•na-
ture of impropriations. He merely, allipled, to the eirchrn-
stance to show with what caution such a statement ought to be
'received, and to declare that if ever the opportunity should
offer itself; by the presentation of that petition to the house,
he should feel it his duty to controvert its statements in detail,
by entering into an explanation of the circumstances to which
it referred.
The Earl of HARROWBY said he would trouble their lordships
with but a very few words. He rose not, indeed, to add any-
thing to the statement made by the right rev. prelate, (the
Bishop of London,) which was in his (Lord Harrowby's) esti-
mation complete, but to give his testimony in favour of that
statement, lest it should be supposed he did not fully concur in
it. The noble earl defended the conduct of the governors in
their distribution of the royal bounty. He thought not the least
doubt could be entertained with respect to the impropriationa
which had fallen so unfortunately under the noble ba or n's lash
being precisely similarly situated to lay_impropriatiohs. But
j whether that were so or not, he (Lord Hanowby) thought it
rather hard that the faults of their predecessors -should be vi-
sited on the present board. He entirely agreed with the right
rev. prelate that the best node of meeting the views of the noble
baron would be to order the production of a copy of the book to
which allusion had been made.
The Bishop of ExeTrai did not rise for the purpose of speak-
ing on the general question, but for the sake of doing justice
once more to certain individuals who had been particularly ad-
verted to by the noble baron, and subjected by him to grave
charges,—fie alluded to the dean and chapter of Exeter, whom
' the noble baron had that night charged along with others with
conduct disgraceful to theinsetves and to the church to which
Ji they belonged. He had described them as diones,—the suckers
(of the honey of the others who, did their duty. It would cer-
I tautly be in the recollection of the house that he (the Bishop of
Exeter) only a few nights ago had satisfactorily shown how in-
Docent those parties were of the charges which had been alleged
against them, and, having doee,so, lie hadhoped that the noble
baron would not have come down to the house to reiterate those
'charges, or, at least, would have refrained from bringing them
prominently forward without instituting some inquiry as to their
j truth. He needed hardly to rep.eat, that they were-entirely
destitute of foundation. What might be the feelings of the•no-
' ble baron on occasions like the present be (the Bishop of Exe-
ter) knew not) but this he would say, that he, for one; would ra-
' they be esteemed guilty of the greatest abuse of power ever
charged—he would not say proved by the noble baron—against
any individual, than have it said of him that he was in the- ha-
bit, night after night, like the noble baron,.of.bringing forward
unfounded allegations on flimsy and unsubstantial information,
and treating that• information as if it were really entitled .to
credit. (Hear.)•
Lord KING declared that if he had said• anything improper
he was sorry for having done so, but his remarks were not di-
rected so much against the individuals as against the deanery
itself,—not against the men, but the system. He• did not mean,
on the other hand, to impute any impartiality to the board, but
he wished to know why they and not the impropriators of the
parishes were the parties to reward the curates for the duties
they performed ? lie could only say, that had the knowledge
of this appropriation of the funds placed at the disposal of the
board been obtained by Parliament previously to the test grant,
that grant never would have been made. With respect to the
amendment moved by the tight rev. prelate- he had one obser-
vation to make, and that was to repeat his wish that the sepa-
ration specified in his motion should be made from the whole
mass of the information,
The Bishop of LONDON said that if the noble baron would not
agree to have a return of all the parishes held by impropriators,
he should feel it his duty to divide the house upon the 'question.
Lord KING said his only objection to that was the difficulty
which would thereby be occasioned in getting at the particular
information he required in so large a mass.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the motion should' be with-
drawn, and another of a mole general nature substituted in its
place, in order that the subject might be clearly laid before the
house, and their lordships thus be enabled to say whether the
funds of the bounty had been impartially administered or not.
Lord WHARNCLII'FE denied that the noble baron (Lord
King) had shown how any distinction could be drawn between
the clerical and lay impropriations in the present instance.
Besides, who could assume the power of alienating any part of
the revenues of the deaneries in question? He (Lord Wharn-
cliffe) thought the noble baron would find it a difficult task to
shots that any person possessed that power. He contended that
the clerical 'Appropriators had no more failed in their duty than
the lay impropriators.
Earl GREY said he did not rise for the purpose of defending
tha conduct of the governors of the Royal bounty,—the right
rev. prelate (the Bishop of London) had absolved him from that
task,—but to say a few words with respect to the nature of the
question which was before the house, which, in its present form,
he thought open to objection, inasmuch as it would place the
parties to whom it referred in an invidious position. No dis-
tinction whatever, it appeared to him (Earl Grey,) would by
the motion in its present shape, be made with respect to those
clerical, persons standing in the situation of lay impropriators.
He would suggest the propriety of having those returns which
were already complete up to 1826 laid on the table, accompanied
by returns from that period up to the present time. This would
render the information complete;_ but if the motion were per-
sisted in in its present form, he (Lord Grey) should feel bound
to vote for the right rev. prelate's amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be much more con-
venient to the house, as well as to the officers who would
have to compile the information, and it would be infinitely
the best mode for rendering that information clear and distinct,
for the noble baron to withdraw his motion, and ask for the
production of the returns up to 1826, which were in existence,
accompanied by others which would carry. the information he
sought down to the present period. By this means the whole
object of his motion would be attained. He would not advise
the alteration of the motion so as to reduce it to a different
shape, as he was convinced that would be attended with con-
siderable difficulty, but would recommend its entire withdrawal.
Lord KING ultimately withdrew his motion, with the inten-
tion of submitting another in its stead on Thursday next.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions against sla-
very from places in Sussex and Bedfordshire. -
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented two petitions from
Gravesend and bath, for the better observance of the Sabbath.
The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions for the better
Observance of the Sabbath, from St. Albans; from a place in
Essex; from the congregation of the Espiscopal chapel in
Chelsea; and some other places.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MONDAY, MARCH ii.

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after twelve o'clock,
when several members took the oaths and their seats 'lhe pri-
vate business before the house having been disposed of, the
Speaker reminded the house that no petitions were to be pre-
sented on that day, except those having reference to

until they had tried the effects of remedial measures—(hear)—
and then, when they had, as. it were, entered into recognizances
to keep the peace towards Ireland, they might have called upon
every member to support them in any measure for the protec.
tection of life and property. He could not concur in tke bill
now before the house,- by which the government had lost the
support of many of their most sincere friends and strenuous
supporters.
Sir JOHN MAXWELL presented a petition from the Political
Union of Renfrewshire, praying the house to reject the coercive
bill, and to pass a law for the abolition of tithes, the intredue-
' don of poor laws into Ireland, and the taxation of absentee
landlords. The state of Ireland was such as induced him to
support the measure proposed by government.
Mr. F. O'ComNott presented a petition from the parish of
Glenturk, praying the house to reject the bill.
Mr. 13LACKNEY presented a similar petition from a parish in
Carlow.
Sir ROBERT BATESON presented a petition from the clergy,'
merchants, and other inhabitants of the city of Londonderry,
stating that the petitioners, in common with every friend to the
,peace and tranquillity of Ireland, deprecated the systematic
opposition to the law of the land,—a system sapported, and en-
couraged by unprincipled agitation, and praying the house to
pass the bill for increasing the power of the law brought in by
his Majesty's ministers as speedily as was consistent with the
forms of Parliament. The petition was signed by the mayor,
sheriffs, all the magistrates, several deputy-lieutenants, the
Chamber. of Commerce, the reformers, and every respectable
inhabitant of the city of Londonderry.
Mr. O'CoNNaLL begged to state, that he had a petition to
present against the bill, from the same place, but which he had
not yet had an opportunity of doing. The petition he had re-
ceived was not got up privately, but originated at a public meet-
ing. (Hear.)
Captain JONES supported the prayer of the petition, and was
proceeding. to address the house when he was met by loud cries
of " Question." The hon. member resumed his seat.—Laid on
the table.. _ _ _ _ _

The SPEAKER left the chair shortly after 3 o'clock.

The House resumed its sitting at five o'clock.
IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL. _

Lord ALTHOIiP brought up the bill of which he had given
notice to amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the
church of Ireland. The noble lord moved that it be read a
first time now, and that the second reading be fixed for Wed-
nesday next.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS could not omit the opportunity to ex-
press his disgust at the manner in which his Majesty's minis-
ters were about to press forward the second reading of a bill of
this description at a notice of only 21 hours, and before a print
of the bill was in the hands of members. (Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP said that the hon. baronet must by this time
be pretty well aware of the principle of the measure, because
lit had been stated at length by him (Lord Althorp) nearly a
month ago, and the disgust expressed by the hon. baronet was
sufficient to show that he was aware of the nature of the mea-
sure: (H-ear, hear.) The bill would be printed to-morrow and
in the hands of members, and he proposed to take the second
reading on Wednesday, next. It was impossible, he thought,
that the house could be ignorant of the principle of the bill
which was the only question involved in the second reading,
and he had therefore fixed it for as early a day as possible in
order to save time. _ .

Sir ROBERT INGLIS complained that the house should be
called upon at so short a notice to discuss a measure involving
such extensive changes ; and he
.put it to the candour of the
noble lord to say whether a bill, in which the interests of so
many persons were concerned, should be hurried through the
house in this indecent manner. He contended that a question
of this kind ought not to be pressed forward without giving
sufficient time to those who might feel it their duty to oppose it.
Colonel DAVIES differed totally with the opinion which the
hon. baronet had expressed with regard to this bill. So far
from thinking that it was hurried forward by his Majesty's
government, he conceived that it had already been too long de-
layed.
Mr. Sit,tw objected to the course proposed by the noble lord
with regard-to this. bill, and contended that the time proposed
between the first and second reading was, too limited. Was the
noble lord aware that when he introduced this bill he had made
a five years' purchase instead of six years ? The measure pro-
posed by the noble lord with regard to the church of Ireland
was, perhaps, one of the most important that had ever been
brought forward, whether it was considered with regard to the
existence of the church of Ireland, or the many interests in-
volved in the proposed change. He, therefore, put it to the
noble lord to say whether it would be consistent with parlia-
mentary usage, or decent to fix the second reading for Wed-
nesday next.
Lord Aurrioap said that arrangements were made by which
this bill would be placed- in the hands of members to-morrow
morning, and when it was considered that the principle of the
measure must be fully known both to the house and the coun-
try, he really could not see any good reason for delaying the
second reading.
Sir R. PEEL said that he had had several communications on
the subject of this bill with persons who took a deep interest in
the welfare of the Irish church, and he conceived it to be per-
Thctlymonstrous to hurry such a bill forward without giving
sufficient time, either to consider its principle or discuss its de-
tails. (Hear, He ventured to say that no bill of equal
importance had ever been attempted to be pressed forward in
so short a time, and he hoped the noble lord would not persist
in fixing the second reading for so early a day as Wednesday
next. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the noble lord ought to remember
the very great excitement which prevailed in Ireland with re-
gard to the coercive bill, and he conceived that that considera-
tion alone was sufficient to justify the necessity of passing a re-
medial measure as speedily as possible.
Mr. WiLss contended that as the principle of this bill must
be well known to every member of the house, there was no oc-
casion for unnecessary delay.
Mr. A. JOHNSON condemned the haste in which this bill was
attempted to be pressed forward. The measure was one of
so much magnitude and importance, that full time ought to be
allowed to consider it; and, for himself', he could see no neces-
sity for such haste. He considered it was highly improper to
endeavour to conciliate the hon. and learned gentleman, the
member for Dublin, by striking at the established church of
these realms.
Mr. LEFROY observed that he had heard the proposal of the
noble lord to fix the second reading of this most vital bill for
Wednesday next. An honourable member had stated his opi-
nion that this bill and the coercive bill should go through their
several stages pail passu ; now that could not be, as the coercive
bill was in advance of this; and the urgent necessity of the
case called upon the house to pass the other bill with all rea-
sonable despatch; but the present bill stood upon totally diffe-
rent grounds, for it went to the very existence of the established
church in Ireland, while the other bill was only a necessary
measure which was called for by the disturbed state of that
country. He hoped, therefore, that his Majesty's government
would give a longer time than 21 hours to consider this bill,
and he conceived that a few days, at least, ought to be allowed
for that purpose.
Mr. D. NV. HARVEY said that this measure, being one in-
tended for the relief of Ireland, ought to have preceded the
other, with-a view to supersede its necessity. He suggested
that the coercive bill ought to be delayed, as well as the other
bill. _ _

Mr. WARBURTON said that it would be very hard on the
people of Ireland if the coercive bill were to be pressed forward,
while this bill was allowed to be delayed.
Lord ALTIIOIIP said that as there seemed to be a difference
of opinion on the subject, he should propose a compromise.
(Oh ! oh! from the Irish members.) The compromise he had-
to propose would be to fix the second reading for Thursday
next instead of Wednesday.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL observed that the course pursued by the
noble lord was just what the people of Ireland expected from
him. _ _ .

COl. CONOLLY said that the very existence of the church
establishment and the Protestant religion iu Ireland were
threatened by this bill.
Mr. Si, Amor said that the noble lord (Althorp) bad a most
difficult task to perform, for he had to deal with two extremes
of opinions. .rhe honourable gentleman said that in his
opinion the two bills should be passed together; and he pro-
tested against any further delay in the bill which was now
the subject of debate.
Lord Jour; RUSSELL was quite sure that the people of Ire-
land would not withdraw the confidence which they reposed in
his Majesty's government for the delay. of a single day.
Lord DARLINGTON said that during the experience which he
had had in parliament he never remembered any measure of so
much importance hurried through the house so hastily as this
bill. The noble lord obtained leave three weeks ago to bring in
this bill, and he wished to know why it had not been brought
forward sooner ?

The bill was then read a first time, and on the motion that it
be read a second time on Thursday next,
Sir R. PEEL said, that if the noble lord had brought forward
this bill first he should have had no objection to discuss it, but
he considered that it was contrary to every fair principle of
parliament that one bill should be brought for the purpose of
passing another. The noble lord (Darlington) lad understated
the time that had elapsed since the noble lord (Althorp) had
first obtained leave to bring forward this bill: A month had