The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-24 00:00:00

71.11 i. IRISH CHURCH

Lord John Russell withdrew his i;;-(1tiOn fixed for yesterday
without fixing any other day in its stead.

TITII hIS-1141iL .!.N

• ,Sir lENRY before the resolved itself into
a committee, moved that so much of his Majesty's speech at the
opening of patlitiment relating to tithes in Ireland should be
read by the clerk.. This having been done,.the right hon. baronet
proceeded to say That the state of Ireland during the last four
years rendered it impossible to collect tithes. It was well known
that in Ireland the man who obeyed the laws was punished,
while the most turbulent and rebellious escaped with impunity.
Amongst the scatteted population of that country, threats of
violence were easily put into execution and more feared by the-.
people than the enforcement of the laws. Now, what was the
Case as regarded the freeholders? Why, for the last four years
it had been found impossible to •collect tithes
•the persons,.
therefore, who were entitled to tithes called on the government
to vindicate the law. 'Where resistance had been offered and
on the interference of the military being called in, scenes re-
sulted which every friend of humanity could not fail to deplore.
The clergy of Ireland, although their only means of livenhood
depended upon it, had acted in the collectiotiof tithes with the
utmost forbearance and moderation. Out. of upwards of three
hundred places where tithes could not be procured only thirty
or forty applications had been made, for the aid of the military,
during the period when he (Sir H. liardinge) was last in Ire-
land. !(Lood cries of "Hear, hear.") He would ask the house,
therefore, whether, because the clergy, feeling the.vety great
responsibility which attended the spilling of human blood, eh-
•stained•upon most occasions from calling in theasAsLiuce which
the law at present allowed them, they were to be left virtually
without the means of receiving their rights? (Hear.) Ile felt
confident the 'house Would not allow this state of things to last,
but he.,felt equally satisfied that whilst they 'endeavoured to
affettl ayemedy, they would also wish that such a just and satis-
factory at-moment should be made in future as would put an
end to the present system. The right bun. baronet then 'pro
seeded to explain the •operation of Mr... (-ioulbnOn'a act, and
thotie.:of Lord 'Stanley and Mr. Littleton, .cud concluded by
moving two resolutions to the following effect:--First, "that
tithes •should;beabolished,' and that a rent-Charge• of £75 for
every ElOO. should .be substituted. in lieu. Of tithes, atat .this
refit-charge should be payable, not by the-occupying;• tenant,
but by the owner of
,the first. estate of inheritance; that the
rent-charge should be yedeemable; and that the,proceeds of the
redemption 'should. be laid out in land or otherwise for the
.kcnefit of the party entitled to the tithes. Second—That the

.
parties to whoin actrauces have been made under the million-
_act shall not be called upon to refund, and that the surplus of
the Million-8Q much .as has not been already advanced—shall
he devoted to the same purposes as the other part of the mil•
lion." The ground of the latter resolution was, that while for-
mer measures have provided fur the clergy up to 1833, and the
bill now about to be introduced will provide for them for the
fiture, there is nothing wherewith to pay the' parties to whom
tithes are due in the year 1834 but the surplus rensaining under
the million act, which, amounting to between f 300,000 and
£400,000, will by no means satisfy the amount •of the claims,
though it may mitigate the distress of the persons entitled to
tithes, andunable to collect them without bloodshed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not mean to offer any objection to
the bill which it was proposed to introduce. To him it appeared
to be substantially the same as the one proposed last session,
which the lords had rejected.
Mr.SHaw, on comparing the present with the bill of last year,
thought the difference between the two bills was very striking.
The first allowed the landlord 40 per cent., the present allowed
only 25; the first gave the clergy one-fifth of their income out
of the consolidated fund, which was to be again repaid from
church property ; so that the first bill invaded the rights of the
church while the present kept them inviolate.. (Hear.) It was
highly to be wished that this question should be set at rest, and
that the property anti rights of the Irish church should be set
upon some safe footing. There was no kind of property. more
assailable than church property, from the relative position of
the parties and the odium heaped upon it through the designs
and misrepresentations of designing
men. If it were not speedily
settled there could be no security for any species of property In
Ireland. lie had never objected to any change calculated to
promote real good, or WhiCh it conld be shown was.likely to per-
fect, and not to destroy... He wished, however, that the experi-
ment should. originate from frietll% hands, and not from those
who were known as.enemies to the institutions with which they
interfered.

Lord How IcK opposed the resolutions, and in the course of
his speech- said that the real grievance under which the Irish
people laboured originated in their being compelled to pay for
a church establishment for which they had no use, and until
that grievance was met all that varliament could do would prove,
ineffectual. (Loud cheers.) Fur the established church, .when
it answered the real purposes for which it was intended, no man
could entertain a higher veneration . than he did, but when it
ceased so to do he thought the sooner it was got rid of thebetter.
(Hear.) Now what we►c those real purposes fin which it was
intended ? lie would not quote his own opinions, but those of
one of the highest oi naments the church could boast of. He
need scarcely say he meant the Bishop of London. That emi-
nent diiine, in a work he had 'likely published, said that the
question whether a church establishment should be maintained
or not was best answered by another question; namely, did it,
or did it not, tend to the moral improveMent of the people'.'
Now, judging the question by this test, he would maintain that
the church establishment was one that onotenut, to be conti-
nued. (Cheers.)

Sir; ROBERT Pact. said the question .was whether they should
be permitiad t., prevent to the holote the hill with its details; with-
out which the measure would be aitogetheruuitttelhgtblr r By
permitting the bill to be introducednu member would be pledged
to withhold his opposition to it. in: support ;pfshis statement
that no party woutd be bound,.he referred .to a: resolution moved
in the early part of last year, -which formed the foundation of
the bill. That restitution was to the -efferts '",that it is the opi-
.nitin of this house that composition for tithes in II eland should
he abolished on or after the let of •Noyendoer next, in consider-
ation of an annual land-tax to lie grantedtu his Majesty, pay-
able by the persons who would have been liable to such compo-
sition for tithes, and of equal amount; that such land-taxshall
be redeemable, and that out of the produce provision be made
in land er money. for the indemnification of the persons entitled
to such composition." If ever there was a question difficult of
adjestinent, consistently with equitable principles, it was the
tithe i;ystent At the present moment in the southern part
of Ireland there had been an absolute suspension of the cotlec- •
Cetn of tithes. Attempts had been made to collect them, which
hail been resisted even to bloodshed, and it was owing to the
patient endurance .of the clergy, who with their families were
ih many places in a state of the utmost privation, that they had
refused to enfolce their legal demand, About three years since
iiio,ooo was advanced to the clergy, and it was provided that
in respect of the tithes due to those clergymen who should avail
themselves an advance out of that sum - government should
have a dada for the recovery of the tithes. This claim having
been given up by the clergy, an attempt was made on the part
of government to levy to the extent of that £60,000. Repeated
efforts were made, both• by legal process and by the application
of military force, to recover paytuent. The expenses of reco-
very were almost in all instances, he believed, greater than the
sum that could be obtained front time to time. The conse-
quence was; that the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a no-
tice that no further attempts should be. made to recover those
tittles which were due to government. Whether that proceed-
ing was a wise or an unwise measure it was not neeessary for
the right hon. baronet to give an -opinion ; but what must the
house suppose the effect of it to have been when, the government
having the right to the tithes, and having the wh"le force of go-
vernment power at its command to enforce the payment, govern-
ment intimated that no further effort should be made at reco-
very ? A sum of a million of money was, then aPpropriated for
the purpose of providing for some arrears of tittiMnsuch clergy
as Were able to prefer their claims for a portimeof it. . Many of
them availed themselves of this advantage, clutt they, received
sums front government, absorbing a.!aint-E534,0U0 out of the
£1,000,000. That was paid to the evelesiastical scud lay owners
of tithes. A provision was made that those who so received
advances from that fund should be liable •to repay the govern-
ment by, quinquennial payments. The time of payment had
now arrived, and in this state of affairs what was government to
do ? A sum was due from the clergy to the government, and
by the same law an equivalent sum was due from the occupying
tenant to the clergy. Time pressed for a decision, and the
house was bound to take some particular course. What was to
be done, if payment was required by the clergy and could not
be obtained ? Was the house prepared, to give the clergy the
power of the government--a military force to compel. payment?
'(Cries of No, uo.")s Well, was it prepared to give a civil
power without military f .reel (Loud .cries of " No, no."Vpell, if )
the house would neither give military nor a
civil force then it would have to •be • guilty of tins, That
hOing• -•given E 50.000 in the first. instance to • the clergy,
atid government having abandoned all attempts tojecover that
now that there was 1:63(1,000 date, the house would not
we- • thespowerneither civil nor liftllt4k—ldl the - clergy to
recover that amount ; but would denttatil thems who were in
pcssetty and reduced with their fanailieS ttlthost to a state of
starvation, the repayment of that large amount, without, as the
right hoh. baronet had said, giving their anyassistance for enfor-
cing their legal claims. Was the executive government to stand
by and see laws between subjscts, • between whom no difference
-could be recognized, trainpled upon, and say that they would
not uphold those laws? 'Could any mart advise such a course ?
The house might postpone this resolutiOnfor a-couple of days,
but the question it must ultimately collie to. would be this—
would it release the clergy from the deimind it had -upon them
individually, or would it call fur payment and enable them to
recosser an equivalent sum from the occupying tenants ? Could
the house with any justice impose anise arrears of tithes upon
the landlords ? Could it tell the landlords that a rent-charge
should be imposed utidn them, which should not only be an
equivalent for future payment of tithes, but for the past? The
right hon.. baronet doubted very much whether the House of
Commons, with all its. power, could pass such-a law as that
applicable to land proprietors: Even if it could, independently
of objections to it, there would be such .difficulty in the way of.
d be able to enforce it. In short,l
the principle, that he doubted very mush whether they ever
wouldthe question was, whether
the house would remit that sum attegether as a peace-offering to
a boon,• not to the clergy, but a boon to the. parties
who certainly ought to pay it ? Thequestiou was, whether they
would lentil the payment of the iustalments due from the
clergy, or take one of two courses--iMpose the obligation of
paying on the landlord, or impose the
nbligat ion of paying
on the occupying tenant? Sir Ifobert then proceeded to ex-
amine the details of the proposed bill, and concluded by: ex-
pressing a hope that before the house involved itself in any
precipitate resolution with respect to the appropriatiou of church
property in Ireland, it would ascertain whether or not there was
• any sot pies alter providing for the wants of the protestant
church, and
.before it came to any speculative conclusion' upon
the subject; and that ono/ au absmute necessity would pi event
hon. inewbera trout coming to a conclusion favourable to the •
propysitien uow before them.
Mr. O'Coistssi.t, said there was no use in trying to appease
the people of Irelaud unless something was given to them. The
right hon. baronet had talked of 4. surplus; and God hinted the
possibility of there being no surplus, beyond• the necessities of
the protestant establishment. Why not treat the " unfortunate
people of Ireland" at least with the word " appropriation." if
nothing else. At the close of his speech Mr. VC. said that the
present measure proposed nothing to mitigate, -nothing to soften,
nothing to conciliate, nothing that cou:d by possibinty hold out
a !mite of better days for his unfortutiate country; amid if the
house did not wand together, anti eulorce the new priucip.e of
appropriation, it would be in vain to look for the pacification
and welfare of Ireland. (Hear, heat.)
Col. CONOLLY approved 01 the resolution. Ile thought the
present measure, if sustained by the iandlerds, as he had no
doubt it would be, and if steadily and speedily brought into ae-

tion would take the virus out of agitation' and the theme out or
the inouth of every demagogue, (hear, hear,) and white miti-
gating, the burden, leave an adequate and secure income fcr the
work i clergy.
Mr. C. Woo') and Mr. LITTI.RTON had no objection to the
'first resolution. 1•

Me. Hume insisted that nothing would give.peace to Ireland
so long as the question of appropriation remained-unsettled.
After attacking the mode of proceeding adopted by the govern-,
went, and charging them with incoesistency on this subject, he
said it was to him matter of the utmost wonder that any set of
men invested with the confidence of the crown could forget the.
principles for which they so strenuously contended in the last
session of parliament. .The. inconsistency generally of those
bun. members who supported the-resolutions did appear to him
most unaccountable. Ile could not conceive how men of ho-
nour could contend in one year, for principles the most plain and
intelligible, arid the next, without any change of circumstances,
maintain the direct contrary. In justice to the character of their
proceedings, and in common. fairness to such members of the
present parliament as had not seats in the last; he entreated the
use not to yield itself to the advice and ,rec!ntnendations of
the right hon. baronet, who, in nominally obtaining half, would
virtually accomplish the whole of that at Which he-aimed. On
the 30th of March the question, be might add .the whale ques-
tion, of the church would come under the consideration of the
house; the present resolutions might, he thought, he advan-,.
tageously postponed till the 2.1 of April; a ballot, as he under-
stood, was fixed for the 3d. The question with the house now
was, whether they would proceed to a division an the question
before them, or would they agree to an adjournment? (Cries
Of "Go on, go on.") Ile understood thet according to the forms -
of parliament he could not propose an adjournment, but the
proper mode of proceeding was to move that tlot chairman do
report progress, and ask leave to sit again, and a motion to that
effect he then begged leave to teibmit.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, said he should certainly take the sense of
the house upon the first of the r solutions for the purpoSe of ob-
taining in that form permission to bring in the bill which his
right bon. and gallant friend sought to introduce. By the affir-.
!nation of that resolution the house would have an opportunity
afforded it of comparing the measures of the last year and of the
present, and of judging between them.. By voting for that re-
solution no Finn member-would- be in the least degree committed
to the principle of the bill; and as to the second point to which
attention had been so emphatically called, it was only necessary
for him to observe, that if any gentleman complained of being
taken by surprise, lie (Sir It. Peel) should feel no shame in
.giving way, in order to accommodate himself is that respect. to
-the feelings of members, and to remove the s,ightest shadow of
ground for disapprobation. Before he sat dOwn it was oeces-
sary that he should ask one question of the. hon. member for
Middlesex. ." Does the hon. member -(said R. 'Peel) mean to.
say that my conduct in reference to this question was not that
of a man of honour ?"
Mr. fluste.—llad I been in the situation of the right hon.
baronet (cries of ".ob, oh"), I should not have acted 'ashe has
done. • According to my idea of a bran of hoa9loo,shouid no t
take up and support a measure, of which,: in: seedier circum-
stances, he had been the strenuous oppenent 4 •.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Does the hon.-member meanlo say that

I have acted in a manner inconsistent with the charactei of a
Man of honour? Ile knows the .nature' of the question—he
knows the course I took`on the former occaeion—that which I
have pursued on the present is of course before him. Does he
mean to say that I have acted in a manner inconsistent with:
the character of a man of honour? Does he mean to apply the.
language he has used to me?
Mr. II cME. -I have no hesitation in saying that as a political
man 'I should not hare adopted the seine conduct as that of the
right hon. baronet.
Our space is too limited to give the speeches of Mr. C. Fer-
guson. 'Mr. Shiel, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Harvey, Mrs Spring
Rice; Lord Stanley, Mr. P. Thomson, and Sir Itobert Peel (in
reply), who successively addressed the chairman on the reso-
lution.

On a division the numbers were :
For the original resolution
Fur the amendment • - l9B

Majority for ministers
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter-past twelve o'cloi..k.

•
REVENUES OF THE ENGLISH BISFIOPRICS.

We take the following extract from the first report of the com-
missioners of church reform :—ln considering the subject of
episcopal revenues we have been materially assisted by the re-
turns made to the commissioners appointed under a commission
issued by your majesty in the year 1832, and extended iu the
years 1833 and 1834, for inquiring, amongst other things, into
the ' revenues and patronage belonging to the several archepis-
copal and episcopal sees in England and Wales.'
rbase returns generally present the average of three years,
ending 31st of December, 1831 ; • but in some instances they con-
tain corrections to a latter date. . _ _

, As the greater part of the episcopal revenues arises from fines
on the renewal of leases, of which some a. e granted for three
lives, renewable when a life drops, and others for tWenty-one
years, renewable every seven, and in towns for forty years, re-.
uewable every "fourteen, it is manifest that a period of three years
is too short,to exhibit a correct average of the annual value uf
the several sees, and that an average So takeu will show an ex-
cess where large fines have recently accrued, and a deficit where
no fine, or an unusually small amount of fines, has been received.
Put as this pint has been adverted to by-the bishops in estima,
tine the probable increase or diminution of the incomes of their
respective sees,-we may venture to refer yOur majesty•to the fol-
lowing table, framed from those returns, as containing informa-
tion sufficiently-accurate for the purposes of this report.
[ We here insert the table, omitting tile column which details
the probable causes of increase or diminution.] .
-Net income on 3 Estimated
„Years' Avetage, future Net
ending Dec. 31, 1831. Income.
Ca'nterbury
[gradually increasing to £20,7(X) in 1873.]
....891 12,629 10,600

DIOCESE. Benefices.

LIVER THEATRE, CHURCU•STRLET.

FOUR NEW PIECES.
For the BENEFIT of MR. RAYMOND.

ON MONDAY next, the 3Uth instant, wilt he produced a
new Drama, called

THE PARIA;
oa, THE JUDGMENT OF TIPPOo.
Serjeant Delany Mr. Raymond.
Dickey Mr. W. J. Hammouil.
Susan Mrs. Raymond. I Emily Miss Hamilton
A new Farce, called
PADDY KELLY'S BUD
Paddy Kelly Mr. It mond.
The popular Interlude of
THE FOUR SISTERS.

Singing, by Miss Hamilton, Mrs. Raymond, Mr. W. J. Ham-
mond, Mr. Raymond, &c.
Dancing by Mademoiselles Juliette and Eloise, Miss Fanny
Leclerect, and the Brothers Jackson.
To conctude with a new Farce, called

HOW TO GAIN £3ooti.
Tickets to be had of Mr. RAymoNo, 30, Norton-street; at the
Box-office; and.at the usual places.

BATTY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRR.

THREE' NEW PIECES..
FTIHIS present TUESDAY. the inst.int, fur • the
BENEFIT of Mr. ARMISTEAD, who to-ost roped'
folly solicit the patronage of his friends and the. ruluic is
general.
'flie Entertainments will commence with a new•Scottiat Melo-

Drama, called
THE TOWER OF HUCHLAIN;
OR, THE IDIOT SON.
In which the splendid Stud will ap r.
A Sum!, by Miss Faufiv Egertu . • -
Scenes in the Circle, by Messrs:Batty, Powell, &c.
• After which.
THE GOLDEN PIPPIN;

OR, THE THREE WOODEN LEGS.
A Comic Song, by a Gentleman.
Pas .de Deux, by Miss and Master Holloway, theis first ap-

pearance.
To conclude with
TIIE HARP OF ALTENBERG;

OE. THE PHANTOM: ' •
Boxes, 25.; Pit, Is.; Gallery, 6d.
Tickets and Places to be had of M r. ARMISThAD, at the Theatre.

APOLLO VOCAL CONCERT.
THE Members of ,this Society, encoUraged by th,e, respecf-
able patronage e;Oended to themon lt forme, occasion,
and urged by a number of :Gentlemen
,who were subscribes
then, to give another set, of Concerts upon the tune plan us
the last, beg leave to announce respectfully tit it is their. ia-
tention to have
FOUR CUNCEnTs,-
At the CoN•datit Roost, A okr.ent °TEL,
At intervals of 'Three, Weeks, conitnencing, in Easter week.
Prospectuses may. be bad, ,and Subscribers' naiues will be
received at the Music Shops of Mr. WEis's, Church-street;
Messrs. HIKE and SON, Church-street and Castle-street; Mr.
Tnosisor4, Great George-street; and of Mr. G. HoLusx, the
Conductor, at No. 44, Stafford-street. • •
---KP It will be esteemed a favour if those who are willing to
patronize these Concerts would
.give in their names in the
course I.l* the present week.
• Afarch 23, 1835.