The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-17 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Mr. BERNAL said that he should be happy to fix any day that.
would be convenient to the house. The first proposition which
he would submit to the house would be, that the state of the
borough of Hertford was one which required-the serious con-
sideration of the house. As to the substantive proposition, he
was not prepared to state its precise nature, because he was not
sufficiently informed of the district of country surrounding
Het tford. _ _

Mr. WYNN said that the question should take precedence of
other motions, because it was One of privilege,
It was agreed that Mr. Bernal's motion, in reference to the
borough of Hertford, should take precedence of all motions fixed
for that evening.
It was also agreed that Mr. Cobbett's motion respecting Sir
R. Peel's conduct, in reference to the currency measures of
1819 and 18'2'2, should take precedence of all motions on its day
(Thursday next.)
The order of the day having been read for the house resolving
itself into a committee on the
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Dr. LEFROY rose to state his objections to-the'principle no
less than the detail of the measure. After urging at some
length his belief that the principle of the measure was calcu-
lated to lessen the spiritual influence of the Protestant church
in Ireland, by narrowing the temporal influence of its clergy,
the learned gentleman proceeded to say that did not object
to the first provision of the bill—namely, the abolition of first
fruits, taken by itself. He, however, could not but protest
against the provisions of the bill, which went to impose a gra-
duated tax on all livings above £2OO. It bore no proportion to
the first fruits impost, as that averaged but £321 per annum,
while the proposed tax would produce £69,000 per anpArrn-.-
Instead of this oppressive tax on the clergy, whose incomes very
little exceeded, all round, £3OO a-year, he would impose a tax
of Id. per acre, to be paid by the landlords. This tax would
produce 1:50,060 per annum, and the clergy would be spared
the burden proposed by the noble lord's bill. He objected
to the consolidation of the bishoprics, because he thought that
the duties which the bishops were bound to perform could not
be adequately performed by a less number of them than the
present. He warned the house against the ruin which they would
inflict on several of the smaller towns in Ireland,.which were now
bishops' sees, by withdrawing the residence of the bishops from
them. A measure of this kind ought not to have been brought
forward until the reportof the commissioners appointed lastyear
to inquire into the church of Ireland had been made. This
bill was, however, he believed, offered as a sort of set-off to the
Irish coercion bill, and deeply did he regret to see such a
sacrifice made to popular clamour. He could not but remem-
ber that the first sacrifice made to popular clamour and popular
violence in the French revolution was that of the church; and
the, consequence was, the monarchy and aristocracy soon fol-
lowed ; and if we went on in the same way, yielding to popular
clamour and overturning fixed principles, we should come at
last to a point, where we should have to choose between
monarchy, aristocracy, and religion, on the one hand, or
democracy and an agrarian law on the other. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. FRENCH agreed in the principle of the bill, with the ex-
ception of some minor points. He thought that it was a manly,
comprehensive, and wise measure, with one exception, and
before he came to that exception he would say, that he con-
curred-with the hon. member for the University of Oxford, that
it would be better to diminish the revenues of the bishops
rather than to reduce their number. His main objection Was
to that part of the bill which went to change the tenure of
the property of the church, as regarded the tenants of such
property. That would be most highly ruinous and unjust to
those tenants. The noble lord (Althorp) had not shown him-
self acquainted with the value of such property to the tenants.
The plan would impose a ruinous burden on those tenants, and
wouldgive therein name no more than they at present possessed
in effect—the property in perpetuity. The hon. member then
went on to contend Vial this would be greatly unjust to the
tenants,—that their tenure of the church property had been
sanctioned by the usuage of two centuries,—that the church
and the tenant had been connected by the strongest link that
could bind man to man, their mutual interest—that the interest
of the tenants in such property had been greatly overvalued,—
that the interference m such property would establish a dan-
gerous precedent, which would shake the security of property
of every kind in England, as well as in Ireland, and that the
measure would ruin that most respectable class of men who
were the great link of connection between this country and
Ireland. He therefore called on ministers to abandon this
unjust part of the measure, but, if they did not, he had still
confidence that the house would not sanction such injustice.
Mr. O'CoNNELL said that when the bill before the house, was
first proposed, he considered it a boon to the people of Ireland ;
but he owned that his opinion in that respect had been greatly
changed. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The noble lord (Althorp)
had led the house into a delusion on this subject—he would not
say it was intentional, but it certainly was ,a delusion. He (Mr.
O'Connell) had understood from the noble lord that the whole
of the vestry cess was to he abolished, and to cease altogether.
That cess, it was said, amounted to about £70,000 in all. Now,
the noble lord himself must have known that he (Mr. O'Con-
nell) had so understood him, for when the noble lord had stated
the ecclesiastical revenue of Ireland at £700,000 a year, he
had asked him whether the remission to the people of 10 per
cent. on that large amount could be considered too much. The
fact was, however, that by the bill as it now stood, the actual
relief to the people of Ireland would not be more than £IO,OOO
a-year. The hon. and learned gentleman here went through
some items of charge under the head of vestry cess in some
parishes in Dublin, to show that these causes of soreness and
irritation were to remain. On this ground he had strong
objections to the bill, the only good principle of which was that
of asserting the control of Varliament over church property.
Lord Aurnone, in answer to the hon. and learned gentle-
man's observation, that the Protestant vestry would not be
abolished by the bill, had only to state that it was intended to
put an end to all charges by an exclusively Protestant vestry ;
and, further, if there were any doubt on the subject, he was
ready to introduce such • alterations in the measure as would
set the matter at rest, and render the abolition unquestionable.
(Hear.) But he was told by a learned gentleman near him,
that the bill as it stood did abolish all charges by an exclu-
sively Protestant vestry. If the hon. and learned member's
original approbation ot the measure were not derived from an
expected triumph over the opposite party, but, really proceeded
on the ground of vestry improvements, he (Lord Althorp)
was entitled to expect the learned gentleman's continued ap-
probation, for the benefit still remained, and, as he had said
before, if the bill required any alteration in order to secure the
accomplishment of the object in question, means would be
taken to secure it. The hon. and learned gentleman said that
the bill did not go so far as he wished; now, he (Lord Althorp)
felt bound candidly to admit that it never was intended to
carry the learned member's wishes into effect. (A laugh.) He
assured the hon. and learned member that the bill was Intended
to abolish vestry cess. He should not go into the minute cal-
culations of the hon. member for Roscommon, but this he
must say, that when the hon. member asserted, that the bill
would inflict an injury on the tenants of church property, he
was grossly mistaken as to the intent, object, and effect of the
measure. The intention of ministers was to benefit the holders.
of church property ; and they had framed the bill with a view
to the accomplishment of that object. He could see no objec-
tion to applying the revenues of the suppressed bishoprics to
the wants of the church of Ireland. The hon. gentleman had
objected to the intended substitution for the Board of First
Fruits, on the ground that it would be degrading to the church
to constitute a new board of commissioners, consisting partly
of lavineu and partly of bishops. He confessed lie saw no de-
gradition in the matter, and he thought it desirable to secure
upon such a commission active persons properly qualified, who
might'be relied on to attend, and not to depend solely on the
gratuitous assistance of those who might think proper to be pre-
sent occasionally.

Mr. GOULLIURN was not opposed to the adoption of useful-
and necessary reforms in the church establishment, on the con-
trary, as one who venerated that establishment, he desired to
see it rendered as perfect as possible; but he must resist the
present bill, which was calculated to retard the growth of the
Protestant faith in Ireland, but did nothing towards the actual
reform of abuses or the promotion of the efficiency of the
church as an instrument for the extension of true religion.—
There was nothing in the bill to enforce the residence of the
clergy,—no provision for the separation of large unions of
parishes,—in short, the measure did not tend to render the
church more efficient. Its grand feature was, that it abo-
lished ten bishoprics. He did not object to the removal
of the vestry cess from the population at large, but he thought
that in professing to remove a grievance the noble lord left
behind abundant grounds for dissatisfaction and agitation.--
His great objection to the bill was that it restricted the exten-
sion of the Protestant religion. The noble lord proiipsed to
abolish 10 out of 22 bishops; if the number were restricted to
12, the hierarchy would be confined within such narrow limits
that the remaining bishops would be unable to discharge the
duties which devolved on them. Four Irish bishops would be
engaged in Parliament, four in the new board which was to sit
in Dublin, and only four would remain to discharge the episco-
pal duties of the sees. The noble lord spoke of the large sees.
existing in this country, and contrasted their extent with that
of some of the Irish dioceses which were to be abolished;
but if there were a reform of the English church, the number
of bishoprics ought to be increased, and therefore it was un-
fair to make the existence of an evil in this country a ground
of creating a like evil elsewhere. He should not dwell on the

benefits derived from the presence of bishops as teeidentzett-
try in Ireland; he was in 'that country in 1822, a peri of
famine and pestilence, and had witnessed the carbons, per-
-sonal and pecuniary, of Trish bishops,-whose sees.-this'laill must,
to abolish. The right hon. gentleman here eulogized the con-
duct of the Archbishop of Tuam on the occasion referred to, and
observed, that the most rev. prelate's exertions were equally
valuable last year, when the cholera prevailed, and many of
the gentry had fled from their homes. He explained that this
bill appointed a commission to-take care 'that religious duties
should not be performed in Ireland; if service had not been
performed for.a.certain time Ma parish,•the commissioners had
,power to prevent it ever being performed -again. Now, in his
opinion, they ought to do directly the contrary of that, and of a
parish so long deserted, peculiar care should be taken of the re-
ligious culture. The diminishing the power of the church of
Ireland, to effect the spread of Protestantism in that country,
which would follow from this measure, would not be compen-
sated for, he feared by the exertions of the voluntarily paid. mi-
nisters of Dissenting congregations, judging from the manner
in which such exertions were treated by his Majesty's govern-
ment. It was but very recently that two Dissenting ministers
in Ireland, who endeavoured to address the people there, with
a view to disseminate amongst them the truths of the Protest-
ant religion, drew down upon their heads the reprobation of the
government for their conduct. Instead of suspending the ap-
pointment of a minister in parishes where, through the negli-
gence of former ministers, duty had not been performed for some
years, they should appropriate the vast revenues which they
would derive from the bishop's lands to the filling up of all va-
cant livings, and thus endeavour to promote the spread of Pro-
. testantism in that country. Ile was firmly convinced that the
happiness and prosperity of Ireland mainly depended upon
the spread of the true reformed Protestant faith in that coun-
try, and he was convinced that if its blessings were more widely
disseminated there, instead of crimes and outrages, peace, vir-
tue, and good-will, the never-failing effects, as experience had
shown, of the efforts of Protestant ministers to establish the
true faith, would universally prevail. For his part, he did not
see what advantages the people of Ireland would obtain by the
passing of this bill. He did not believe that, in a pecuniary
point of view, the lower orders of the Irish people would derive
any benefit from it, because an increase in the rents would no
doubt take place, so as more than to make up for the burden,
if any, from which this measure went to relieve them. In
fact, instead of seeing in this measure any tendency to diminish
the evils of Ireland, he was of opinion that several of the
clauses of it would go greatly to aggravate them. This mea-
sure
went to lessen the number of bishops in Ireland, and to
diminish the number of clergy there, while it went to trans-
fer their property to the hands of lay commissioners, who
would have no fellow feeling with the people. If they passed
this measure they would condemn many parts of Ireland to the
misfortune of never seeing a Protestant bishop, and of never
being solaced and instructed in the true religion by a Protest-
ant pastor.
Mr. Hume said that in no parish in Ireland should a Pro-
testant clergman be left who bad no duties to perform and no
flock to attend to. He trusted that ere long the noble lord op-
posite, should he retain the situation he now occupied, would
see the necessity of extending the reform in the Irish church.
The doing so would be the best mode of promoting the real
interests of that establishment. It was plain that unless the
Catholics were relieved from every contribution for the support
of the Protestant church in Ireland, there never would be peace
in that country. He believed it was the intention of the noble
lord to do so by this measure; and if such was his intention,
nothing would more tend to produce peace and satisfaction in
Ireland. He (Mr. Hume) would have the church lands in Ire-
land sold out and out. (A laugh.) That was the way to pro-
mote the prosperity of Ireland. Let the funds arising from their
sale be applied as Parliament should think fit. They might de-
pend upon it that the establishment of a set of commissioners,
with this and that power, would never attain the result that the
sale of the church lands, as he recommended, would produce
towards establishing the prosperity of Ireland. He should sup-
port this reform; he would go as far as the noble lord, and he
wished he had gone further, and if the noble lord would not go
further, he hoped somebody else would. (Hear.)
Mr. SHAW was anxious to correct a misrepresention which
the right honourable secretary for the colonies had, uninten-
tionally of course, made on a former evening. The right
honourable secretary said that the Primate of Ireland had sug-
gested the reduction of the number of Irish bishops. Now, he
(Mr. Shaw) was able to say that the most reverend prelate
made no such suggestion. (Hear, hear.) No man, he was
sure, would be more ready than the right honourable secretary
to correct any error into which he had fallen; but he
must be allowed to say that inconsiderate statements sometimes
found their way and produced an effect where the contradiction
never reached, and such statements were doubly mischievous
when they proceeded from persons in high stations. (Hear.) I
Mr. STAN LET said he was aware that the statement which he
made on a former night was erroneous, and he had promised the
most reverend primate that he would take the first opportunity
of explaining it. He had stated that the most reverend primate
suggested the reduction of bishoprics as the best mode of obtain-
ing the fund for the payment of the clergy. The most reverend
prelate denied that he made the suggestion, and he would at
once admit that he did not do so. The suggestion came from
him, (Mr. Stanley,) and the most reverend prelate at once ad-
mitted, with great frankness, that if the fund was to be pro-
vided, there was no mode by hich it could be obtained so little
liable to objection as the reduction of the number of bishoprics.
The misstatement was evidently of no importance as regarded
his argument on the opinion of the most reverend prelate,
whom he had spoken of with the respect due to his talents and
virtues. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PETRE approved of the general scope of the bill, but ex-
pressed his objection to that part of it which authorizes the
application of the surplus to other than ecclesiastical purposes.
He called upon Irish members to aid the efforts of government
to allay the angry feelings which prevailed in Ireland, and said
that he was not a little astonished to hear the hon. and learned
member for Dublin, who was so ready to criticise the conduct
of others, oppose the bill that evening which he had so warmly
supported on a former occasion.—( Hear.)
Lord CASTLEREAGH contended that it was idle to attempt to
settle the question of a reform in the church of Ireland until
the government had previously settled the question of the suc-
cession to the Irish secretaryship.—(Hear, hear.) They (the
government) had, however, been most unfortunate in rendering
the settlement of every question they took in hand more difficult
than it was before. He concluded by declaring his opinion
that the foundations of the church of lingl4 nd would be loosened
the moment the interests of the church of Ireland were attacked.

The Speaker having left the chair,
Lord ALTHORP proposed that, on account of the lateness of
the hour, the Chairman report progress and sit again on Wed-
nesday next, which was agreed to.
The house having resumed,
The Limitation of Actions Bill was committed, and after a
few words from Mr. Lynch the report was ordered to be re-
ceived to-morrow (this day). On the order of the day for the
house resolving itself into a committee on the Dower Bill being
read,
Mr. Bk.AMIRE moved that the law should remain unaltered
as far as related to the dower of widows under the will of their
husbands, and that the words "by will" be omitted.
After a long desultory conversation, in which Mr. Strickland,
Mr. C. Fergusson, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Tooke, the At-
torney-General, and Mr. Lynch took part, the house divided,
when the numbers appeared:—
For the amendment . . . . . 21
Against it . . . . . . . 28

Majority against the amendment . 7
Tho report was ordered to be received to-morrow (this day).
Mr. ELLics gave notice of a motion that the house should
to-morrow resolve itself in a committee to receive the plan pro-
posed by His Majesty's government for the emancipation of the
slaves in the West India colonies.

The further consideration of the report on the Lunatics'
Commissions Bill was, after a few words from Lord G. Somer-
set, postponed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at 3 o'clock.