The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-05 00:00:00

them try what experiments they pleased in political matters,
but let them not, he would entreat them, try the experiment
how they could do without a national religion. The hon. gen-
tleman concluded by saying that he would not propose an
amendment upon the first resolution.
Mr. PRY ME contended that it was the undoubted right of the
legislature to deal with church property in whateVer manner it
should consider most conducive to the public good. '1 he hon.
and learned gentleman had compared church property with
private property, but it would be found upon examination that
such a comparison would not stand. The property of private
indiViduals had been acquired either by their own labour, or
by that of their progenitors ; but the property of the church
was in every sense of the world public property ; it consisted
of stipendspaid to the clergy for public services, and the clergy
were as strictly public functionaries as were the judges, or other
seritants of the state. He was sure that the Protestants of
Ireland were not so short signed as to join in calling for a mea-
sure which would be certain to be followed by such results.
He would give his cordial support to the resolution. Ile was
confident that this measure would be beneficial, not only to the
interests of the state and the country, but also to the interests
of the clergy themselves.
Sir JOHN HANMER said if this bill should pass into a law it
would be a. violation of the coronation oath—a direct violation
of the articles of union' and a great violation of the the sacred
rights of property, and he felt it his duty therefore to give it all
the opposition m his power. This measure, one of the first
born of that the reformed House of Commons, was for mon-
strous injustice tinparalled in the history of any former Parlia-
ment. He felt the necessity there was for passing some meas
sure of reformation for the security of the church, but to such
a measure as this lie would give his utmost opposition.—
He would not nswer for the consequences of such a measure if
it should be once passed into a law. He would not say that it
would lead to things equal in atrocity to the murder of Arch-
bishop Sharpe, and the downfall of the episcopal establishment.
Mr. Sitim., said that the argument drawn from the sth article
of the Act of Union had been relied on by Mr. Canning and
refuted by Mr. Brougham. In 1825 Mr. Canning had called
on the clerk to read the article on a motion of the member for
Middlesex relative to the church. Mr. 13rongham observed
that the two churches were to- be united in "government, dis-
cipline, and faith." Temporalities were not mentioned. "Ex-
presruin facit cessare taciturn." The framers of the ACt of
Union could not have omitted the word " temporalitida" with-
out a purpose. He (Mr. Sheil) thought that this observation
was conclusive, unless "discipline and government" were a
paraphrase for riches, and in the vocabulary of the ecclesiastics
"faith" was synonymous with gold. He was the worst enemy
of the union who relied on it in sustainment of the establish-
ment, and he was the worst enemy of the English who asso-
ciated it with the Irish church. The member for the Univer-
sity of Dublin had threatened the government with the anger
of the Irish Protestants, and hinted that they might throw their
allegiance off. Surely the hon. gentleman, the representative
of the subordination and peaceful habits of a learned and tran-
quil body, did not mean to say that Protestant loyalty was the
result of Protestant monopoly, that the devotedness to England
of that respectable body was of a mercenary character, and that
their attachment to their sovereign was derived from the meanest
of all motives, and was little else than the sordid product of pecu-
niary calculation. The hon. gentleman then made some copi-
ous references to the earliest writers on the history of the church,
and continued them down to the act abolishing episcopacy in
Scotland, all tending to show that the church was public pro-
perty, and liable to Parliamentary interference, and concluded
by saying that those accumulated facts established beyond all
doubt the constant interference in almost every country with
ecclesiastical possessions, and •it only remained that the legis-
lature should, in the present circumstances of the country, act
boldly and frankly on the principle which must obviously afford
the basis of their enactments. A compromise 'among them-
selves would avail nothing. They must build their legislation
on some principle, and what could it be, except the right of ap-
propriating the surplus revenues of the establishment? Let
them say so, let them make proclamation of this principle, and
it would do more for the pacification of the country than is
whole code of rigour could accompliSh. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HALCOMB expressed his determination to oppose the bill.
He considered it most unjust to relieve the land from the pay,
ment of the vestry cess and to place a tax upon the working
clergy. By agreeing to the bill the house would establish a
principle most dangerous to the church of England.
Mr. WARRE said that as the hon. member who spoke laSt
had raised an objection with respect to the coronation oath, he
would take the liberty of reading a passage from an opinion.
expressed by the Bishop of Llandaff in 1800, in reply to a simi-
lar objection. The passage was as follows :—" The coronation
oath is the confirmation of a promise made by the King to the
people, but the obligation of that promise is absolved when the
people, speaking °by the two houses of Parliament, declare that
they do not on certain points require the performance of it"—
He cordially supported the plan prOposeatby ministers, because
he thought it impossible to avoid making some change with re-
spect to the church establishment in Ireland, and he believed
that the present moment was the best period for effecting it.
Mr. GILL ON thought that the plan proposed by ministers was
not sufficiently extensive; it ought to have embraced the aboli-
tion of tithes. • . .

Mr. MACAULAY said he was so convinced of the importance
of carrying this measure, and that rentlering it more strong
would render its progress more difficult, that he 'was
.prepared
to meet any amendment to that effect with the " previous ques-
tion." The objection that the agreeing to the proposed mea-
sure would be a violation of the King's coronation oath was, he'
contended, altogether without force. The same argument had
been used against the Test and Corporation Act ana the Catho-
lic Relief ; but what did that oath imply? That the King
should govern the church with such rights as by law shall ap-
pertain to her, thus leaving the operation of the legislature for
any enactment which it might feel necessary. If the legisla-
ture, as was contended, had no such right, Ilion every emcct-
mentof the legislature interfering with the church would imply
perjury in every case. The object of the oath was not to pre-
vent any interference of the legislature with the conceins of the
church, but to guard against such measures as those which Were
proposed by James 11.-.
Sir R. 'INGLIS said he little thought that he should have been
called on to enter into a defence of the Protestantism of Eng-
land, and much less of the Protestantism of any of her great and
learned institutions. Those who formerly left bequests to their
academic institutions did so for the glory of God and the instruc-
tion of the youth of the realm, and to such purposes their be-
quests were still applied. The question was not now Whether
they should support the Protestant Church of Ireland, or the
Protestantism of the University of Oxford, or whether they were
to impose a graduated property tax on a small portion of the
community without the consent of the ministers of the church
who were interested in it; no, the immediatiate question was,
whether an ecclesiastical commission should be appointed to su-
perintend the affairs of the church. That was the practical ef-
fect of the first resolution, which declared—" That it is the opi-
nion of this committee, that it is expedient that the Lord-Lieu-
tenant of Ireland should be authorised to appoint ecclesiastical
commissioners for the purpose of carrying nit() effect any act
.that may be passed in the present session of Parliament to alter
and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the church
in Ireland; and that the said Lord-Lieutenant be empowered
to order and appoint such salaries or other emoluments as he
shall deem fit to be paid to such commissioners, not being bi-
shops." That was, to divest the crown in a great measure of the
superintendence over church proorty in 'lreland. No reason
whatever had been shown for taking from the crown its right of
superintendence over church property, and as little had been
advanced to .proye the necessity. of contracting the number of
bishoprics. He should like to know what WitS to be done with
the patronage of the reduced sees. Was it also to be placed at
the disposal of these commissioners?

Mr. FINCH said, that the Protestant clergy of Ireland had
exerted themselves with great zeal and with not a little success.
They had entered on the task of disseminating education with
much alacrity; and the-consequence was that 20000 Roman
Catholic children were educated by their efforts. That success,
too, it should be observed, was obtained in opposition to the ex-
ertions of the Roman Catholic priests. '1 he next thing they
endeavoured to do was to establish a standaid of faith; and with'
that view tens of thousands of copies of the Bible were distri„
buted through Ireland; and that likewise in opposition to the
exertions of the Catholic priesthood. The Irish language was
also studied, and the clergy were thus enabled to preach in that
language. So much for what the Protestants had done. But, '
on the other hand, what was the conduct of the. government
Did ministers, during the last parliament, evince adesire to up-
hold that species of education in Ireland? They did not. Jri-
stead of proceeding on the old system, they had patronized a
new system Of education that hid been approved of by Dr.
Doyle. These ware riot the' parties that ought to be conciliated.
Ministers ought, on the contrary, strenuously to support the
church party. If the incomes of any of the bishops were too
large, why let them be diminished, but let not the legislaturecut down the number of bishops. As vacancies'. occur, let Men'
of apostolic habits, of pure morals, who had studied the IriAli
language, and who could, like the Bishop of 'Nam, preach
that tongue,—let such men be appointed, and reformation in
' religion would soon spread throughout Ireland. The noble
lord, in introducing his. proposed alteration, had declared it was
necessary on account of abuses. He would ask, what abuses?
Assuredly no abuses had been proved?
Lord Aymara. said the hon. 'member' for the University Of