The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-07-28 00:00:00

Emptriat Vartiaintnt.

HOUSE-OF. COMMONS.--WEDNESDAY.
IRISH CHURCH BILL-ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Hems moved the order of the day for the adjourned de-
bate on the Irish church bill. He should not have offered a'
single observation on the bill had not the right hen. baronet (Sir
Robert Peel) especially referred to statemetits._made..by him
(Mr. Hume) in 1822. The information that he made use of at
that time was derived from Mr. Wakefield's book on Ireland,
in,which the revenues of the church was estimated at £3,200,000,
giving an average for each benefice of £475. If this was ex-
aggeraffon, at least he had not been so far wrong as the noble
lord (Stanley) who'stated the revenues at £327,090. The right
hon. baronet had not offered one reason for dividing the bill,
but his object was to destroy it. The right hon. baronet had
shown, by a scheme 'of extinction, that every £lOO was to: be-
come £57, and that; for at least one hundred years, there could
not possibly .be 'auy surplus. 'Stich being the case then, the
right hon. baronet ought not to have opposed the bill going into
committee, when the clauses that might relate to an alteration
of the system might have been improved: He had, hOwever,
shown in his speech that the bill was not altogether a bad one,
fur even-the right hon, baronet had stated• his approiat of. the
division of the conntry,into districts, and that termed a poftion
of the provisions of the bill.. He •(Mr. Hume) valited• the bill
because of its principle: and as it would be an earnest to the
people oflreland of what they meant to do furthem.- It teas a
question for the people of England,' as much affecting their in-
terest as that of the people of Ireland. If thislbill passed he
thought the system would still require revision at some future
period; but the bill would put down sinecures and tion-tesi-
dents, and that would be something for the people, whci had
never anything done for them. If the tight hon. gentleman or
his friends had the means of rejecting the bill, they must put
their hands into tbeirpockets, because if they did refuse it ano-
ther million would be wanted, and he hoped the people of
England would never allow another farthing to be disbursed on
that account. The bill should be supported, although it was not-
the best bill that could be.

Mr. Gouoitinst said that in calling upon the house to divide
this bill, he was only acting in strict confortoity with the rules
of parliament. There were parts of the bill Which he was not
unprepared to give his support to, but there were other parts to
which he had the strongest possible objection—(hear, hear)-
-therefore he had no alternative but to divide it into Save bills,
and he hoped the House of Commons, by their vote that night,
would sanction and approve of such a division. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman then alluded to the several measures
for the-regulation of the-church which had been introduced by
his friends and himsolf, and said he was- convinced that More
reform could be effected by a proper distribution of chufeh pa-
.tronaee than by any legislative measure. The principle, of ap-
propriation applied with equal force to the choral of England
ris to the church of Ireland. Were hon. geetleareu prepared
-to lay dorm the principle in England; that in parishes where
there were not fifty members of the established church, that
there should be no resident clergyman ?—(hear)—and if it was
necessary to maintain the respectability of the clergy, he did not
See how a distinction could be 'properly made between England
and Ireland. Ile objected to the principle of making ministers
dependent upon the congregations for support. He wished to
treat this question as a religious one, and he felt convinced that
to promote true religion it was necessary to have establishments.
He believed all were anxious that the protestant religion should
be extended to Ireland, and, in his opinion, that could only be
done by an establishment whose members would show a speci-
men of the religion they professed. After some further obser-
vations the right hen. gentleman said, in the diocese of Water-
ford there were one hundred and eleven parishes, in seventy-five
of which the protestant population was under fifty, and in only
thirty-four parishes was the population above fifty. Yn the
diocese of Clogher the protestant congregations, it appeared by
the census. of 1831 and 1834, were numerous. Now, let the
house mark the relative iucrease of protestantisin in these two
dioceses. In the seventy-five parishes in the diocese of Water-
ford, the Roman catholic population, since the year 1831, have
increased 31 per cent. • the protestant population, in the same
period, bad increased '3O per cent. (Hear, hear.) In the
diocese of Clogher, where the parishes were larger, the catholic
population had increased 31 per cent., and the protestant 31
per cent., therefore it appeared that in the small parishes pro-
testantism had increased in the ratio of 30 per cent. to 31- per
cent. of catholics, Whilst in the larger parishes the increase of
protestants and catholics were nearly equal. lie (Mr.- Gout-
burn) would contend that there was nu surplus if a proper pro-.
vision was.made for ,the spiritual, yents of Ireland., 'the hon.
member forMiddleaex said, "if thereis no surplus, why quarrel
about it?" Ile (Mr. Goulburn) was confident it WAS holding
out promises to Ireland which never could be fulfilled,- that
_caused such discontent and_rebelliun .iu that country. lie-did
not wish to promise relief- and not give it; on this ground
therefore, he objected to the hills as it held out promises which
never- cotild.be realized. (.Hear, hear.) The spiritual wants
Sof the church of Ireland were , more than sufficient for all the
surplus revenue that ever could arise. (Hear,-hear.) If the
house agreed to the system of appropriation contained in the bill,
it would be called upon year after year to make more and more
sacrifices. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PCSEY regretted that lie should be obliged to act in op-
position to those hon. friends with whom he usually voted, but
lie was confident that if the bill were now law it would be of the
greatest benefit to Ireland, and would increase the number of
resident clergymen.
Sir JAMES tittAHAM, in a long and able speech, supported the
motion. The right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) in reply to the speech of Sir Robert Peel, had
grappled with figures to a sufficient extent to burn his fingers.
(Laughter.) Admitting with the right hon. gentleman that
there were 41 benefices in which there were no protestants ;
there were, on the other hand, 61 benefices, in each of which
there were a church and clergyman, and a large protestant
population, where nothing was paid for the support of the •
clergy. If the present measure were carried, five veers would
not elapse before the principle would be extended to England.
(Hear.) And it was because he was most anxious to prevent a
similar measure being extended to his own country that he so
strenuously opposed this. But-if the church revenues were to
be applied to other than church purposes, he would much rather
see it given to the protestant dissenters of England than to the
Roman catholics of Ireland. (Loud cheers from the opposition
side of the house.) He warned hon. members about what
they were going to sanction.. If they considered the established
church as good and useful in itself;. if they wished to propogate
protestantism; if they wished to guard against atheism on the
one hand or religious fanaticism on the other; if they wished
to maintain a church consonant' With sound notions of authority
on the one hand, and on the other with perfect freedom of cciu-
science and inquiry—he called Upon-Them, if such was their in=
tentionosto maintain boldly the protestant church. (Hear.)
He was a friendto religious toleration, but he confessed he did
not pay much regard to religious conscience when it was. ex-
pressed in tha shape of resistance to the money payment of a
legal impost. (Cheers.) lie confessed he had no respect for
the conscience of agitation, or for the conscience of an 'annual
Ltd:rate, , (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.!'). -Nor
had he any respect for the -doetrine.of death's head and cross-
bones. ((Loud cheers, and cries of" Oh!") should make
no roncessioui (Cheers.) Ile should snake every sacrifieeld
favour of. the established church. (Laud cheers_)
Lord Llowlex • said it appeared to bi'm that the one. tzre6t,
indeed the single argument of the right hon. member for Tam-
worth{ of 'the hon. member for the Cniversity of CaMbridg.e,
and of his right bun. friend who had just sat down, was, that in
fact there would be no remaining surplus after the expenses fur
the maintenance of the protestant church had been provided for.
(Hear, hear.) There had certainly been elaborate,calculations
made to prove that after an equal division of the property Of the
established church there would not be found to be any more
than vs-Mild suffice for adequate stipends for the clergy—he would
not, however, go into these calculations, because they were as
untertain as the arguments brought forward to• sustain them.
(Hear.) If even the calculations themselves were correct he
considered that they were an insufficient basis for the conclu-
sions which were attempted to be drawn from them. (Hear,
hear.) The people of Ireland complained thht a national
endowment had been applied in such a mariner as not to pro-
duce those purposes of utility for which it was intended ; and
believing as he did, that a national establishment was necessary
fur the promotion of religion he supported the present bill as
the only means of giving efficiency to the establishment in
Ireland'. The only argument in favour of the right honourable
baronet's motion was that of the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber fur Cambridge, Cllr. Goulburn,) and what was this argu-
ment ? It was that two subjects which were distinct should not
be united—and that no two subjects were more distinct than
those tinder consideration, and that the same view as had been
taken by him, (Mr. Goulburn,) had been taken by a firmer
government, which acted upon the same principles as those of
the present administration. His (Lord Ilowiek's) answer to
that was, that instead of being distinct, the appropriation and
the collection of tithes were indissolubly connected. ( " Hear,"
and cheers.) What was the great cause of the difficulty in
collecting tithes ? Was it thought that it was merely that the
tenantry of Ireland were harrassed by the mode of collection,
or that such a superficial argument could possibly have weight ?
He (Lord Howick) would say that the real cause of the difi-iculty
was the rooted hostility of the people of Ireland—the feeling of
gross injustice they entertained as to the exclusive appropriation
of what should not have been so appropriated. The 'mode of
collection had been changed, but opposition was still continued';
and the noble lord (Stanley) had said that an instance of
resistance to rents had occurred to him, because he had taken
upon himself to pay the tithe. By admission of all parties the
hostility of the people of Ireland was to the present application
of church revenues, and yet were they to be called upon to strike
out of a bill intended to-provide for the collection of tithes .the
'main proof of the difficulty of collecting them ? (" Hear," and
cheers.) The application of the revenue was indisputably the
origin of the" evil, which would break out with double force
unless the provision objected to formed a portion of the remedy.
(Loud-cries of "Hear," and cheers.) The rejection of this
measure would strengthen the influence of the hon. and learned
member for Dublin. If they wished the union between . the
two countries to be preserved they would pass the bill as it then
stood before the house. The rejection of it might lead to a dis-
solution fatal to the interest of this country. lle should con-
elude by repeating his observations, namely, that it would-die
better to reject the bill altogether than to mutilate it in the
manner proposed by tne right hon. baronet. He called upon
the house to adhere to their resolution, and not crush the hopes
they had raised ; if they did so it would have been better not to
have raised these hopes.—The debate was then adjourned tit
the next day.

• • HOUSE OF LORDS.—TnunsDAY•
Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition from Newcastle-
on-Tyne, praying that the inchcate rights of the freemen of that
town may be preserved in Eny measure which their lordships
may pass with reference to the regulation of municipal cur-,
porations.

Lord Silt.%Front) presented a petition, signed by 558 out of
780 freemen of Poole, in favour of the municipal corporations
bill.

The report of the seamen enlistment bill was brought up and
agreed to.—Adjourned.

110 USE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY.

I -------• ---
The Speaker took the chair at twelve o'clock. At this sitting
several bills were forwarded a stage.
The Speaker resumed the 'chair at five o'clock.
THE irswicri ELECTION.
John Eddowes Sparrow was brought to the bar, reprimanded
by the Speaker, and discharged on payment of fees. •
LNST.MPED NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. ROBINSON, after stating that he understood that a gross
violation of the law had taken place by the open publication of ,
an unstamped newspaper, asked the Attorney-General if any
steps had been taken on the subject, and whether he intended
to enforce the law? 'There had been already many prosecutions
against smaller classes of persons guilty of the offence of pub-
lishing and vending penny magazines; but now there was a
case in which great offenders, many he believed of very great
consequence, were implicated.
The ATTORNEI-GENERAL replied that, as long as the tax on
newspapers continued to be legally imposed, be would take care
that it was neither to be violated nor evaded with impunity.
He considered it would be a most crying injustice if the man
who disobeyed the law should be allowed to undersell the honest
man who obeyed the law, because he did obey the law. With
respect to great offenders, if the honourable member Itould
point them out, be they high or low, he (the Attorney-General)
would most certainly put the law in force against them.

CHURCH OF lIIELANn—'•ADJOURNED DEBATE..
WARD opened the debate. He said that Sir Robert
Peel 'looked to the interests of the Irish clergy, while he (Mr.
Ward)-looked to,tliat of the Irish people. Sir Robert wished
to have the Irish church on the most extensive basis, while he
(Mr. Ward) would contend for the necessity, of reducing it to
'the: smallest -scale.. He thought it an hardship that catholics
should -be called upon-to support an establishment from which
they derived no benefit, &c. Mr. Ward contended that any
right constituted by law the law could change.
Lord STANLEY interrupted Mr. Ward, by asking him whe-
ther an act of parliament could affect the gtrathfieldsiYe pro-
perty ?
Mr. WARD replied that the grouu4s on'-which the grant of
that property was made were nationa gratitude. (Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL remarked that-the proprietor of Strathheld-
save might forfeit it, and, therefore, that it might be taken from
him.

Mr. WARD proceeded to argue at great length the necessity
of establishing the church of Ireland as proposed by the bill.
The house would act dishonestly if it did not abide by itspledge;
if it gave up the principle to which the majority had acceded,
and to which he believed a majority would still adhere.
Sir R. BATaSON addressed the house at great length. He
said that he had heard with dread and apprehension the senti-
ments which had been expressed by. Mr. Ward and Lord
Howick, and more especially when he placed them in con-
nexion with the expressions uttered in another place by the
head of the ministry. When that individual talked of the plun-
der and confiscation made in the times of Oliver Cromwell and
Charles 11., he (Sir B. Bateson).construed. it' into a threat of
much precariousness to the property of the landlords of Ireland.
An honourable member had alluded to the numerical strength
of the Irish and Scotch members in favoar of this bill. • How-
ever that might be, he was satisfied that the majorityof English
members would never pass this bill through the' house; and he
would further say, that in his opinion the present question was
one upon which the. human catholic members ought riot to give
a vote. He might, be -denounced as a bigot and a fanatic; he
might be he held up to the execration of his own constituents;
but such was his honest opinion thus spoken fearlessly and
independently. (Hear, hear.)
• •
Mr. SHELL spoke against the motion.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON. repliedla the arguments of Mr. Shell.
The her durable and learned member, in the course of his
speech,- said he had received a great number.of letters from.-Ire-
land complaining; that justice was not dune to the proteitant
population in that country, and he knew that other honourable
gentlemen had received similar communications.. ( Hear, hear.)
But the - report, such as it was, did contain sonic statements
which demonstrated that a great improvement lied taken place
in the conditieu of the protestant pepulation of Ireland. Tak-
ing first the diocese of Ardfert, he found that in the two periods
mentioned in
,the report of 1831 and 1831 the state of the pro-
t-etaiit. copulation in different parishes was at follows:
. earitsuls. NIT). ti, PRO'IIisTANTS.

1831.•- --
.' 1834.
Ballvhujar. 4l .. • . 96
Castle Island, 4 parishes 252 . 291
Dromod .32 .. .. 49
Kilcttshan ..129 .. 164
Kilgobbiu - 102
Kilnaughten .531 .. 562
Dingle 228 .. .. 249
With reference to the last-mentioned parish of Di... Fie, he
would state a circumstance that ought to have some weight-in
that house. He was one of those who contended that a church
establishment ought not to depend on the amount of the popu-
lation which belonged to it. The principle on which a religion.
ought to be established in any country was the principle that the
state was bound to provide for the people's instruction. (Cheers
from the ministerial benches.) He maintained that it was the
bounden duty of the state to make adequate provision fur the
instruction of the people (cheers from the ministerial benches)
in that religion which was deemed by the state to be the true
religion. (Loud cheers from the. opposition.) He stated that
opinion broadly. Hon, gentlemen might dissent from it, but
be had a right to maintain and. express it. (Cheers.) With
respect to the clergy in Ireland, he repeated, that they were in-
defatigable in the performance of their duties, and that they
were engaged. in preaching' the gospel both in season and out
of season. With respect to the parish of Dingle he did happen
to know that about two years ago, when a right hon. and learn-
ed friend of his was eligaged on the Munster circuit, it was
visited by two clergyi&n of the established. church, They
preached to the people in their native tongue, in the Market-
house, which was completely tilled by the concourse of people,
in spite of the opposition of the Roman catholic priests, and
every person who attended joined with them in prayer. What
was the consequence of the zeal exhibited by these clergymen
—an increase in the number of protestants in that parish from
228 to 249. The hon. and learned gentleman here stated that
the spread of the protestant religion in Ireland . had been
greatly impeded at the time of the first introduction of the re-
formed religion, by the. appointment to benefices of men igno-
,
rout of the native language, and incapable fitly to discharge
their important duties. A great change, however, 'bad taken
place in this respect, and the result had seen, au increase of '
the protestant population in thesarious diocesses through Ire-
land from 1831 to 1834. The hon. and learned gentleman here
read the following statement of the protestant: population' in
various parishes in the diocess of Kilinore, Meath, Armagh,
Leighlin, and 'roam :

NO. OF PROTESTANTS.
18.31. 1834.
Ennismagrath . 454 .. .. 483
Ballygarth
Carlow. 1,409 .. 1.755
Cloufert West .1,1)21 1,121
St. Peter's 486
.. 592
Burrishoole . 45 .
5 . 497
Abbey Struwuy .. '2lO 246
St. Mary Standen .1,564 1,666
Achil 76 .. .. 156
With regard to the parish of Achil, he would mention the sys-
tem of persecution which had been put in practice against a
protestant clergyman, who went there for the purpose of at-
tending to, the discharge of his spiritual duties. He establish-
ed several schools in the parish, and spent upwards of f.:1,5C0
in making improvements there, in founding a dispensary, and
in providingthe people with clothing. Yet he was denounced
from the altar by the Roman catholic priests , the children who
went to his schools were attacked, and the clergyman himsea
was literally hunted out of the place.
LOrd MostreTit commenced by say iAg that the subject had
at the commenceineut of the session been discussed- ahnost to
the process of exhaustion—he had on the introduction of this
bill had an opportunity of explaining the,details of the bill—
and therefore might naturally have concluded that he was ex-
empt frpm the duty (If addressing the house on the present
-occasion; but in the present discussion there had been some
things stated which he considered the grossest misrepreseuta-
tions. The noble lord then proceeded to speak at great length
in answer to Sir R. Peel. The noble lord said in conclusion,-
the right hon. baronet (Sir. R. Peel) had stated that of the two
alternatives which were open to them, the more manly would
be to establish at once the ltomau catholic religion. Arid the
right lion. member for the University of Dublin stated the other
night, that rather than agree to this till he. was prepared to con-
sent to the total demolition of the church establishment. For
that alternative he not prepared. (Hear, hear.) He OW
,ayisleto maintain thechureb establiShinent;*he hoped to improve
it, but if they left it as it was—costly, cumberous, and disliked,-
sure he was they would loose all chance of saving it. (Hear.)
Most' intimately was he persuaded, though' he .knew he could
'gain no credit for the opinion, knowing that the state of things,
andatid dpearritdieesd,inbtuhtemceosutnitnrisitnwtiotnelldy,necessarily cause it to be scouted
that it was upon that (the
ministerial)
it)h esliedses,of wasth he e
hpersuaded
t
they were fighting the real battle of the Irish church. (Hear,
from the ministerial Leeches.) Why, was it not so? A par-
liament, elected under an appeal to the people almost on, this
very point, had distinctly resolved that it would connect and
couple the settlement of the property in tithe with the assistance
and the working out of the principle of appropriation. (Hear.)
Those on the other side of the house, with their high principles
-on that point, could not meddle with the principle of appropria-
tion, and therefore most logically it seemed to hint to follow
they could not settle the tithe question. (" Hear," from the
Irish members.) Let them leave the question unsettled; that
house might throw out the bill—the other house of pallid:tient
would throw it out; but when the excitement of a triumPhant
majority was passed away—when angry invective was still—
when the arithmetic of that report of the commissioberY'of pub-
lic instruction, backed as it had been by the recounnendations
of the• right hon. baronet (Sir H. Peel), worked its sure and
steady progress in the minds of the people of this country,—
When they had leisurely opportunities to weigh proportions, and
to digest tarts, he very much doubted whether, when they met
at the commencement of another session of parliament, the pros-
pects of the established church would be found to have materi-
ally brightened in the interval (cheers front the Irish members),
ana whether they would not find that the
_real, though less ex-
citable, well-wishers to that church did not find their means of
supporting and strengthening it materially curtailed by the
ruinous success of her misjudging friends and suicidal allies.
(Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY followed.—Alluding to the speech of, Sir R.
Peel, Lord Stanley said, they had been told by hon. members
on the other side, that no gentleman, or that few who had ad-
dressed them from that (the opposition) side, had dealt with the
question really before them, and that even the right hon.
b-aronet (Sir If. Peel) himself, who opened the question, had
prefaced it in a speech leading to a different conclusion from
the motion with which he terminated his address to the house.
In his (Lord Stanley's) opinion, there never was a speech bear-
ing on the face of it; and admitted to be by the hon. member
for Middlesex, a demonstration which no mathematical power
short of that possessed by the hon. member (Mr. Hume) him- -s
self was capable of grappling with. (Loud laughter.) "'here
never was a speech which by a cumulative process of induction,
step by step so triumpliantlj' challenging contradiction, unmet
and unreluted from first to last, led at once and by so unavoid- ,
able a consequence to this conclusion—that if they wished to be
guided by reason and justice—if they would allow themselves to
be swayed by argument—if they wished to avoid absurdity, they
must, in compliance with their own resolutions, separate this
bill into two parts, and discuss the one question it embodied
apart from the other. (Cheers.) His lordship, after examin-
ing the question with great ability, closed his speech by saying
that he entertained a hope that on no consideration would a
protestant parliament be induced to sanction a measure like the
present, which was fraught with danger to the interests of the
protestant religion, not only in Ireland, but in England--a
measure which, if it passed into a law, would carry discord into
the land, and renew that course of outrage which had so long
existed in Ireland—he therefore implored the house to consider
the question before it, and to consent at all events to divide the
bill.

PARISHES.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. O'CoNNuLL then successively
addressed the house. On a division. the numbers were—for Sir
It. Peel's amendment 282—against it 319—majority 37.

• • HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY..
The business before the house on this day uas wholly con-
fined to the reception of pet►tions, and to forwarding several
bills a stage On these the discussions were void of any inte-
rest. The house, on rising, adjourned to Monday, (yesterday.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY.
The Speaker took the chair about four o'clock, and several
petitions were presented.

JEWS SERVING THE OFFICE OF HIGH SHERIFF.

The ATTottNay-GENEttat. brought in a bill, and moved that
it be read a first time, for removing all doubts as to oaths taken
and declarations made by sheriffs of counties and counties of
cities—a measure, the hon: gentleman observed, which was ren-
dered necessary in consequence of the election of a Jewish gen-
tleinan to serve as sheriff of London.
The bill was then read a first time, and the hon. and learned
gentleman gave notice for its second reading on Tuesday next.
Mr. LAW expressed his full concurrence in the measure, and
hoped it would be speedily passed through both houses of par-
liament.

MR. HOGG'S PROTEST.
Sir R. INGLIS moved that there should be laid on the table of
the house a copy of the protest of Mr. Hogg, one of the commis
sioners of inquiry into municipal corporations, in the matter of
the report presented to his Majesty by certain of the said cou►-
miss►oners. He had com►nunicated with the noble lord oppo-
site, (Lord J. Russell,) and had ascertained that his motion
would not be opposed by him.
Mr. Goutticari observed, that the noble lord had refused his
assent to this information being afforded when he (Mr. Goul-
burn) had formerly tuoved for_►t. The bill had now passed this

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.