The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-23 00:00:00

surely offered no precedent for the appropriation of the church
revenues to any other than church purposes. It was evi-
dent, therefore, any
the measure before the house rested on no
precedent whatever, and must stand or fall by its own merits.
The preamble of the bill asserted that it was " expedient that
compulsdry assessments by vestries should be abolished in cer-
tain cases. Now, he by no means objected to this proposition.
He, indeed, would be a -bold man who should say, that under
all the circumstances the assessment by. vestries in Ireland
should be maintained. He would not aspire to such rashness
of assertion; in fact, he was an advocate for the reduction of
the assessment, and warmly supported the expediency of putting
an end to it in many cases; but then he would say that it was
absolutely necessary that the amount of the reduction should
be provided for in some other way than was pointed out in the
bill. I3ut by whom should it be provided? By the landed pro-
prietors, for the vestry cess was strictly a charge upon the land;
and he contended that the landed proprietors were bound, in
justice and equity, to pay the rate proposed to be imposed by
the bill before the house. When imposed upon the land it was
a just assessment, but when transferred to the clergy; as the
present bill proposed to do, it was the greatest piece of injustice
and fraud that could be perpetrated. He had, indeed, hoped
that the landlords of Ireland themselves, when the exigency
presented itself, would have come forward with honourable ea-
gerness to disclaim the disgrace and the shame of partaking of
the profits drawn from the church. It would be almost a shame
that they should refuse to defray the charge from their very
opulent purses, and throw it upon men who at the moment
he was speaking in too many instances did not even possess a
home. (Heat.) He was perfectly convinced they would not,
at least, do so from any base or sordid motives; and would
frankly own that there was nothing in the character of the
Irish landlords which ought to subject them to such a charge.
If the evidence before the committees of both houses were looked
to, it would be seen that the conduct of the Protestant clergy
was exhibited in the most gratifying light. Major Wood, who
was frequently in the prosecution of his avocation in close con-
tact with them, had borne the highest testimony to their cha-
racter, and stated that while all other branches of the higher
classes of society had deserted the Irish • population, the Pro-
testant clergy had remained to render their good offices, and
that had it not been for their philanthropic exertions every trace
of education and civilization would have been. wanting. He
asked, then, were these meritorious men to be treated in the
way in which the present bill proposed to them ? They had in
their favour the testimony even of Dr. Doyle himself; the tes-
timony also of the Bishop of Limerick and of the-Roman Catho-
lic priest Father O'Leary. The right rev. prelate then referred
to an opinion, we undersood deliveted by Father O'Leary,
respecting the Protestant clergy of Ireland, by which it repre-
sented that the interest o? the people of that country was espe-
cially directed to uphold the existence of that clergy. This
opinion was given in 1787, since which time the character of
the Protestant clergy had been much elevated in the estimation
of the great body of the people. After such evidence, would
their lordships consent to burden the clergy of Ireland with the
onus of the abolition of the vestry cuss? It ought to be borne
in mind that this charge on the clergy would be more than
equivalent to the highest property tax that ever the wildest politi-
cal theorist had ventured to propose. If restricted to the land-
lords, five farthings per cent. per annum might be adequate to
meet the whole charge. The rental of the lands in Ireland ex-
ceeded £12,000,000 if.' annum, and according to the valuation to
which he had adverted, the £63,000 might be made up without
touching the clergy at all. The real question was, whether the
house would consent to impoveish the clergy by levying this tax
upon them? But there was another consideration connected with
the question—that was, the uniform residence of the clergy in Ire-
land. The acts of benevolence they exercised when they were
resident were well ascertained, and even when not resident
their general kindness was conspicuous. EYery one who heard
him could not fail to bear evidence to the beneficial influence the
Protestant clergy exercised over the Irish people, and to the at-
tention they paid to their interests. Mr. Leslie Foster had given
some evidence as to the effects of the vestry cess, and when asked
whether it was regarded generally as a grievance, had said "that
where it was not necessary to build new churches, the amount of
cess, was very trifling—something like one penny and a fraction
per acre; but where it was necessary to build new churches,
,an
additional rate was imposed, varying from 2d., 3d., and 4d. to
Is. per acre, and in the latter case he thought it had excited dis-
satisfaction. Mr. Leslie Foster also spoke of the generous con-
duct of the noble marquis below (the Marquis of Lansdowne,
we believe) in his character of landlord, to which also other wit-
nesses deposed. He (the Bishop of Exeter) begged also to refer
to the evidence of another estimable witness, Colonel Currie, the
agent of a noble duke (the Duke of Devonshire) whom he did
not see in his place. Col. Currie expressed before the committee
his opinion to be, that if the church-rate were paid by the landlord,
it would remove all cause of complaint on the part of the tenants.
It was stated on the best authorities, that not less than two-thirds
of the whole landed property in Ireland was held by absentees,
and this fact was an ingredient to be taken into account upon
the present occasion. lie must also quote another evidence on
the subject of vestry cess, viz.,—Dr. Murray, the Roman Catho-
lic Archbishop of _Dublin. Dr. Murray had in his evidence
said, that if the church-rates, instead of being made a charge
upon the occupying tenants, were charged upon. the landlords,
he was induced to think it likely that dissatisfaction would cease.
He (the Bishop of Exeter) would admit that this evidence ap-
plied to the state of things existing in Ireland some years ago,
but these admissions lost nothing by the lapse of time, but were
equally valuable on the present occasion, for they admitted the
point of right and justice. The right rev, prelate proceeded to
observe, that from the report of a select committee appointed by
the House of Commons in 1830, to inquire into the state of the
poor in Ireland, it would be found that this committee -ex-
pressed their opinion that it was the duty of the government
and the legislature to consider what means should be devised
for diminishing the great mass of suffering, by providing for
the better management of estates in Ireland, and by the regu-
lation of the relation between landlord and tenant. (Hear.)
It might be said, that in the bill now before their lordships
other objects were contemplated besides the vestry cess, and for
thoae so much was to be taken away from the church. Those
objects were the augmentation of small livings, and to secure
the efficient performance of the service of the church and its
stability. Of these points he thought he had disposed, for he
had shown that there would he no funds for carrying any of
these objects into effect; on the contrary, all the funds under
the bill were taken to supply the place of the vestry cess; but
even supposing there might be a surplus, he must remind their
lordships that a tax was to be imposed on the clergy. It was
commonly supposed, nay, had been often asserted, and was
generally believed, that the property of the bishops of Ireland
was in fact property which had been transferred by acts of Par-
liament from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant bishops,
and it was argued, therefore, that an act of Parliament could
again make the transfer. The fact, however, was, that no such
transfer had ever been made, nor were there any such acts of
Parliament. In truth, when Henry Viii. threw off his alle-
giance to the Pope, his example had been folloWed by almost
all the prelates of that day, with the exception of some few whose
memories he (the Bishop of Exeter) honoured as having suffi-
cient principle to resist. The Archbishop of Armagh and some
of his suffragans did so resist, but the majority of the bishops
did conform, and by their hypocrisy retained the possession of
their sees ; and how had they used them ? They leased out
their lands, and acted in such a way as tended to enrich them-
selves and relatives, while they impoverished the reformed church.
This had been alluded to by a rev. prelate, D. Jeremy Taylor.
That rev. writer complained, that, at the time in question, the
episcopal sees were so wasted that they were utterly incapable
of maintaining the bishops appointed to them. That had been
one of the chief causes of the unions of sees that then took
place. In consequence of that, adopting a suggestion that had
been made originally by Cranmer, Lord Strafford had a com-
mission issued for the purpose .of devising means for making
suitable proviiion for the maintenance of the bishops in Ireland.
The result of that commission was, that a large portion of the
lands in the north of Ireland, forfeited in the rebellions of
Tyrone and others, was appropriated to the support of the bishops
there. Their lordships were aware that, at that period, the
whole of the north of Ireland was forfeited to the Crowu, which
made the foundation of the great Protestant settlement of Ulster.
It was on that occasion that so many of the ancestors of noble
lords, now sitting in that house, received from their sovereign
those vast properties which their descendants now held in the
north of Ireland ; and the bishops of the province of Ulster were
then also enriched from the same source. He was sure, there-
fore, that their lordships would see that the bishops of Ulster
had the same undoubted right to the property which they had
derived from that source, as those noble lords had to the pro-
perty which they had in the same way obtained in the north
of ' Ireland, and that, if their lordships should be ill-advised
enough to shake the opinion as to the right of property pos-
sessed by the bishops there, they would not merely be phin-
derers of the property of the church, they would be destroy-
ers of their own. (" Hear, hear ! " from the opposition.)
He did not believe that their lordships would be either.
But it was not merely in the north of Ireland that the re-
venues of the bishops did not constitute a property that had
been strictly and literally transferred to them from the
hands of the Roman Catholic bishops, but was property,with
which they had been endowed by a Protestant King.. That
endowment had also been extended to parts of the south of
Ireland. It so happened that by the 14th and 15th of Charles
11., which was well known as the Act of Settlement in Ireland,
a large portion of the forfeited property was given to the southern
bishops in Ireland. The right rev. prelate having read the 102 d.
clause of the act, to the effect he had stated, went on to say that
their lordships would see that the rights of those bishops were
placed exactly upon the same footing as the rights of the noble
lords who inherited property under that act. It somewhat re-
markably happened, that by the very preceding' c:ause of
,this
act, the 101st, a large property in the touth of Ireland was set-
tled upon the ancestor of one of their lordships. a he.right rev.
prelata here read the clause, which settled a large poi Lion of the
forfeited lands in the south of Ireland upon Sir W. Petty, his
heirs and successors. He proceeded to say that their lords)-lips
would perceive that the noble marquis (Lansdowne), one of the
authors of the present measure, and one of those that recom-
mended the sequestration of the property of the bishops in that
part of the country, was himself possessed of lands there, the
right to which rested upon exactly the mine foundation. (Hear,
hear.) • He would venture to advise that noble niarquis—Lbut
no—he would recall the word—he would not presume to advise
him what to do, but he would state wbat he himself would do were
he placed under similar circumstances, and were this measure
carried. He would, under such circumstances, sell all his pro-
perty in that part of Ireland, being well assured that the same
fate -which he himself had dealt to the property of the bishops there
would ultimately await his own. (Cheers from the opposition.)
The noble earl bad told them that it was right and proper,
not merely for the purpose of procuring funds to, meet the de-
mands now provided for by the vestry cess, butalso for the sake
of the church of Ireland itself, that the number of the Inehops
there should be diminished. The preamble of the bill had a
very modest statement on that point. It said, " Whereas the
number of bishops in Ireland maybe conveniently diminished."
Conveniently ! to whom, and for what? He could very well
understand that it might be convenient to those noble lords, and
to those right hon, gentlemen, who were endeavouring to ac-
complish that which it would be impossible to accomplish,
namely, to satisfy the cravings of a clamorous and greedy fac-
tion, by yieldingio its menaces, and treading in its footatepS.
(Cheers from the opposition.) To them it might he convenient
to propose such a measure with regard to the church of Ireland;
but could it be convenient to do so on the part of the faithful
counsellors of a Protestant King, which their lordships were?
(Hear, hear) Could it be "convenient" to those who were
entitled to give advice to their Sovereign, and who were bound
to give him just and proper advice, to advise that Sovereign,
who had sworn in the most solemn manner to maintain to the
utmost of his power the Protestant religion as by law esta-
blished, to preserve to all and every bishop 'his existing rights
and privileges, and to maintain inviolate the settlement of the
Protestant church it Ireland,—could itbe "convenient," he re-
peated, to the hereditary advisers of such a Sovereign to, join
with those who had recommended him to give his assent to a
measure that went to sacrifice the interests of that church ?
In addition to what he had already stated, another considera-
tion remained, which could not but be regarded with the deepest
concern in coming to a determination on the present measure.
What, he asked, would and must-be the feelings both of Pro-
testants and Roman .Catholics in Ireland if the legislature
should think fit to pass it? Was it possible that the Protestant
religion should be regarded by ail parties otherwise than as
having lost time countenance and favour of the legislature ?
Would it not appear that their lordships no longer regarded the
established church as an object worthy of support and pious
respect? (Hear.) Let it.be home in mind that the feelings
of Roman Catholics were now very different fi can what they
were wont to be. 'flint class of persons etsbibited a port, and