The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-07-15 00:00:00

•

---
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he felt' it his di
to state that his opinion respecting this measure still 'i-
nstilled unaltered, and he still persisted in his opposition
to it. The disputes of a Corporation were always to be
settled before a Court of Justice, and not by Parliament,
which was not to take upon itself the duty of re-modelling
a Corporation.
Lord REDESDALE declared that lie could have no
personal objection in giving his opposition to this Bill.
The ground on which he objected to it was one connected
with oublic duty; and in that respect, bethought the•
passing of it would lead t• a most dangerous precedent.
sloe most objectionable part of the measure was, that
several thousand freemen were to have the Government
of the City of Limerick; and if be was an inhabitant of
the city, he should be very sorry to have'such a Govern-
ment as this. The Bill, instead of restoring vitt, would
only produce new dissensions in the City of Limerick
Instead of •this Bill restoring peace and trammillity
among the inhabitants of Limerick, he was satisfied it
would be a source of additional dissension.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN hoped that howentet
necessary it might be to maintain the principles of cor-
porate rights, it was equally needful to take care that the
corporation exercised their power fur the atfrantage of
the inhabitants, and with strict justice to them. With
regard to the objections to the Courts of d'OyerHundred,
which the Bill proposed, there could not be any just ap-
prehension from them, as similar Courts were held ender
the Charters of Cork and Galway. There was not, in
fact, a single proposition in the Bill, which was not taken
from precedent in former cases. He would only in addi-
tion say, that the subject was viewed with the greatest
anxietyat Limerick, and that the petition from thatplace
presented to their Lordships, was signed by almost every
respectable person not a member of the corporation. He
was satisfied of the expediency, the legality, and justice
•f the Bill.
Lord MAN VERB supported the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
IRISH TITHES' BILL.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved that the Irish Tithe
Composition Bill be reported with amendments.
Tee Marquess of LANSDOWN proposed that the clause
respecting the owners of agistment lands be left out.

The Earl of WESTMORLAND defended the clause.
The Earl of ROSSLYN supported the amendment.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL supported the clause. as the
owners of agistment lands in Ireland were a most wealthy
eless.and they had a fair option by the Bill. The exclusion
of the clause would lead to great and certain confusion.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN explained.
Lord MARY BOROUGH supported the clause, as The
egistment land of Ireland consisted of at least one-half the
land in Ireland.

The Earl of BLESSINGTON opposed the dense.
Lord BELMORE objected to certain provisions of the
Bill. i
The Earl of LIVERPOOL explained the nature of the
elapse.
The Earl of BLERSINGTON said, that if this Chine
were to benefit the Clergy he should oppose it. He did not
think that whilst the flock was materially decreasing, the sti-
pend!: of the pastors ought to be increased.
Tae Bishop of DOWN supported the clause.—Had not
the compulsory clause been omitted in the Bill. he was em-
powered to present a petition against it, signed by three
Archbishops, sixteen Bishops, and upwards of six hundred
Clergy.—The Bill he thought would work well, and tend to
establish pence and order in the country.
The Earl of DARNLEY said, he would offer no opposi-
tion to the Bill, although he could not agree with the Right
Rev. Prelate in opinion, that it would prove a ■ of
s(f much advantage to Ireland. He thought the Bill very
imperfect ; but he still bailed it as an attempt to relieve the
Pt ale o! Ireland from a very oppressive grievance.
Lord CLIFDEN asked, was it not possible to get rid of
the tithes altogether, by selling them for their full value?
The Noble Lord adverted ,to the present state of Ireland,
and asked was it possible that things could go on in their
present condition in that country! It was in vain be
thotight to look for peace 10 Ireland, as long as gig millivolts,.
nearly a third of the whole population of the empire, were
kept out of their rights. . .
The Marquess of L INSDOWN said he would not press

the amenduient.
The amendment was then .mgatived; and the Report be-
ing agreed to, the Bill was ordered to be read a third time
tomorrow.
IRISH CIIII7:ICHES' BILL. •
The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved that the Irish Churches'
Bill be read a third time. _ 2

Lord HOLLAND asked If It was intended that this VIII
should be ranted through all its stages without explanation.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL explained shorn'', the object of
the Bill. He said that it would operate as a measure of re-
-I.cf by reducing the rate for building and repairs of churches
from six to four per cent.
Lord HOLLAND said that hr wilt not prepared to
hear the Noble Earl speak of this Bill as a measure of
relief, since its object wis to mike the people Catbolic
as well as Protestant. contribute to the church rates. It
might be a measure of justice or of necessity, bat it
could never he a measure of relief. It was certainly, to
ase a vulgar and very unjust expression—rather an Irish
way of affording relief. He was now rather an eld Men).
bet of Parliament. He bad always considered Bills
with several preambles as coming before the House in a
very questionable shape. Ile bad seen Bills of too,
three, and possibly four preambles. How many did
their Lordships think were attached to this Gill? Why
not less than right. And yet this monster with eight
beads had crept to a third reading, and was shout to fly
out into an Act of Parliament, without any explanation
being given of its nature and tendency. And this was
a Bill up-n the most ticklish branch of legislation that
ever came before their Lordships. He objected to the
measure on various grounds. The first object of it was
to take away that lenient forbearance wheels Justices
were at present permitted to exercise in the keying of
the church rates. The next part of the Bill was indif-
ferent, act' he should not have alluded to it, but for what
fell from the Noble Lord opposite. It was said that
where there was a church, there was sure to be a con-
gregation i but nothing was more absurd than such a
supposition with regard to Ireland. The thinness of
the churches in Ireland did not arise from any defectof
accommodation, or negligence on the pastors, but from
the actual absence of a Protestant population to fill them.
His Noble Friend below, bail read to their Lordships a
note addressed to the rector of a country church in Ire-
land, which was in these words:—" Dear Sir,—She is
unwell. You need not come to-day," Who was she—
was it a figurative expression for the whole church ? No,
the being alluded to here, was not an allegorical person-
age, hot the mother of the sexton.-.-(Laughing.) Here
the gentle clerk wrote that the clergyman need not come
because one woman, his only congregation, was ill—a
tilling of churches this with a vengeance, lithe church-
was tilted with this venerable matron, either she was of
respectable dimensions, or' the edifice was very small.,
Another part of the Bill, or rather another Bill alluded,
L) those parishes where a union had taken place. In
this particular the law had been already a 'good deal
abused in 'Wand. The object of unions at first was, to
give to the few Protestant inhabitants who might he in
a small elpntignous parish, a right to a church in the
neighbouring parish, upon condition of their paying a
proportion of the interest of the money expended upon
the church. They were chargeable, however, only for
repairs, not for building or re-building. This Bill,how-
ever, obliges the parish so added, to subscribe to the sum
necessary to build the church, and it was ealkd a Relief,
Bill. Nay, the Bill went farther, for it extended to case
tiguous parshes. It *tided that where there was a con-
tiguous parish, the Protestant inhabitants of which had
not the accommodation of a church, the' Diocesan was
empowered at their request to admit them to the larger
pariah church, imposing upon them at the same time a
share of the interest of the money originally expended