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

=~~:

-

' uptin the piece of worship, At present perishes so united
were liable only to a portion of the repairs, but this Bill,
which professed relief. added a new burden of building
or rebuilding the church. And thus, in consequence, it
was in the power of any two or three Protestants in a
perish to make a representation to the Bishop. and so
bring upon the Catholic population of the parish the bur-
den of a church built in a neighbouring one, with which
they had no possible connection. But a more objection-
able clans, still was, that of giving to the few Protestants
who might thus be let into another parish a right of sit-
ting in the vestry. and voting without any qualification
whatever. And this, too, at a time that the Catholic in-
habitants were excluded from voting at all, by as hypo-
critical a subterfuge as ever crept into an Act of Parlia-
ment. The Bill professed to let in all descriptions of per-
sons to vote at vestries, but towards the end a clause
would be found, by which it wax secured that no altera-
tion should be made in the existing law as affecting Ito-
man Catholics, for an exception was always made against
those who were excluded from voting by the ordinary
law of tie land.—(Hear, hear.) It might be said, that
as this was a law before, it could be no objection to this
Bill that it haul left it as it found it. Butthat was the very
objection which he bad to it. Such a law was in di-
rect opposition to the fundamental principles of the Eng-
lish Constitution, which provided that a man should have
. seine voice in the disposal of his property. This law
received its birth in dark and illiberal times, and it was
no excuse for the present enlightened age, that, instead
of amending, they continued it. For al; these reasons,
then, he thought the Bill one which ought to be well
Considered. The coarse which he should take, if such a
Bill came before the House early in the Session, would
be to move its recommitment; but, seeing that any
Amendment could not receive its full discussion . in the
other House, he was aware such a step would be fatal to
it. He, however, implored the Noble Earl opposite, to
suspend this measure until further opportunity was afJ
forded for canvassing its merits; one question was, who-.
they, under the circumstances, such a measure was the
best which could be advised ; and a second, whether a
regulation of this sort in the pres.nt state of Ireland was
at all necessary. The Noble Lord cOncluded by moving,
as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that
day three
The Bishop of DOWN supported the Bill. It had re-
ceived the most mature consideration in the other House ;
its provisions had undergone the strictest scrutiny from
persons highly conversant with the subject, and bad,
moreover, received the sanction of the present Lord Lieu-
tenant, than whom there was no warmer friend to the
Church of Ireland. These were at least strong recom-
mendations of the measure to this House. In fact, their
Lordships must be prepared, either to pass a Bill of this
n.iture or see the Church of Ireland totally unable to
enforce the necessary contributions for the holding of
places of worship. in the present ease, the collection of
these dues were most imperfect—in some instances they
had run most frightful into arrear, and in his own
diocese, the Bev. Prelate said, there were seven years'
payments undischarged. A more important • seesisure
therefore to the Church of I rated could nut be imagined.
Lord CLIFDEN ridiculed the idea of drawing congre-
gations by the increase of churches in Ireland. To his
own certain knowledge, there were already more churches
there than were frequented. He therefore condemned
'the suggestion of imposing fresh burdens upon the Ca.
tholic population wantonly and unnecessarily. He par-
ticularly disclaimed that part of the Bill which made
neighbouring parishes chargeable for churches built in
other parishes. The true way of ascertaining whether
or not churches were wanted in Ireland, was to procure
returns of the relative Catholic and Protestant popula-
tions of Ireland, and the result would show whether there
were not churches enough for the Protestants. If Go-
vernment were really disposed to do good for the people
of Ireland, the effectual and statesmanlike way to act,
would be to enable the Catholics to build their chapels.
and Government might calculate upon a rich harvest of
gratitude from them for so generous and jest an act.
The present measure he looked upon as one of the jobs
which were alike injurious to Ireland and disgraieful to
Government.
Lord LIVERPOOL in explanation said, that at pre-
sent smaller parishes might insist upon having a church
built for them, but the present 818-obliged the parish
only to constitute a portion towards the building of a
Church in another pariah. In that light it was therefore
sl benefit.
Lord HOLLAND said his complaint was that parishes
which became united were made subject to an er 'Seer
jhezo charge, the expenses of building the church, having
-been incurred before they because united. He protested
against the doctrine laid down by the Reverend Prelate,
hteause a measure. bad been discussed in the other House,
,and approved of by the Lord Lieutenant ; it ought there-
Aire to puss as of course here. This was most unparlia-
&mental"-, for if this doctrine were carried to its full
extent, this House would be worse than useless.
The Bishop of DOWN said he only meant to say that
the'circumstance of this Billbeiag five months before the
House of Commons, furnished some guarantee, for its jos-
tler, to this.
Lord DARNLEY deprecated the doctrine of the Rev.
Prelate, as degrading to this House. He objected to this
Bill on account of the late period at which so important
a amoure was brought forward, and said he would vote
for the amendment of his Noble Friend.
The Bill was then read a third time without a division
and passed.
Th. other Bills before the House were each forwarded
a stage.—Adjourned.