The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-03-05 00:00:00

would pledge himself t.ot to waste three hours in open-
leg the question.--(A laugh.)
The petition was thenordered to be printed.
TITHIAN IRELAND.
Mr. HUME, in rising to bring under the consider-
a'.on of the house, the creation of Irish tithes, said lie
had been led to undertake the task, not from any con-
sciousness of his ability to di.charge it properly, but be-
cause no other Member had come forward who viewed
the question in the same light with himself. He had,
therrf.r ore. to claim the indulgence of the house, if he oc-
• copied for some time their attention in hying before
them the details of this important question. He might,
perhaps: be told that the time chosen for bringing for-
e and this question was unsea.onahle and premature; that
he ought to have waited until Ministers should have
brought foruard some reposition on the subject; but
.this was only a continuance of the notice which he had
given last Session, which he pledged himself to bring
forward early in this, and which he had delayed hitherto,
sti.order to secures as full an attendance as possible of
lush Members to give their opinions upon it. There-
fore, if Ministers acre disposed to anticipate him by any
'masa. re of their own, they bad ample time hitherto
to bring it forward. Having then cleared away some
„preliminary objections, be should now proceed to the
statement of his ca'e. The first thing to be done before
sal iii{ upon the house to agree in any of his proposi-
tions,i was to come to a right understanding of the mean-
. .eg of a word, very popular, but to which different sign'.
Lations were attached. The word he meant was
. " Chords." They bad often heard the words " Church
;yid State" joined together, but what the precise mean-
ing of the former was, standing alone, remained yet to
be discussed. The acceptations of the word most popu-
lar were these? first, that it meant the clergy; secondly,
that it meant the community at large—that is, such of
the community as attended the same houses of worship,
and entertained the same religious opininns. Those who
cu fined its meaning to the mere walls of a building vete
few in nunib,r, and not very respectable for their autho-
rity. He would now state which of those definitions be
ttought most plausible. Referring bark to the highest
and most ancient authority, lie was himself inclined to
adopt the second description. St. Paul, speaking to dif-
fer at nations, calls them " Churches," clearly using
the word to signify the community at large, and not the
preachers. In this sense he would use it; and the.more
the subject was considered, the more was the conclusion
..earranted, that the " Church" meant a congvegatieon of
persons professing the same creed, and frequenting the
same places of worship. His first posioion then was,
that the Church of Ireland was a co-amunity placed in
contradistinction to the pieople at large; his second, that
this establishment had no precept—no authority in
Scripture; that it was a cre.eture of the law, set up by
the Legislature—deriviag all its authority and all its
property from its eretictinente, and consequently that as
the Legislature :tested it, so the Legislature could either
alterits coeotitution or annul it altogether. If such,
then, age the nature of the Church Establishment in Ire-
the next consideration was as to the grounds upon
Watch that establishment was first set up, and how far its
yr! sent state was suited to theviews which originally pre.
loaded respecting it. It was clear that the idea of a
Church Establishment was first suggested by the neces-
ntty of setting apart a set of men who should devote their
attentions to the duties of religion—be the depositaries
and interpreters of truth-e-and the source from whence
religious instruction was to be diffused throughout the
community. The performance of these duties, as it was
inconsistent with an attention to more ordinary. affairs,
' required adequate compensation from the public, and
itb that view, a particular species of support was allot-
ted to the clergy.. If in the course of his observations
he should make any allusion to that proprrty, he hoped
he would not be told that the property of the Church
was beyond the reach of the Legislature, as being ante-
cedent to, or coeval with the state itself. This bedeviled
in torn. For the Church Establishment of this country
had no antecedent property, as all its property was de
lived to it from another—the Catholic Church. The
right of the Legislature then to alter the iroperty of the
Church could no longet be tailed into question, since it'
had before Interfered in traqsferring the property of the
• Catbotc to the Established Church., But it was said
that a great part of this property was granted by laym•ii
to the. Church, for the service of religion. this also
was not true in its full extent, for much of the property
derivable to the Church, from lay benef-ctions was in-
tended originally for charitable purposes, though subse-
quently misapplied by the Clergy. Again, it might be
said, that it was the private property of the incumbent.
This he denied altogether; it bore no analogy whatever
to such property. True it was, that private property was
held by law, and so was the property of the Church.
But there was this difference; if an individual held lands
a:cording to law, his heirs would inherit them, and np
Legislature could interfere with the regular descent,
less the right was forfeited by attaint of blood. If that
was the case then, how could Church property be com-
pared with that of an individual? But the fact of this
property being taken awry from an individual clergy- I
man, who for misconduct of any sort was unaorthy of
Lie calling, wens in itself a proof that the property of tl"!
Church was not e oalienabl... By that r.agAn!itg the Bi-
shop of Cleo:511
u.r had as wit inoperty in his living as
euturol had to his estate, and yet he was
tieprived of it. lie (Mr. II.) was not to he understood
now as arguing against the revenues of the Bishopricks;
what he contended against was the principle. His position
then was that all Clergymen were paid for doing certein
duties, and if they did not perform these duties they
were not entitled to their pay. It was well known that,
at the Reformation, there were no sinecures ; that there
was no clergyman who did not perform his pastoral du-
ties on the spot. Since the lieformation7sonce those
tey* of parity, as they were now called—it was that
Buse abuses erect into the church which were now so
Wildly complained of. It was since that time that those
men entrusted with the curs of souls, as it was called,
Vegan to live at Bath, Cheltenham, and Rome, whilst
they were paid for performing deli,. in Ireland. He
would show that the places which he had mentioned,
were filled with Irish Clergy; and that, as they did not
perform any duties a• cording to the original intention
of the or ler, they were no longer entitled to remunera-
tion. There was no difference between clergymen and
any other cl ss of public s• r v ants—ln the army and
navy. Each .lass had separate duties to perform, and
each receiied commensurate rewards. But what would
the hou e sly, if officers in the army held the language
now used by menibers of the Church ? if they appealed
against any interference on the part of the Legislature,
onthe ground diet their pay was their property in perpe•
tnitv, the Legislature %%could nut tolerate an opposition
to diem on such grounds. The army at one time, too,
enjoyed the same s,rt of property which theChurcb now
tssess.d; for under the Feudal System. each soldier was
ailoted a Fortiori of load fur his own supprt, and that
of hie forowers. With the Feudal System, however, the
Soldiers claims to this property vanished. Was it not
the coineuu course for Perliament to interfere where
tt'ere was ,a ae.easity for any amendment, and by
enalting lens to counteract abuses wherever they occur-
red Who should the Church he exempted ? What wa.
the diffe e;o e between the individuals a.tacheel to that
institution and any other Body of the community? He
hell it to be undeniable that time property row vested in
lte Church was not appropriated tor the support of A.
11: or C. bat for the maintename of that religion which
sloe Parliam-nt hat decreed should be the established re-
' keen of the coontry. The question which be wished to
Rave the House cowiler was, whether the property was
too large or too small; if too small, let it be increased—