O'Connell, John Ruthven, E. S. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Bill. Read a third time:-Stafford Bribery. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Duke of WEL LINGTON, Earls SEFTON, BROWNLOW, and WINCHILSEA, and Lord LYNDHURST, from a Number of Places,- against the Local Jurisdiction Bill.-By the Duke of of the County of Sussex, against the General Registry of brethren; but they had a great objection to taking upon themselves the responsibility of bringing forward such a Bill, and for reasons which might be easily guessed. If they brought forward a measure which did not come up to their own notions of the manner in which the Lord's Day ought to be observed, it was needless to say what bad consequences would arise from it. There was a large class of persons who, if such a Bill were brought forward, under the auspices of the Church, would be ready to reproach the Bishops on account of it. "This, then," they would say, "is the standard of the Bishops for the observance of the Sabbath." That was one among the many reasons which would make the Bishops decline to submit any measure of the kind to Parliament, but he certainly wished BARHAM, and the Bishop of LONDON, from a great that some person would again take up the Number of Places,-262 by Lord SUFFIELD,-against Slavery. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Avoch, for Compensation to the Colonial Proprietors; and from the Merchants and Shipowners of Newcastle, against the Dutch Embargo.-By the Earl of CARLISLE, from several Dissenting Congregations at Liverpool, for Relief respecting Registration, Marriages, and Church Rates.-By the Earl of RODEN, Lord LYTTLETON, and the Bishops of LINCOLN, BANGOR, and LICHFIELD, from several Places, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.By the Earl of RODEN, from the Non-juring Christians of London, for being allowed to Substitute a Solemn Affirmation for an Oath.-By the Bishops of LICHFIELD, and BATH and WELLS, from several Places,-against the Sale of Beer Act.-By the Marquess of SALISBURY, from Hertford, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill.-By a NOBLE LORD, from Waterford, for the Granting of Equal Rights to the Jews. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.] The Bishop of London, on the presentation of a Petition for the Better Observance of the Sabbath said, that it would be a subject of great regret to many persons, if the throwing out of that Bill by the other House of Parliament should prevent the adoption of any measures of amelioration. He thought that some person, either in that or the other House, should bring in some Bill of a simple and moderate nature, which might pass both Houses without difficulty; and that they ought not to leave this country under the imputation of having thrown aside, without even considering it, a measure of so much importance, whether it were regarded in a religious, in a moral, or even in a political point of view. It was of infinite importance at the present time, when the public mind was so much alive to the subject, that a simple measure should be proposed, such a measure as if brought forward would have no difficulty in passing. This had been strongly urged upon himself, and several of his reverend subject. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, May 20, 1833. MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Sir RONALD FERGUSON, an Account of the Number of Ratepayers at Leamington (Butts) and Kenilworth, in the County of Warwick.-On the Motion of Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, the Amount of Church Rates or Vestry Cess, levied at Yonghall in 1832, and how applied; also of the Amount assessed on Easter Monday, 1833, in the Parish in which Youghal is situate. On the Motion of Mr. ROBERT STEUART, the Number of Appeals from the Sheriff-Substitute to the Sheriff-Depute in each County in Scotland during the last five years. New Writs issued. For the Southern Division of Staffordshire, in the room of E. J. LITTLETON, Esq., who has accepted Office; and for Stroud, in the room of DAVID RICARDO, Esq., who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Bills. Read a third time:-Police Offices (London); Curtesy of England; Limitation of Actions; Fines and Recoveries. Read a second time:-Rating of Tenements. Petitions presented. By Mr. ROBINSON, from Balmerino, for a Property-tax, in lieu of all other Taxes. By Mr. JERVIS, from the Market Gardeners of the Metropolitan Counties to Exempt Garden Land from the Metropolitan Police Rate.-By Mr. GISBORNE, from Eyam, for an Alteration of the Currency.-By Mr. J. FIELDEN, from Middleton, and another Place, for Relief.-By Mr. FIELDEN, Sir R. FERGUSON, Sir W. INGILBY, and Mr. GISBORNE, from several Places, for the Repeal of the Duties on Hops, Malt, and Soap.-By Mr. WALTER, from the Innkeepers at Reading, for Relief from the Unequal Charges imposed for Licenses.-By Mr. HUME, from Harrington, for the Right to Control the Expenditure of the Rates and Dues collected in their Port; from Wisbeach, for the Release of R. Taylor; from the Keepers of Coffee-shops in London, for Permission to open their Shops all the year round at four o'clock; from St. Andrew's, for the Repeal of the Soap Duty; and from Perth, for Amending the Bankrupt Laws.-By Mr. H. HANDLEY, from Grantley and Sleaford, for Repealing the Duty on Fire Insurances on Farming Stock.-By Mr. HOPE JORNSTONË, from Moffatt, for a Repeal of the Duty on Stamps of Receipts. By Sir R. FERGUSON, from several Dissenting Congregations, for Relief from their present Grievarices. -By Mr. H. HANDLEY, and Sir W. INGILBY,-for a Repeal of the Malt Duty.-By Mr. JOHN FIELDEN, from Hyde, against the Taxes on Knowledge; from Rochdale, for Universal Suffrage; Short Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot from Oldham, for Liberating Richard Carlile: and from Huddersfield, for withdrawing the Vote for 2,000. for raising a Volunteer Corps at that Place.-By Mr. VIGORS, from the Inhabitants of Carlow, for the Right of Choosing their own Magistrates.-By Mr. WELBY, from Grantham, for not Curtailing the Power and Jurisdiction of their Magistrates.-By Mr. HUME, from Bury (Lancaster), against any Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act; and by Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, and Mr. BARING, from several Places,-for the Amendment or Abolition of that Act.-By Mr. BARING, from the Innkeepers of Saffron Walden, for putting them on the same footing as other Shopkeepers, relative to the House and Window Tax; and from the Clergy of Colchester, against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.-By Lord A. LENNOK, from the Solicitors practising in Chichester, &c., against the General Registry Bill.-By Mr. GILLON, from the Shipowners of Grangemouth; and by Mr. BETHELL, from those of Kingston-upon-Hull, for Inquiry and Relief. -By Mr. BROTHERTON, and Mr. JOHN FIELDEN, from several Places, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill. -By Captain GORDON, from Aberdeen, for the Amend people by the force of the bayonet. He had presented a petition to the House a few days before from Glasgow, signed by 16,000 persons, expressing the sentiments he had just uttered. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment, the following Resolution which might go as an instruction to the Committee," that the Revenues of the Irish Church be applied to purposes of general utility, after the demise of the present incumbent." Mr. Cuthbert Rippon seconded the Amendment, and observed, that he was exceedingly disappointed with what the Government had done respecting the grievances of Ireland. They had brought forward two measures, both of which were introduced under the pretence of removing abuses, but they had in reality no other object than that of inducing the people to submit to the present system. The Bill was a fraud upon the common sense of the naDay. By Mr. COBBETT, from Dartford and Crayford, tion, and was a flagrant instance of the ment of the Apothecaries Act; from the Landowners and Tradesmen of Forque and Drumblade, for Relief.-By Lord MOLYNEUX, from several Places, for an Alteration of the Law relative to Catholic Marriages.-By Lords STORMONT, CAVENDISH, and MILTON, and Messrs. PLUMPTRE, COBBETT, HODGSON, W. STEWART, and LEFROY, Sir GRAY SKIPWITH, and Captain FENTON, from several Places-for a Better Observance of the Lord's for a Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers; from the Farmers, &c., of Hensbridge, against the Assessed Taxes; from the Political Union of Chowbent, for the Sale of Church and Crown Lands; from Enniscorthy and Templeshannon, for the Abolition of Tithes, and of the Protestant Hierarchy in Ireland; from Bury, and other Places, for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge, and on Malt, Hops, and Soap; from Birmingham, and Hebden Bridge, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and Relief from unequal departure of Ministers from those professions of Reform of which they were so lavish on their accession to office. The present pretended measure of Reform was a mere wily attempt to perpetuate the monstrous grievance, the iniquitous prin Taxation, and contraction of the Currency; from Wing- ciple, of compelling the majority of a ham, and another Place, against the Lord's Day Observance Bill; from Brewood, for placing Retail Brewers on a footing with Publicans; from the Gravesend and Milton Political Union, for an Inquiry into the Case of R. Newsham. CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).] Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committtee on the Irish Church Temporalities' Bill. Mr. Gillon said, that he did not approve of this Bill, which, in his opinion, did not go half far enough. It merely diminished the evil, but only to a very slight extent, whereas something much more effective was required. In this country, as well as in Ireland, some change was necessary, but especially in Ireland, where the great majority of the people were not of the religion of the Established Church. But even here he believed that the number of dissenters was much underrated; and why were they or any other people to be taxed to support a system of religion to which their own opinions did not conform? The present system in Ireland was upheld by military force, and for that reason he did not wish to see it continued, for he could never consent to impose a religious establishment upon any nation to support the Church Establish- Lord Althorp was glad to hear the hon. Member admit that his opinions were not in unison with those of others on this point-an admission which he (Lord Althorp) believed to be very well warranted by the fact. With respect to the proposition of the hon. Member opposite, he felt that he should not be doing that which was necessary for the advantage of public business, or for the benefit of the House, if he entered into a lengthened argument to prove that a Church Establishment was desirable. He should only observe, that he thought it desirable for the advantage of religion. The hon. Member seemed to assume that all which he did not approve of must necessarily be detrimental. Surely, before he came to such a sweeping conclusion, he might have considered that it was possible he could be mistaken. He should say no more than that he could not possibly consent to the Amendment. Colonel Evans said, that he did not think the measure would answer the public expectation even in England, and most certainly it would not in Ireland. He regretted that the Bill did not go much further. harmony with the feelings of the majority of the nation but who was audacious enough to assert that the Church of England promoted the interest, or was in harmony with the feelings, of the people at large? Was it possible that under such circumstances there could be any peace in that country, or that the people there could be contented? It had been said, that the coercive measure was necessary in order to enforce a due obedience to the laws; but his answer was, that laws should be just and equal before any measures were taken to enforce obedience to them. Were the Ministers ignorant of the rights of their fellow-men; or had they determined to refuse those rights? He feared that the latter was the case. He warned them to beware in time. He told them that they must diminish the monopolies and the privileges of the aristocracy. It was for their benefit that all these abuses had hitherto been kept up. How was it that the younger branches of the Aristocracy had escaped from suffering the evil effects of the primogeniture system which, after all, was the great source of our miseries? How, but by being quartered upon the people? Was it to be expected that the aristocracy would willingly give up such advantages? The experience of the two last years was a Mr. Robinson denied the assumption of sufficient answer to the question. The the hon. Member who had seconded the hon. member for St. Andrew's had said on Amendment, that the Dissenters in Enga former occasion that Christianity de- land wanted an appropriation of the Church pended upon the support of the establish- property to purposes called purposes of pubment. He denied that such was the fact.lic utility. He knew many Dissenters in this Indeed, he believed that the continuance of an establishment where it was in opposition to the wishes of the people was more likely to be injurious than beneficial to the cause of Christianity. What right had the Church of England to assume to itself any superiority over any other form of Christianity? It certainly had no warrant from Scripture; quite the contrary; nor from prescription in fact, it had no authority, save that of an Act of Parliament. In his opinion the property of the Church was national property, and every proposi-viction he apprehended to be this: that a tion which tended to deprive the nation of the benefit of that property was a fraud upon the people. He knew that his opinion in this respect was not in unison with that of other Members of the House, but he should enjoy the consolation of having done his duty in resisting the proposition for keeping up the present enormous establishment in Ireland. Mr. Finn said, that the only part of the Bill that would give satisfaction in Ireland was that which related to the Vestry-cess. country who considered a Church Establishment to be extremely beneficial, and as necessary to the maintenance of the Protestant religion itself. Mr. Sinclair had taken the liberty, on a former occasion, when his hon. friend (Mr. Gillon) presented a petition containing sentiments similar to those which he had now expressed, to state his own conviction, that these were not the opinions entertained by the great majority of the people of Scotland. Their deliberate con national establishment, or, in other words, a national recognition of our dependence on God, is a national privilege and a national blessing. They not only appreciated the advantages which they themselves enjoyed under the fostering care of their own Established Church, but they recognized the services, and desired the permanence, of the Sister Establishment in England. Many of the Dissenters in Scotland, though not conforming to the Presbyterian establishment, would admit the necessity of upholding a National Church in every Christian country. Roman Catholics, for instance, and Episcopalians, might be considered as concurring in this view; and he himself had heard seceding Ministers in Scotland, not only acknowledge, in private, the excellence of the Established Church, but pray in public for its stability, as well as for its reformation. A public provision for inculcating the doctrines of the Gospel was the more indispensable, because the willingness of individuals to contribute voluntarily towards the dissemination of religious knowledge was generally in an inverse ratio to their need of it. He could not, on this occasion, help quoting the high authority of Dr. Chalmers, an individual whose illustrious name would occupy a prominent place in the annals of his country-one who combined the highest powers of intellect with the most expansive benevolence of the heart-one upon whose knowledge he could pass no higher encomium, than to say that it was as profound as his humility-one who enforced the sublime mysteries of the Gospel with an eloquence only comparable to the sincerity with which he believed them in his heart, and to the consistency with which he exemplified them in the daily habits of his life. This distinguished man not only advocated the permanence as well as promoted the welfare of that Church which numbered him amongst her most valued and devoted sons, but had stood forward as the champion of the Anglo-Irish Episcopal Church, which he considered as one of the best bulwarks of the Protestant faith. If the machinery was less useful than it ought to be, the fault lay only with those who had neglected to employ it in a manner best calculated to promote its efficiency. He was most anxious for the stability of the Established Church in both countries, and for a salutary reformation of all acknowledged abuses, as the best means of promoting that object; and without pledging himself to vote for all the details of this measure, his support of its principle would be as decided as his opposition to the Motion of his hon. friend. Mr. Roebuck thought,that in a discussion of this sort, which ought properly to be confined to the advantages or evils of the English Church Establishment in Ireland, The House resolved itself into a Committee. On the second Clause (empowering the Lord-lieutenant to appoint Ecclesiastical Commissioners,) being read, Sir Robert Inglis objected to the constitution of the commission, inasmuch as it was different from that established at the Act of Union. The Act of Union provided, that the Church Government of the United Church of England and Ireland should be the same; and would any man tell him, that if such a board as that proposed was constituted, that it would leave the Irish branch of the Church inviolate? On a former occasion he stated his objections to this tribunal, and he would state, without fear of contradiction, that never, except in the worst portions of our history, was a precedent to be found for the formation of such a Board. It was not contended that the hierarchy of Ireland were deficient or wanting in due attention to the interests of the Church. This insult was therefore perpetrated upon them without a shadow of reason. He objected strongly to the affairs of the Church being placed in the hands of a Board, the majority of whom were laymen, and one of whom must not of necessity be a Protestant of the Established Church. He would ask, whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland must of necessity be a Protestant of the Esta blished Church. He most certainly need not be so, and yet he had a seat at the new Board. This insult was offered at a period when the Irish bench presented as much of talent, zeal, and piety, as had ever done honour to the Christian Church. On the whole, he objected to the clause, as impolitic and dangerous to the Church, and as injurious to the hierarchy; he objected to it because it usurped their functions, and placed the functions of the Crown in the hands of irresponsible per sons. Lord Althorp said, that the clause was not open to the objections stated by the hon. Baronet. As to a majority of the Commissioners being laymen, he intended to propose an alteration in the seventh clause of the Bill, which would meet that objection. He intended to insert a provision to the effect that the common seal of the Commissioners should not be affixed to any order, so as to render their acts valid, unless with the consent of at least one of the ecclesiastical Commissioners. He denied that the clause either was, or was meant to be an insult to the hierachy of Ireland. He would remind the hon. Baronet, that the Commissioners for building churches in England had power to refuse to assist in building any churches they pleased. Mr. Goulbourn said, that it appeared to him that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had diverged from the question immediately under consideration. He should confine himself to referring very shortly to one or two topics, endeavouring to set the House right in point of argument and reasoning with reference to the appointment of the Commission. The noble Lord stated, that in England the Commissioners for building churches had power to refuse building any particular church, and the noble Lord seemed to assign that as a reason why the Commissioners to be appointed in Ireland should possess a similar power. But he was sure the Committee could not fail to perceive, that there was a most important distinction between the two cases. There the money for building churches was to be taken from the revenues of the Church itself and it surely ought on every principle of justice and equity to be applied to the furtherance of the objects sought to be obtained by the Establishment. If the noble Lord intrusted to lay Commissioners the power of refusing to apply the funds of the Church to that which was the great object of such an Establishmentthe propagation of the Protestant religion if the noble Lord gave them the power of refusing to apply the funds of the Church to the erection of places of worship in parishes where they did not at present exist-he would give them a power very different indeed from that possessed by the Commissioners for building churches in England, who were merely the trustees appointed by Parliament for distributing the revenue placed at their disposal, and not of a fund arising from Church-property. When the expense of building a church was to fall upon the Church itself, there could be no possible objection on the part of the people of any district to have a church erected, and it could only be from party feeling in those who might think it inexpedient to promote the interests of the Protestant religion, or from a worse motive in others who manifest an utter indifference to the promulgation of its doctrines-it could only be from one or other of these reasons that any set of men could object to there being in every parish in Ireland a Protestant church and a Protestant minister. This he could undertake to say from his own personal knowledge, that in many cases in which new churches had been built in Ireland, in which ministers had been placed who were zealous men and anxious to discharge their duty and advance the interests of the Protestant religion, these churches had afterwards been discovered to be too small, and he never knew any case in which such a church so conducted had failed to have a sufficient congregation. He could show the noble Lord many instances in which not only was there a sufficient congregation, but in which the extent of it had so far exceeded the expectations of those under whose auspices the church was erected, that notwithstanding it was at first considered that a church would be unnecessary at all, it had been found afterwards necessary to increase its size. He stated these facts from his own experience, and knowing from his own observation how the fact really stood, he felt the greatest anxiety when he came to that part of the Bill which relates to the building of churches, that the House should understand how much they would impede the advancement of the Protestant religion by throwing any obstacles in the way of erecting churches. Having said |