him to perform th uh proper weigth and autho ' Dissenting clergy were wholl voluntary contributions—in what res- ect were they inferior to the clergy sup- ported by compulsion? So much for the nctical inutility of the established church. is next point was one which re '

mile education, the very existence of tablished church itself being a decided"

r de of the right and the practice ofinterfer' ‘ gy with the revenues of the church on the ria art of the legislature. The established led church was calleda national church—that 33 is, an institution intended to promote the “e national beneﬁt; on the face of it, there- in fore, it was at the disposal of the nation 1d Itwas a corporation, possessing certain [‘h trustee rights and privileges to be exer-

cised for the beneﬁt of the granting party, the public. ,By every rational principle, therefore, it was as much under the controul ofthe public as the Bank of England or any other coporations in the state. To be sure they heard a great deal touching ves- ted rights. But whose vested rights were meant? Not the vested rights of the na- tion at large, but the clergy. Were they prepared to maintain that the clergy were themselves the church ?——that they were anything more than ministers—-servants in the service of the church, which was the congregation, the people. But it was needless to argue the question on its ab— stract principles. (Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.) Henry the Vlll. and his imme- diate successors, had decided the question; and the principle oflegislative interference had been repeatedly acted upon since the revolution. By the 27th of Henry VlII. all monasteries and religious establishments under I200 a year in value were taken pos- session ofby the crown. “ The lion ha— ving slaughtered the carcass” to use the forcible words of Mr. Burke, “ threw the offal to thejackalls in waiting. It was cu- rious to trace the history of these offal gifts ofHenry. Almost all the church proper- ty of his time was bestowed by him, his minions and the aristocracy; their de- cendants lorded it on those possessions still. The 37th of Henry VIII. and the lst of Edward VI. were other decrsive instances of parliamentary controul of the revenues ofthe church. The 3d of Wiliiam and Mary acted upon the same principle in sub- s' tingarate of 5s per acre for a tithe uﬁh ﬂax, as did the 40th of Geo. III. rela- tive to agistment ex eptions. Still more complete was the statute of Geo. I. for regulating the stipends of curates; a prin- ciple which he was sure the aristocracy would not admit to be applied to their own bailiffs, orstewards, or servants. But, in fact, it was an insult to common sense to seem to doubt the right of parliament to ‘ mana e the reVenues of the established chruc as it thought most advantageous to

ﬂ

THE Barrier! armament.

the public. To what did that established churchjowe its existence but legislative in- with ecclesiastical revenues, and .act of parliament could alter and her? Inde'ed it was because it 0 that he always thought an act title the worst one could‘have

"'3

nother distribution. The the clergy were not vested ed that the judges of the emoluments of his living assignees, but were to

if the tithes, which were divided into three, arts—one for the church, one for the po and the other for God’s servants. part of our church revenues were den trom our Catholic ancestors, and had be ‘ transferred to the Protestant clergy by ac of Parliament. Could this have been done if they were not national property? The hon. member then proceeded to inveigh against the anti-Christian character of the exorbitant church revenues of England, and to liken the church of England, in this particular, to that of Rome. Many hon. members urged a system of reduction of taxation upon ministers. But what was the noble lord to do? Was he to sponge outthe national debt, or to put down the army? If thefnational debt was to remain, if the army was to remain, and the navy ,was to remain, it was the highest incon- sistency to call upon his Majesty’s minis- ters to reduce taxation. By his plan the national creditor might be relieved, and the the people might be relieved; but it ‘i'vas impossible to carry on the present system without some appropriation of the public property. The hon. member then moved his resolutions'

Mr. COBBrJTT seconded the motion.

Lord AL'l‘I—IORP said that the house would hardly expect that he should answer the speech of the hon. member. (loud cheers.) He should merely say that, as the hon. member was a Dissenter and he (Lord Althorp) was a churchmam it could be easily understood thatin a ques ) ‘1 _ e- ther the church of England was a’g’g'ood church or not they must diﬂ‘er' (hear,) There was another point on which they differed. The hon. member said that this was a motion of great importance; he differed from him in that (cheers and laugh- ter) He should therefore not detain the house by attempting to enter into discussion which however it might be said a polemical assembly was hardly ﬁt for the considera- tion of that house (cheers).

Mr. COBBE'I‘T observed that the noble lord had said that the house would hardly expect him to. answer the speech of the hon.’

861 member. He [Mn Cobbett] did not or

pect him to answer it either.

Mr. D.W. HARVEY said that, although he was a Dissenter, and had been educat as anonconformist, and was prepared to subscribe to the abstract proposition of the hon. gentleman, he could not agree to it in his terms, for he had prejudiced the dis- cussion and injured the principle of the ar- gument he had laboured to establish by pointing out the abuses of the church in— stead ot' insisting on the paramount right of the Protestant Dissenters to the exercise of private judgment.

Sir R. INGLIS rose to record his dis;- sent from every word ofthe position of the' hon. member, and to make one observation upon this system of sermon and speech [hear, hear, and laughter].

Mr. AGLIONBY spoke in opposition to the motion

Mr. O’DWYER, amidst cries of “ with- raw,” said that as a Catholic he could not e to the resolutions and pressed the

’ng amendment—" That the reve- nues o the church of England had been always abject to legislative enactments, and on to be appropriated to the pur- poses of their original institution.”

Mr. HARVEY, as a protestant Dissen- ter, could not agree to this amendment—at least the second partisfit.

After some observations as to the mode in which the question should be put.

Mr. O’DWYER withdrew his amend- ment. )‘

The original question was then put: not an “ay” was utterbd, and the Speaker said the “ noes” had it. '--

A few voices said “ The ‘ ayes’ have it” [the usual call for a division] :

The SPEAKER said that this Was too late, for there was nota single“ aye.” a,

Sir R. DONKIN presented a petition from Berwick upon Tweed for the aboli- tion of all useless pensions and sinecures, and for the renewal of the assessed taxes.

JE‘VISH DISABILITIIS.

Mr. ROBERT GRANT—in a speech of considerable length moved the following resolution—“ That it is expedient to re- move -'all disabilities at present, existing with respect to his Majesty’s subjects, pro- fessing the Jewish religion, with similar exceptions to those provided with respect to his Majesty’s subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion ”—

Sir ROBERT INGLIS regretted that his right honourable friend, by whom the present motion had been introduced, should have made such large concessions to the spurious liberality now so fashionable. He 3 never had expected that the right hon. f' mover would have brought in a proposition the effect of which would be to open eve avenue to political power to the Mussle from Madras, the Parsee from Born ’ or the Brahmin from Calcutta.