HC Deb 14 February 1838 vol 40 cc1113-4

Mr. Mahony moved the second reading of the Church Property (Ireland) Bill, and stated that the tenure of more than half a million of acres was in such a state as required the intervention of the Legislature for its amendment. One of the principal objects which he intended by this measure to effect would be to enable the University of Dublin and other similar corporations to grant leases in perpetuity in the same manner as the Commissioners were enabled to grant under the Church Temporalities' Act. If the details of the measure could be improved by any reasonable amendments on the part of the College, he should have no objection; and with a view to render the bill as perfect as possible, he proposed, if the second reading were agreed to, that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee up-stairs. He had but to add, that it would go to amend the 1st of Charles 1st, cap. 3.

Mr. Shaw

objected to the proposed measure on principle, and he concurred fully in the prayer of that petition which he had already presented to Parliament on the subject. Hon. Members would be enabled, by the least reflection to see that the injustice of the bill was most obvious. The hon. Mover did not even profess to give the college the same compensation as was given to the ecclesiastical commissioners; considering, then, that it could not but prove detrimental to the college, he should move, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. O'Connell

would certainly oppose the bill, although he had a personal interest the other way. The college refused to accede to the proposed plan, and he thought that Parliament had no right to dispose of their property when that corporation was an opposing party He thought it would be better if his hon. Friend were allowed to withdraw his motion.

Viscount Morpeth

said, he, in the course of the last year, had stated, that he would not be a party to any large measure on this subject without the assent of the college. That assent had been authoritatively refused, and he therefore could not go along with the hon. Mover in this bill.

Mr. Lefroy

affirmed, that the proposed measure would be an infringement of the rights of private property, and therefore could not be committed without the consent of the parties interested.

Mr. Mahony

still thought the measure just and necessary, and entertained no doubt that before long the opinion of the public would lead Parliament to its ready adoption.

Amendment agreed to and bill thrown out.