The Earl of Westmorelandpresented a Petition from the Protestants of Northamptonshire against any appropriation of the Church revenues to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. They hoped that their Lordships would not consent to any measure which would have the effect of weakening the Church and destroying the prosperity of an Establishment from which the country had derived so much happiness and glory. It was not easy, in recommending this petition, to avoid expressing some opinion upon the different points it touched upon, which seemed to be comprised under three heads,—the Alteration of the Forms of Marriage and Registration;—the Repeal of Tithes and Church-rates;—the Alienation of Church-property. With respect to the first, it must be the wish of every one to relieve persons from any forms or ceremonies injurious to their religious feelings;—but, in society, all persons must make some sacrifice to the welfare of the rest of society. The protection of property and legal title, was as necessary to Dissenters, as to other persons. For the sake of Dissenters, as well as the rest of the community, great caution then must be used in the alteration of these laws. With respect to the abolition of tithes and Church-rates it was asking for what the petitioners had not bought; and were not entitled to. The petitioners had bought an estate at a low price in consequence of its being charged with these rates; and he therefore trusted that the charges would be continued, (whatever changes might take place) and not be laid on the rest of the community. The poor were not to be taxed to increase 642 the estates of the rich. It was put forward that the abolition of tithes would be a relief to the poor, particularly in Ireland. He would maintain that the abolition of tithes would be a most heavy burden upon the people of Ireland—no doubt, though (to their credit, not sought,) most beneficial to the landlords, both in England and Ireland. The last proposition to which the petition related was the alienation of Church-property, which seemed to be in direct contravention of the Act of Settlement of the Crown, and the Act of Union with Ireland. Many Acts of Parliament and oaths might be argued upon their construction and tendency, but here the words were positive and distinct. Having been one of the Ministers who were engaged in carrying the Act of Union, he was convinced (and he could call upon some present to concur with him), that the Act of Union, could not have passed without that clause.
§ Petition read at length, and ordered to lie on the Table.