Commons Sitting of 9 April 1832

MINUTES.
Bill brought in. By Mr. ROBERT GRANT, for holding the Assizes for the County of Norfolk, and for the City of Norwich.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUDSON, of the Official and declared Value of the Imports to, and Exports from the United Kingdom, from and to each of the British Colonies and Possessions for two years, ending 5th January, 1831, and 1832; also, a like Account relating to all Foreign Countries, distinguishing each with the respective Amounts of British Colonial, and Foreign Produce:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, from the Churchwardens of the Parish of St. Pancras, of the Number of Persons, on 17th March last, Rated to the Relief of the Poor; and also, of the Total Number of Declarations or Votes, delivered to the said Churchwardens for and against the Adoption of the Act passed in last Session, for the better Regulation of Vestries, &c.:—On the Motion of Mr. BRISCOE, the Number of Licenses granted by the Excise, for the Retail of Spirituous Liquors within the Bills of Mortality, from the 5th of January, 1831, to 5th January, 1852; and all Coroners' Inquests held within the King's Bench Prison, and the Rules thereof, from the 1st of January, 1825, to the date of the Return within the year 1832; stating the date of each, the Name of the Deceased, and the Verdict; also, the Name of the Person acting as Coroner on each and every occasion so returned:—On the Motion of Mr. LAMB, for Summary Statements of the Number of Persons charged with Criminal Offences, wholwere committed to the different Gaols in England and Wales for Trial at the Assizes and Sessions, held for the several Counties, Cities, Towns, and Liberties therein, during the last seven years; distinguishing the Number in each year; and show-
80
ing the Nature of the Crimes respectively of which they were Convicted, or Acquitted, and with which those were charges; against whom no Bills were found, and who were not prosecuted; the Sentences of those Convicted, and the Number Executed who received Sentence of Death:—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, of the quantity of Spirits consumed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in 1831, compared with the previous year:—On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, for Copy of the Protest of the West-India Merchants, transmitted to Viscount GODERICH, of the 6th April last.
Petitions presented. By Viscount DUNCANNON, from Kilmaganny, Donemaggin, and Conahy; and by Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, from the Landholders and Inhabitants of Cashel, Nurnay, and Clonmel, for the Abolition of Tithes; and from Roman Catholic Tradesmen of the Guild of Shoemakers Galway, for Provision in the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill, for the peculiar Franchise of Galway:—By Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, from William Hutton, Sheriff of the County of Lincoln, for Abolishing the Fees payable by Sheriffs on their Appointment to Office; and for the Repeal of so much of the Acts of 12 Richard 2nd., cap. 10, and 14 Richard 2nd., cap. 11, as relates to the Number of Justices for each County, and the Amount of Wages to be paid them, and to the Clerks of the Peace. By Mr. BENETT, from the Agriculturists of Marlborough and Devizes, for the Repeal of the Duty on Malt:—By Mr. SANFORD, from Wellington, Somerset-shire, against the proposed Plan of Education in Ireland; from the Sailcloth Manufacturers and Flaxspinners at Yeovil, Crewkerne, and East and West Coker, against the Factories Regulation Bill; from the Landowners of Chard and Axbridge, against the General Registry Bill; and from Persons assembling in Zion Chapel Ilminster, for the Abolition of Slavery.

NEW SYSTEM OF EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
Mr. Stricklandpresented a Petition, which was of much importance, as showing a great sympathy of the English in favour of the Irish: it was from Liversedge, in the West Riding of York, in favour of the Government system of Education in Ireland, signed by 1,425 persons, and agreed to by a public meeting, which was so numerous that it was obliged to be adjourned to the open air. The hon. Member thought that many of the objections made to the proposed plan were founded on mistake; he was sure that it would tend much towards the tranquillity and happiness of Ireland. He was sure, too, that the people of England would be glad to hear that the new system was likely to be generally adopted, and that there had already been 200 applications to the new Board for assistance. It was, in his opinion, certain that education would be more extensively diffused by the plan of the present Government than ever had been by the Kildare-place Society, which was well known to be obnoxious to a great portion of the Irish nation.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he would now explain how this petition was got up. A meeting had been called by thirty clergymen, not for the discussion of affairs in

81
general, but the invitation was limited to the friends of scriptural education for the purpose of agreeing to an address to the Throne. After the advertisement had been read, a number of the persons broke up the meeting by violence and uproar, and got up a meeting of their own, at which this petition was agreed to. He thought he might infer that the opinion of the well-informed persons was against the Government plan.
Sir John Johnstonesaid, the hon. Member was so complacent to the persons of his own party, that he confined all the sound thinking to that side. He saw no reason why the respectable persons who had signed the petition were not as fully competent to give an opinion as those who had called the meeting, but had been outvoted.
Mr. Harveywas surprised to hear so many objections to the proposed plan, and so many complaints against Government for taking the paltry annual grant of 15,000 l. a-year from the Kildare-street Society, when he supposed that there was enough of Protestant virtue, and Protestant liberality in Ireland to make up that sum if they pleased, and so prevent the Kildare-street Society from perishing. It was not more than half of the annual income of some of the Bishops of Ireland, and why, therefore, should they complain of the Government when it was in their own power to perpetuate their favourite Kildare-street Society; for if they chose to keep up that establishment, it was not in the power of Government to prevent it. The fact, he believed, was that petitions against the new system were got up for party purposes, and not from any regard for the Scriptures or religion; but he was glad the people of England had shown more good sense than to be deceived by any such delusions.
Mr. Wysesaid, the Protestant Church of Ireland was bound to educate their flocks, whom they entirely neglected. The want of education in Ireland was owing in a great degree to the Protestant clergy, into whose hands had fallen the funds originally destined for education. The present was a plan similar to those adopted throughout Europe, and found to be attended with advantage.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that he must assert in opposition to the hon. Member for Tipperary, the character of the Protestant clergy of Ireland, and their zeal
82
for the education of the people, were above all praise. The observation of the hon. member for Colchester was not founded on fact. The Bishops of Ireland had not 30,000 l. a-year, and as to the sum of 15,000 l. being collected by the Protestants, that had nothing to do with the matter. He begged to observe that it was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but it concerned an excellent plan of religious education, to which his Majesty's Government had hitherto lent their countenance, but which they thought proper now to withdraw from it. He should shortly have occasion to present several petitions from very populous places against the Government plan.
Mr. James Johnstonesaid, that the Presbyterians had no objection to extracts from the Bible being used in preference to the book itself, provided the extracts were read in a proper place. He did not approve of discussions of this description, but he trusted that as it had been brought forward it would lead to a withdrawal of this obnoxious plan. It was perfectly clear, that it was any thing but satisfactory to the people of Ireland. The Synod of Ulster, a most intelligent body, had set their faces against it. The strongest feeling, too, against the proposed plan had manifested itself in Scotland, where several presbyteries had already met, and determined to petition the House against its adoption.
Mr. James Grattandenied that the great body of the Presbyterians in Ireland were opposed to the new plan of education. He trusted that it would be allowed a fair trial before it should be abandoned: he should propose two years at least. The old system had been tried for fifteen years, and was not found to answer. He, therefore, considered that a good argument in favour of the adoption of another scheme. He was quite certain that they would not be able to force the Scriptures on the people of Ireland by the plan acted upon by the Kildare-place Society. The advocates of that system pretended that their only motive for opposing the new system was, that it would encourage the Roman Catholic priesthood to prevent the reading of the scriptures altogether; they accused the Roman Catholics of proselytism, whilst they fell into precisely the same error themselves. He was sorry that these discussions were so frequent; however, they were calculated

83
to bring the cause of religion into contempt, owing to the angry feelings of those who took part in them. He had supported the new plan, because he was quite satisfied that any other was useless to promote education in Ireland.
Mr. Anthony Lefroywas against the system proposed by the right hon. Secretary, and he was glad to say, that he was not alone in that opinion, but that he held it along with almost the whole Protestant population of Ireland. He might mention the petition which had been presented to the House from the United Synod of Ulster, a petition which he believed had passed unanimously. The objection that had been offered to the system pursued by the Kildare-street Society, viz. that the Bible was in some parts so obscure, that it ought not to be put into the hands of those who could not understand it, was not well founded, because it was left to the discretion of the master what portions were suited to the advanced state of the pupil.
Mr. Shawhad no wish to prolong, the discussion upon this subject, but be wished to correct a few mistakes into which the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. D. W. Harvey) had fallen, he had said that there was only a sum of 15,000 l. withdrawn from the Kildare-street Society. Now, the fact was, that the sum withdrawn was 25,000 l. He (Mr. Shaw) did not complain of the withdrawal of that sum, for he considered that all such societies flourished more when left to private support; but what he complained of, and to which he must enter his protest, was, that Government had not merely withdrawn the grant, but had done so in order to give it to another body, and set up another system which in his opinion was not well founded. The hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Wyse) seemed at all times ready to abuse the clergy of Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Shaw) would be bold to say, that there were not a body of men anywhere who were more anxious to promote the education of the people, and who exerted themselves more as far as their means extended. It was, no doubt, because the hon. Member was a sincere Catholic, that the hon. Member advocated the plan of Government, and it was because he was a Protestant that he opposed it. He believed that it would occasion the exclusion of the Bible.
Mr. Wysesaid, all he wished was, that
84
every man should guide himself by his own religion.
Mr. Sheilconsidered that the point at issue was reduced to this, whether there had been merely a substitution of extracts of the Scripture for the full perusal of it. When it was considered that the most unrestricted power of reading the Bible was provided upon two days in the week for the children who should be educated in the new schools, he did not understand how that point of objection could be seriously maintained.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, on rising to move that the petition be printed, he would take that opportunity to deny the aspersions which had been thrown upon the petitioners, on the ground that the meeting, of which they formed a part, had been called for a purpose opposite to that to which their petition was directed. The fact of the matter was, that the public who had been at first excluded from the meeting alluded to, were subsequently admitted, in consequence of a general vote to that effect, and the result was the petition before the House.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he thought it would be impossible to get up any system of education which would please the two great parties in Ireland. He thought the best plan would be, when the grant was before the House, either to withhold the grant altogether, or divide it between both systems, according to their numbers or some other plan of division.
Petition to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Stanleymoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Tithes (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Robinson, with reference to what had fallen from him on a former occasion respecting a motion of his which had dropped in consequence of there being no House on Thursday, complained that an officer connected with the Government should have come down and prevented a House being formed that day, although there was a sufficient number of Members within the walls to make a House. This, he had considered, could only have been done as a manœuvre either against his Motion, which he had repeatedly deferred to avoid interfering with the Reform Bill, or the Motions of two other hon. Members. He had expressed himself on a former occasion with some warmth, but be did not

85
mean to persevere in the intention he then stated: but if such practice were resorted to hereafter, he should avail himself of every opportunity of showing his disgust and reprobation of it.
Lord Althorpassured the hon. Member that there had been no intention of evincing a want of courtesy towards him. The real state of the case was, that official business had pressed so much, and there being no question of urgent importance on that day, they had availed themselves of a custom which was by no means uncommon, without any intention of acting uncourteously to any Member.

ARREARS OF TITHES (IRELAND)
On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Mr. Ruthvenhoped, that, from the thin state of the House, his Majesty's Ministers would not urge their going into a Committee on the Bill then, but that further time should be afforded for consideration, and for additional information from Ireland.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, that he rose to urge upon the noble Lord, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, one argument for delay, which had not as yet been put. It was this—this Bill was printed only on Thursday morning—it had been read a second time on Friday—the people in Dublin could not have had it until that morning—and Irish Members were called on to go into the Committee without having had the opportunity of knowing how the provisions of the Bill had been received in Ireland. It might be, that the feeling against the Bill would be mitigated when the actual provisions of it were known. For himself he would say, that one part of the Bill was, in his opinion, calculated to make them judge less harshly of the general measure; he alluded to the provisions with respect to costs—which, as they were to have such a Bill struck him as wise and salutary, and surely any delay that might accrue would be amply atoned for, if by such delay the Irish people could at all be reconciled to the measure. He put these matters plainly to the noble Lord. The delay until Thursday could not produce any evil consequence, and it would give time to hon. Members to hear from their constituents on this interesting subject.
Lord Althorpobserved that it was not necessary to have a full House for the consideration of this Bill, as those more
86
particularly interested in it were present, and would have a better opportunity of discussing it, clause by clause, in Committee. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Clare, he must say that, though the Bill was not known, the resolutions on which it was founded had been already so amply and frequently discussed, that he saw no reason whatever for delaying going into Committee.
Mr. John Brownecomplained that members for Ireland, who took part against this Bill, improperly arrogated to themselves the character of Representatives of Ireland. He thought the measure would tend to the future peace and prosperity of Ireland. He adopted the whole speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland. If the Government had not made this stand, they would be unworthy of the confidence of the country. He never would court that ephemeral popularity which was too much sought after by some of the Irish Representatives.
Lord Killeensaid, he should not propose any further delay, nor should he suggest any amendment. He must, however, again protest against the Bill, which he felt confident would not be successful. He was not one of those alluded to by the hon. Member (Mr. Browne) who courted ephemeral popularity.
Mr. Stanleysaid, his hon. friend (Mr. Browne) could have meant no reflection on his noble friend. He alluded to those Gentlemen who were in the habit of claiming to be the sole Representatives of Ireland. In order to meet the objections of those who opposed the Bill, as much as possible, Ministers had determined to take off the restrictions as to the amount at which causes for the recovery of tithes might be brought into the Assistant Barrister's Court. He should move an Amendment in the Committee, allowing causes of any amount to be tried in the Court alluded to, and merely giving power to the Attorney General to carry the causes into the Court of Chancery, if he saw fit grounds for so doing.
The House then went into a Committee.
On the first Clause being read,
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, he was not one of those who courted ephemeral popularity, or arrogated to themselves the title of sole Representatives of Ireland. He pretended only to speak the sentiments of his own constituents, whom he knew to be hostile to the measure. He

87
denied that he was, the advocate of a class or of a faction; he was on the contrary, the advocate of the Irish people; emphatically he would say the Irish people. He and those Members who acted with him had supported the Government in all the proper measures which they had proposed, and, that, too when English and Scotch Members did not find it convenient to attend to their duty in this House. The almost universal sense of Ireland was opposed to this Bill, and it was too much to coerce them without doing a necessary act of justice. The resistance to tithes was at present of a negative character, and this Bill would make it positive and only add another to the many evils which oppressed unhappy Ireland. Since this measure was brought forward the petitions against tithes had been more numerous than they were before, and he was sure that three parts of the most intelligent persons in Ireland were against the measure now proposed by his Majesty's Government. The evidence of a Mr. Walsh had been a good deal relied upon by the Government. It was said that Mr. Walsh was a Catholic; but he was sure that the noble member for Kilkenny would not say that Mr. Walsh was a gentleman whose Representations should be relied upon. But, to put that evidence aside, he would beg to ask why should the Government act the part of the tithe-proctors? No doubt it would relieve the parsons; but why relieve them at the expense of the public? The people of Ireland were aggrieved by the system of tithes, and it was the duty of Members in that House to sympathise with them. He and some other Irish Members had done so ineffectually; but that would not deter them from the fair discharge of their duty which they owed to their constituents. He was not the advocate of the seditious, nor of the Terry Alts; but he wished to do justice to the people of Ireland. It was said that a servile war had prevailed in that country, or at least in parts of it; and to what cause was that to be attributed? To the system of tithes, to oppressive rents, and to bad landlords. During the war the rents were well-paid, while tithes were resisted, and no human effort could now reconcile the people to their payment. The Government might sell their goods under this Bill, the gaols might be crowded with victims, but the result would be a still greater abhorrence to tithes. For himself he would say, that
88
he was friendly to a repeal of the Union; and he was satisfied that this measure would materially tend to increase the number of those who supported that measure.
Mr. Leadersaid, that, having, in the previous discussions on this important question, declared the impossibility of his being induced to support any measure of coercion to enforce the payment of the arrears of the tithe in Ireland, without such a measure being accompanied with a remedial one calculated to tranquillize the agitated mind of the country, and to conciliate the affections of the people; and the House having resolved to go into Committee on the Bill for making the tithe payers of Ireland in arrear for the tithe of 1831 King's debtors, by combining the powers and revenues of the Church with those of the Crown against the people, he was bound to submit his judgment to that of the House, and to surrender his opposition to the principle of the Bill. However great, therefore, was his disapprobation of the measure, it became his duty to suggest and propose any measure which occurred to him, as likely to render it less expensive, and least oppressive to the country. And as, in the course of the debates, expressions galling to the feelings of Irishmen had at different times escaped in the course of these discussions, and observations unworthy and unjust had been occasionally thrown upon the opposers of this novel and dangerous measure, he must be excused for saying, that no aspersion uttered in that House or elsewhere could prevent Ireland from being considered other than a powerful and important country—greatly neglected, and too long subjected to misrule and misgovernment; and as the Members of Ireland who had opposed the coercive measures of the Government, had been taunted as not representing the Irish people, he would repel that statement by a single observation. The Irish Gentlemen who had opposed the measure—thirty-three Members for counties, cities, and populous towns—were greater in importance than all the Tory Members who had opposed Ministers in this and the last Parliament. If the question was left between those whom he must consider the friends of Ireland and their opponents, undoubtedly, the majority would be found on the side of the people; and if the question was to depend on the number of the

89
Irish Representatives who were opposed to the measure, and of those who supported the Government, the independents would be found superior to the regular opponents of the Government, and greater in their numbers than the Irish Members who had been the unvarying friends of the present Administration. Under those circumstances, he strenuously asserted, that no consideration but the feeling of paramount and imperious necessity and duty to their constituents could have induced thirty-three Irish Members, well disposed to give a reforming Ministry their most zealous support, to resist for the last five weeks this ill-judged and arbitrary measure. The aspersions on Ireland and the taunts on the conduct of the Irish Representatives had not had the effect of diverting his mind from a determined and constitutional resistance to this baneful expedient. He had been told by high authority in that House that a remedy for the existing grievances in Ireland would be prepared at the same time that any application was made for extraordinary powers—and as such powers were necessary to enforce the laws, proper remedies should be applied to remove all admitted grievances. He regretted to say, that he communicated with his constituents, and expressed his most sanguine expectation that they should speedily have to congratulate one another on the abolition of tithes, and that the payment of the arrear of 1831 would be of light and trivial moment when contrasted with the paramount importance of the extinction of this (as regards the Catholic occupiers of the soil) unjust and ruinous impost. He greatly lamented that he had not been able to realize the expectation which he held out not only to his constituents but to the members of public bodies who intrusted him with the presentation of their petitions. The clergy had been relieved, and the coercive measure, he might say, was now passed, and it was still open to him sincerely and ardently to hope that the remedial measure might now receive the same influential and decided support from his Majesty's Government, as the coercive measure had heretofore received. When, in the preamble of the Bill it was stated, that it was necessary to make special enactments, in order to vindicate the authority of the law, and to provide immediate relief for such of the clergy as were suffering from the deprivation of their incomes, by unlawful
90
combination, he would beg to call the attention of the House to the nature of the old composition law which was sought to be vindicated, not by enforcing obedience to the law itself, but by a new-fangled legislation, uniting the Crown and the Church, and conferring extraordinary powers and resources against the people. By an Act passed in the fourth year of the reign of his late Majesty, George 4th, entitled "An Act to provide for the establishment of the composition for tithes in Ireland, for a limited time," sect. 38, it was thereby enacted, amongst other things, "That the amount of such composition and the several portions thereof, payable according to such assessments and applotments, and all arrears thereof, from time to time, not exceeding the amount of one whole year of such composition, shall be a charge on the land specified in such assessments and applotment, during the continuance of such composition, and shall be payable by the occupier or occupiers of such lands, or by the owner of such lands, occupying the same for the time being, according to the quantity of such land, which each occupier shall from time to time, hold and occupy; and that it shall be lawful for the incumbent, and for every and any other person, or persons, or body politic, or corporation, or corporate collegiate or corporation, entitled to such composition, or any part, share, or portion thereof, or to cause the same to be levied upon the several lands specified in such assessment, or applotment, and on the several occupiers of such lands for the time being, in preference to any other charge upon such lands by all the ways and means allowed by law for the recovery of rent; and it shall and may be lawful for any collector, or person appointed to collect and levy the amount of such composition, from time to time, as the same shall become due, and every such collector so appointed shall collect and levy, and is hereby authorized, empowered, and required to collect and levy all and every sum and sums of money which shall become due from time to time in respect of such corporation to the incumbent or other person or body politic, or corporate, or collegiate, or corporation, in whose behalf such collector shall be appointed to levy the same."—Such being the power under the Composition Act, and it being admitted in evidence that the amount of tithe bore a small proportion to the amount of property of

91
the tithe-payer, and it being also put beyond all doubt by the parliamentary official returns, that an immense force of police and army were spread over the surface of the districts in which the arrear of 1831 was due, and that three-fourths of the debt to the clergy consisted of arrears of composition rent, he would ask on what ground did the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland contend for new and extraordinary powers? Would he contend that if the Crown was assignee of the composition rent and the tithe, and possessed ample power under the existing law to distrain for composition rent, and levy the amount of decrees for tithes granted at Quarter Sessions, and along with those powers, there was a certainty of finding abundant effects, and an overwhelming force of civil and military on the spot, in the name of Heaven, what more did the right hon. Gentleman require to recover this 60,000 l. advanced to the clergy? Were not the existing laws, the existing means of the tithe-payers, and the existing civil and military force of the, country, sufficient to vindicate the law, if the vindication of the law was the great object of his care, his vigilance, and his solicitude? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he had these powers, why should he require greater? With these ample and undoubted powers, why was it that he had brought in this Act to make the King's subjects the King's debtors, and when thus accountable to the Crown, make not only their lands on which the tithe grew, but all their lands liable to the demand of the Crown; and, as he would assert, under the authority of Hughes's case, in Gilbert's Exchequer, 126, as King's debtor, also make them liable to execution, so that they could not he bailed? Would the Solicitor General deny, that by the Common-law, execution might be issued, not only against the goods and chattels, but the lands of the King's debtor; could be deny that by 21st and 22nd Edward 3rd, c. 20, in the Irish Statutes, "all obligations to the King shall have the force of a Statute staple—the King shall be preferred in suit and execution; all lands which any persons accountable to the King have, whilst so accountable, are liable to the King's debt, and the Court of Exchequer, may order the estate of King's debtors to be sold by summary process." Against this, under these circumstances, coercive law, founded on the worst principles of legislation, he entered
92
his solemn protest. For such an Act of Parliament he never was prepared, on bringing up the Report of the Tithe Committee. There was no precedent for such a law in the worst times of British or even Irish legislation, and a bad precedent for Ireland was not without its danger to Great Britain. For his part, as he could not offer further resistance to the Bill, he would move in the third clause, "that all remedies now existing for the recovery of such tithe, or composition for tithes respectively, shall rest in his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and such tithe and composition for tithes, shall be recovered and enforced by the proceedings, and in the manner heretofore used for the recovery of such tithes, or composition for tithes respectively, and not otherwise;" and also after the fourth clause, he would move a provision that nothing contained in the Act should render the person or persons making such default as aforesaid, liable as accountant or debtor to the Crown, further than he or they would be in case this Act had not passed, and that all proceedings taken under this Act should be taken in the name of the ecclesiastical person obtaining relief, by virtue of the provisions hereinbefore contained; and then he should move that the remainder of this Act, with all its new and dangerous, crude and ill-digested machinery, should be entirely omitted—being bound by the Resolutions of the House not to oppose further the grant or loan of 60,000 l. to the clergy, and being bound by the further Resolution of the House to give the Crown the means of recovery, he had endeavoured, without further encroachments on the best principles of the Constitution, to suggest the remedy which in his mind would be amply adequate to the existing emergency. When the people of Ireland found that Parliament was pledged to the extinction of tithes, and the Crown had become the assignee only of the existing arrears, he entertained the hope that without the enactment of new and odious powers, the existing laws would be found sufficient to enforce the payment of what was fairly due to the clergy. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the landlords of Ireland had not an equal interest as the occupiers of the soil, in these novel, dangerous, and expensive proceedings? Were journeys of tenants, with their witnesses, to attend the Master's office—of the Chancery and Exchequer

93
expenses, undeserving of the smallest consideration? Were defences to the proceedings of his Majesty's Attorney General so trifling and inconsiderable as to be matters too insignificant to arrest the attention of an Administration, whose sole care and time was unfortunately occupied in subjects of more interest to themselves, and of more importance to the country? He would ask the right hon. Secretary, was not the produce of the Irish soil subjected already to abundant encumbrance, without placing the suitor's agent in Chancery, for he must be first paid, as an encumbrance before the Crown, the Church, or the landlord? Could the tithe-payers be defended without a heavy advance for the expenses of witnesses obliged to take long journeys, and solicitors who would not be disposed to give much credit, or make advances for Crown debtors? In that entire measure, the interest of the landlord was indissolubly linked with the interest of the tithe payer. Would any one deny, that tithes, and law costs, and costs of witnesses, and Equity Courts, must all come out of the produce of the land? Were there manufactories, or was there a prosperous foreign commerce in Ireland to supply the deficiency? Under these circumstances, would any one say, that when the land must bear the burthen those who depend on the proceeds of the land, must not be prepared to submit to privation and loss? He knew the answer, which was prepared and ready, to his earnest solicitude to adhere to the existing laws of the country it was "no sales can be effected if made under distress, and it was necessary that proper examples should be made of determined and incorrigible combinators;" to this answer he would reply, the people would probably never pay the clergy, and certainly with the greatest discontent would never pay the Crown—but still his belief, founded on a knowledge of the people, and the landlords of Ireland, that property probably to the value of 600,000 l., would never be permitted to be destroyed; the lands would not be denuded of cattle, and the industry of the country suspended, for the purpose of resisting this demand, particularly when there was not only a great probability, but a certainty, of the extinction of tithe. For once he placed the greatest confidence in the justice, temper, and generous reliance, on the good sense of the country. If haughty, insulting, and irritating mea-
94
sures, were unwise and reprehensible against individuals, much more indefensible were they when directed against an excited and populous community. He considered it to be his good fortune to have lived in uninterrupted affection with those Irishmen who were amongst the greatest ornaments of that House; who, in times of public commotion, and of impending foreign invasion, resisted the Arms Bill for Ireland as oppressive and tyrannical, and who permitted the Insurrection Act to continue a dead letter on the Statute-book, when Magistrates from various parts of Ireland required it to quell dangerous disturbances in most critical and dangerous times. On these occasions, their hopes of tranquillity were not in flying to new laws, but in endeavouring to vindicate the old ones. Would any one tell him that if the arrear of tithe for 1831, instead of being confined to a small district, as he knew it was, were general over Ireland, that the landed interest, from the highest to the lowest, would not be reduced by this Bill to a state which it was painful to contemplate, and on which he could not trust himself to dilate? He thought it not improbable that men of condition and resolution might be sent to gaol as debtors of the Crown, and might come out of it as Representatives of the people. He was no friend to laws which converted good subjects into Crown debtors, and if rewards were to be conferred, he would prefer seeing them reserved for persons whose lives were devoted peaceably to the interests of their country, rather than to those who by resistance to improvident laws had won the esteem and ensured the confidence of the people. He had no amendments to propose but those he had suggested, and as a remedial measure for the abolition of tithes had not preceded this coercive measure, he would conclude, by expressing his deep regret, that it had been introduced at a moment when the attention of Parliament was so exclusively devoted to other subjects of such great importance, as almost to preclude the possibility of all the great constitutional principles involved in this important question being adequately considered and discussed.
Mr. Cramptonhad already troubled the House too often on this Bill; he would, therefore, only observe, in answer to what had been said by the hon. Member, that the Bill contained no provision for arrest,

95
save in execution, and that the prerogative rights of the Crown had been ceded in the Bill; neither could the costs of proceeding fall on the landlord or tenant, but on the clergyman, and as to the Attorney or Solicitor General, he could say, that they would derive no increase of emolument under this Bill.
Clause agreed to.
Several other Clauses were also, after a few verbal Amendments, agreed to.
On the clause providing for the issuing of proclamations calling for the payment of the arrears of tithe, and notifying, in case of default, that proceedings would be taken on the part of the Crown within one month from the date of the insertion of such proclamation in The Dublin Gazette, being put,
Mr. Ruthvenobjected to the clause; as The Dublin Gazette was a publication never seen in many parts of the country, and quite unknown in others. Such a proclamation as that proposed would afford no notice at all to the people. He should not divide the House, but could not avoid expressing his objection to this clause.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the object of the clause was merely to afford legal evidence of the issuing of the proclamation, and that care would be taken by the Government to distribute copies of the proclamation through the country.
Mr. Sheilsuggested that the proclamation should be inserted in the newspapers published in the several counties where it was sought to enforce the provisions of this Bill. On consideration, perhaps, the expense of such a publication might be considered too great, and all he would ask was, that copies of the proclamation should be extensively circulated and posted through the several districts. He should, therefore, suggest the propriety of making an addition to the clause to that effect.
Mr. Cramptoncould not hesitate to acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for Louth, inasmuch as all the Government sought by the clause was, to give ample and sufficient notice to all parties concerned of the intentions of the Government.
The clause, as amended, agreed to.
Several other clauses were then agreed to.
On the clause exempting all proceedings under the Act for Stamp duties and office fees being read,
Mr. Cramptonmoved, as an amendment—"That no costs should be due or payable under this Bill, except as before provided for."
Mr. Lefroyobjected to this amendment, as he thought it most unjust to mulct the clergy, and protect those defendants who had voluntarily become defaulters. This was nothing short of holding out a premium to combination.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 107; Noes13—Majority 94.

List of the NOES.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lefroy, A.

Cole, Lord

Maxwell, H.

Fitzgerald, Sir A.

Shaw, F.

Hayes, Sir E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Holmes, W.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Jones, T.

Young, J.

Lefroy, T.

The remaining clauses agreed to.
On the preamble being read,
Mr. Ruthvenmoved, that all the words after "whereas," be omitted, for the purpose of inserting these words—" A general disposition against the payment of tithes has existed in many parts of Ireland, and the ordinary course usually practised in the payment thereof has been relinquished, so that numbers of the clergy are reduced to a state of great distress, and it has become necessary and expedient to provide immediate means for their relief." He moved this Amendment in consistency with his previous opposition to other parts of the Bill, but he would not trouble the Committee to divide upon it. His complaint was, that the people of Ireland were charged with an illegal combination against the payment of tithes, whereas the reason for the non-payment was, a stimultaneous feeling against it, which operated in the same manner upon all persons.
The question having been put,
Mr. Cramptonsaid, if there was one fact on which the whole of the Committee, and of the witnesses were agreed, without a shade of difference, it was, as to the existence of an organized opposition to the payment of tithes.
The Amendment negatived. House resumed.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Lefroymoved, as an amendment,

97
that this Bill should be recommitted. The ground on which he made the motion was, that the Bill would work injustice to an individual. It had been proposed to grant a salary of 1,500 l. a-year to the Registrar, but, by an amendment, the salary had been reduced to 1,200 l. As this was a question in which vested rights were concerned, he trusted he should receive the attention of the House to the circumstances he was about to detail. By the Act of 9 George 4th, the Lords of the Treasury were empowered, on the decease of the then Registrar, to appoint another, and fix his salary. The late Registrar died in May, 1830, and Mr. Moore, who had acted for thirty-one years as his deputy, in the course of the month of July following received a letter from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), offering him the situation at a salary of 1,500 l. a-year. This Mr. Moore immediately accepted. From this simple statement of facts he was prepared to contend, that Mr. Moore had a fair claim to the salary offered him. He would, however, go further, and show that, on the 27th of July in the same year, a Treasury minute was made, fixing his salary at 1,500 l. a year. This minute was immediately acted upon, it was communicated to Mr. Moore, and, at the same time, he received a letter from Mr. Stewart—a gentleman who held a situation in the Treasury—desiring him forthwith to furnish an account of the receipts and disbursements of the office, up to the day of the date of the minute, upon which day he was to be considered as entering into the new engagement. Mr. Moore, of course, complied with this order, he also received, at the same time, a letter from another department of the Treasury, requiring him to remit 118 l. 6s. 6d. to that office, as the amount of, and to pay for, the stamp on his appointment, the expense of which would have been less, had the salary been but one pound less than 1,500 l. a-year. The officer who called on Mr. Moore for this remittance stated to him that his appointment was made out, and would be completed on the receipt of the money. Mr. Moore accordingly remitted the sum required. His appointment was executed by the noble Duke at the head of the Government, and two other Lords of the Treasury, and was forwarded to him by return of post. He appealed to the House, whether it was possible to state a case of
98
a more plain, vested, legal title under the Act than that which he had referred to, and which the documents he possessed fully sustained? Under that Act, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had authority to regulate the office, to appoint the officer, and fix the salary. On the 27th of July, 1830, they did appoint Mr. Moore, and fixed the salary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer communicated the appointment to Mr. Moore, and that gentleman accepted the office, and provided the necessary stamp. He had, as Deputy Registrar, rendered all his accounts up to the moment of his new appointment, and that appointment took place with all due and legal solemnity. Besides, the House must bear in mind this additional fact: Mr. Moore was entitled, under the Act, to have retired from office, and to have called upon the Lords of the Treasury to give him compensation, if they did not think him fit to be retained; but, of course, when they proposed to appoint him as Principal Registrar, he abandoned all claim to compensation. Mr. Moore had been thirty-one years discharging the duties of the office as Deputy Registrar, to the entire satisfaction of the public. It could not be considered as a matter of favour, or bear the character of a job, to continue Mr. Moore as Principal Registrar. He, therefore, trusted that, under these circumstances, the House would not entertain a doubt as to the justice of his claim to the continuance of the salary of 1,500 l. a-year. Indeed, such was the view taken of it by the hon. Gentleman who framed this Bill, and the salary was accordingly fixed in that Bill at 1,500 l. a-year. That hon. Gentleman raised no question as to Mr. Moore's right; on the contrary, he stated to the House that, if it were a new question as to the salary Mr. Moore was to receive, he thought the duties of the office would entitle him to 1,500 l. a-year. The Secretary of the Treasury also founded the claim to the 1,500 l. salary upon the ground of the additional duties and increased responsibility which would be attached to the office by the Bill. The Solicitor General for Ireland concurred fully in recommending to the House the amount of salary as specified in it. In truth, Mr. Moore's friends had no reason to anticipate any resistance on the subject: consequently, they came entirely unprepared with the documents which he was now able to lay before the House, to

99
support Mr. Moore's claim to the higher salary; and by whom was the salary, as specified by the Bill, opposed? Not by Government, but by the hon. and learned member for Louth (Mr. Sheil), who was an entire stranger to the whole transaction. As there was no hon. Member prepared with the documents to establish Mr. Moore's title to the 1,500 l. a year, the question was discussed upon the ground of the adequacy of the salary to the duties of the office; and it appearing to some Gentlemen that 1,500 l. was more than sufficient, the House, by a majority of two carried the amendment that fixed it at 1,200 l. It was for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity to reconsider the question that he now proposed to move that the Bill be recommitted, when he would lay the documents before them that would completely establish Mr. Moore's right to the salary he now claimed; and that, therefore, the amount should be restored in the Bill to what it stood at originally. He begged to move that this Bill be recommitted.
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in arranging this salary, he was acting on the principle laid down by the Committee which reported on the salaries to be paid to public officers. The noble Lord had, on that occasion, stated, that it would be necessary for Government to consider the duties to be performed, and the responsibility the office imposed, and that salaries should be regulated accordingly. It was on that principle the Committee prepared the plan recommended by them, and upon which he understood Government had pledged themselves to act. He had heard that this was an office which admitted of the absence of the persons holding it for weeks together, and that the actual duties to be performed were of very little importance, compared to those of an officer in his Majesty's Treasury, whose salary had been reduced, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee. He wished to hear from the noble Lord, whether he was satisfied on that point, before this Bill went into Committee? If any question was likely to arise, the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee upstairs, in order that the duties of the office might be ascertained. He understood that the situation did not interfere with this officer acting in the way of his profession in the Courts of Law. If, then, the
100
House was really anxious to reduce the public expenditure, let a Special Committee ascertain the duties of this office, and by a fair appreciation, either reduce or increase the salary as the nature of the case required.
Lord Althorpsaid, his honourable friend had asked him a question, to which, undoubtedly, he should be compelled to answer, that if this matter were to be looked at in an abstract manner, he should not give his vote in the way he felt it his duty to give it on the present occasion. If he was asked whether 1,200 l. a-year was not a sufficient salary for the duties proposed to be discharged by the Registrar in Ireland, he should certainly say it was. But the question which the House had now to consider was a very different one; because Mr. Moore was appointed to this office during his good behaviour, and which office imposed on him the discharge of some very trifling duties; and he was permitted to hold a seat in Parliament; whereas, the duties imposed by the present Bill would compel him to constantly attend his duties in Dublin, and deprive him of the power to sit in Parliament. These were the circumstances which made him come to the decision, that the addition of 300 l. to the present salary, was a fair remuneration for the additional duties thrown upon an officer holding a place during good behaviour, especially when those additional duties would be advantageous to the public service. Another part of the case which had been stated by the honourable and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy) was of a different nature. He had argued, that, even if additional duties had not been thrown upon Mr. Moore, still he had a right to the additional 300 l. He was not quite so certain of that point. It was true, it was stated to Mr. Moore, at the time he was appointed, that the salary would be 1,500 l. a-year; and, on the 27th of July, 1830, a Treasury Minute was made, giving him that amount of salary. But when the present Government came into office, they found another Treasury Minute, dated the same day, stating that the salary should be 1,200 l. and not 1,500 l. Upon inquiry, however, he found that this other minute was not actually written on the 27th of July, but some months afterwards, although bearing that date. The House was to consider that Mr. Moore accepted of his situation, believing at the time,

101
that he was to receive 1,500 l. a-year. Additional duties were to be thrown upon the office, and the proposition was, to raise the salary to the amount which Mr. Moore expected when he was appointed. Under all these circumstances, without being able, which he certainly was not, to state that 1,200 l. was not a sufficient salary, he certainly should give his vote for the recommittal of the Bill, that the House might reconsider the decision they came to on a former occasion. He spoke individually, a question having been especially addressed to him on the subject.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the documents referred to by his hon. and learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin, virtually acknowledged the appointment of Mr. Moore at the higher salary; and, as he considered that this House was exercising its functions judicially, he knew no other course that could be taken, than to go into Committee, and correct, if necessary, an erroneous act of the Government.
Mr. Sheilsaid, on looking at this Bill, he was convinced that it imposed no substantial responsibility, nor any augmentation of duties; but, on the contrary, there were some exceedingly important accommodations afforded to the Registrar, which he did not enjoy before. He found there were two Assistant-Registrars allowed, instead of one, as fixed by the minutes which had hitherto regulated the office; and also such a number of clerks as the Registrar should, from time to time, appoint. Under these circumstances, he wished to ascertain what were the additional duties as well as what increased responsibility there was imposed? He contended, that nothing had been stated by the mover of the Amendment to warrant the House in acceding to the Motion. The duties of the Registrar did not occupy his mind; they merely demanded manual labour; and Mr. Moore was not upon any grounds entitled to the increase of salary the friends of that gentleman demanded. He was of opinion, upon other grounds, that the increase should be denied. Mr. Moore was not prevented by the office of Registrar, from attending to his professional duties. Mr. Moore was a barrister of extensive practice, and, in the Ecclesiastical Court alone he made 1,200 l. a-year. He must, therefore, call on the House to abide by its former decision, and not to be unravelling what it had already
102
done. He insisted that no new arguments had been brought forward, and that a clear and palpable case should be made out before the House should give its assent to the Amendment.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that, with reference to the two Treasury Minutes connected with the appointment, he must explain that the first one, mentioning the larger sum, had been forwarded to Mr. Moore by mistake. It had never, however, passed the Board, although it was laid before them, but some of the subordinate departments, whose duty it was to act upon it, had taken it for granted that, as it was proposed, it would pass, and they had written to apprize Mr. Moore of the matter. Though he did not stand there to justify such mistakes, yet he trusted that they would readily admit that it could easily occur in the hurry of business. Allowing that the unauthenticated minute had been so far acted upon, it would be a most dangerous doctrine to conclude, that the public were to be bound by a mistake. Moreover, he did not consider Mr. Moore had any right to complain, for he had been receiving the salary of 1,200 l., and, if he had thought himself entitled to more, he was bound to make his demand, and to complain of the injury done to him. In answer to what some hon. Members had said on the question of labour, he must beg leave to state, that formerly Mr. Moore could obtain thirty days' leave of absence from time to time, but that, under the present Bill, his attendance to the duties of his office would be constantly required, without any kind of intermission; and, as to responsibility, he (Mr. Moore) would be also responsible for all the business of his office, and for the acts of all the persons employed in it.
Mr. Shawwas somewhat surprised that any gentleman in independent circumstances, would accept such a serious responsibility as was cast upon Mr. Moore for the salary he received, even allowing that to be 1,500 l. a-year. But, as he had done so on the faith of receiving that remuneration for his services, he had a strict legal right to be paid that amount. The case was simply this—in July, 1830, Mr. Moore became entitled, under the Act 9, George 4th, to a compensation for thirty-one years service; in lieu of this he accepted a situation which was tendered to him with a salary, authorised by a Trea-

103
sury Minute, which was inclosed to him. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that Mr. Moore had acquiesced in receiving the reduced amount of salary, but he had no remedy. He received his appointment in July, and without any suspicion that a reduction was contemplated. In November a change in the Ministry took place, and immediately afterwards the Bill before them had been brought in by the hon. member for Mallow, who, without any concert with Mr. Moore, fixed his salary at the same amount as the Treasury Minute. Mr. Moore and his friends, therefore, thought it was unnecessary to bring the subject before Parliament. As to receiving 1,200 l. a-year, he had certainly done so, but he had always taken the money under a protest.
Mr. Lamb, having voted on a former occasion against this increase of salary, had only to say his opinion remained unchanged. The office had been a sinecure over paid; and now it was made an efficient situation, with a proper salary. In the midst of retrenchment which had taken place, he could not see why they were to go out of the way to give this 300 l. a-year to an office which certainly any person ought to discharge for half the compensation given in the Bill. He did, however, think they had some right to expect an explanation from the late Ministry respecting the two minutes. But be that as it might they ought to pair off together, for the House ought to deal with the question entirely upon its own merits.
Lord Granv. Somersetsaid, as allusions had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, and by the hon. member for Louth, he would state that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government when the Treasury Minute was made, that the officer should be compensated in a way to insure the regular performance of the duties. The amount of salary had accordingly been fixed after a full consideration of the duties thrown on the Registrar. Since that period other duties had been added, and, therefore, the salary might not now be adequate. He should vote on the occasion with the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of the Treasury. In doing so he proved that he had more confidence in the Government than the under Secretary for the Home Department.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, the simple question was, on which Minute was Mr. Moore appointed. He believed that the first one, fixing the largest amount of salary, was the one said never to have been regularly passed, but undoubtedly it had been acted on, and if so, the Treasury had no power to repeal it, and reappoint with a smaller salary. No such power was given them by the Act under which the first appointment was granted, he should, therefore, vote for the re-committal of the Bill.
Mr. Jephsonsaid, he had already delivered an opinion that Mr. Moore's duties and responsibilities having been increased by the present measure, he was entitled to the addition proposed; and though the present discussion had not originated with him, he felt himself called upon to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin. There were two points mentioned in the discussion, which he wished to explain. The first was, that two deputy Registrars were appointed by the Bill; he had done this at the recommendation of the profession in Dublin. The next was, what was the remedy against the Registrar in case of misconduct; why, the aggrieved party could summon him before a Judge, who was enabled to proceed summarily against him, and fine him to the extent of 100 l. if the case demanded it.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 69; Noes 62—majority 7.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Marjoribanks, S.

Baring, F. T.

Palmer, C. F.

Benett, J.

Poyntz, W. S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Rickford, W.

Bernal, R.

Robinson, Sir G.

Blamire, W.

Rooper, J. B.

Bouverie, Hon. P. P.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Bulwer, E. L.

Sebright, Sir J.

Burke Sir John.

Spencer, Hon. Capt.

Calvert, C.

Stanley, J.

Carter, J. B.

Strickland, G.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Strutt, E.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Stuart, Lord D.

Curteis, H. B.

Thicknesse, R.

Denman, Sir T.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. C.P.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Ellice, E.

Tomes, J.

Evans, W.

Tracey, C. H.

Fox, Lieut.-Colonel

Venables, Alderman

Gisborne, T.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Hudson, T.

Villiers, T. H.

Ingilby, Sir W. A.

Warburton, H.

King, E. B.

Webb, Colonel E.

Knight, R.

Wilks, J.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Williams, W. A.

105

SCOTLAND.

Lambert, J. S.

Dixon, J.

Macnamara, W.

Johnstone, J.

O'Connell, M.

IRELAND.

Ruthven, E. S.

Callaghan, D.

White, Colonel H.

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Wyse, T.

Duncannon, Viscount

TELLERS

French, A.

Hume, J.

Grattan, J.

Shell, R. L.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Mr. Humesaid, that from what had already transpired on the subject at present before the House, he did not hesitate to think that inquiry into the nature and duties of the office held by Mr. Moore was called for, and it ought to be investigated whether or not those duties were not of such a character as that 500 l. per annum would be ample remuneration. He should, therefore, move, that that bill be re-committed for such inquiry to a Select Committee.
Mr. Jephsonwas anxious that the fullest inquiry should be had on the subject, and fully acquiesced in the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. John Campbellthought the remuneration of Mr. Moore was quite inadequate to the responsibilities of the office, which, unlike that in Yorkshire, with a salary of 2,000 l. per annum, was not a sinecure.
The House again divided on the question "that the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee." Ayes 91; Noes 25:—Majority 66.
Appointment of Committee, on the Motion of Mr. Hume, adjourned till a future day.