HC Deb 08 March 1832 vol 10 cc1331-74
Mr. Stanley

rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the subject of Irish Tithes. On the 6th of December, that House, in common with the other House of Parliament, received from his Majesty a recommendation to take the subject of Tithes in Ireland into their immediate and most attentive consideration. In reply to that recommendation, the House assured his Majesty, that it should be one of its first duties to inquire whether it might not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting the subject of tithes in Ireland, which might afford the necessary protection to the Established Church, and, at the same time, remove the present causes of complaint. In a few days after the recommendation from the Throne and the Address in answer to it had passed, a Committee was appointed, and the subject thus referred to that Committee engaged its most careful and laborious investigation. Having had the honour to be the Chairman of that Committee, it had been his duty, in compliance with its instructions, to make a report to the House. The Committee had not been able to conclude its labours, yet it had proceeded far enough to be able to lay before the House some portion of the information which it had acquired and, in presenting its first Report to the House, to call upon the House to take such steps as, under the circumstances, might be necessary. The Committee having proceeded that length, it had now become his duty to lay before the House the views which his Majesty's Government entertained of the information acquired by the Committee on this most important subject, and the means of carrying the recommendations of the Committee into effect. The most convenient and regular course, however would be, that he should submit those views to a Committee of the whole House, especially as he wished to submit the whole plan of Government, with all its details, to the consideration of the House. Such a course would be more convenient, as affording wider scope for debate, and affording him a better opportunity to explain and state the whole of the plan which his Majesty's Government had resolved upon adopting, as well as the Resolutions upon which they intended it should be founded. Anticipating no objection to this mode of proceeding, he should, in the first instance, content himself by moving "that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, and that the Speaker do leave the Chair."

The question having been put,

Mr. Brownlow

said, that, perceiving, from the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman, that it was his intention that night to draw the attention of the House to the consideration of the partial Report of the Committee upon tithes in Ireland, he had concluded, from that notice, that the right hon. Gentleman would feel it part of his business to open out to the House the nature of the views taken by his Majesty's Government, and the Resolutions which they meant to propose as founded upon that partial Report. Without intending or presuming to judge what was the usual course of proceeding in that House, with which the right hon. Gentleman must, of course, be much better acquainted than he professed to be, yet he must take the liberty of stating, that he thought the line adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion was of an unusual nature; because he ventured to think, that when a right hon. Gentleman moved that the Speaker should leave the Chair, for the purpose of the House going into Committee to consider of certain Resolutions, the reasonable and common-sense mode of dealing was, that, before they went into Committee, they should know what the Resolutions were that were to be moved. He believed that the Members of that House, agreeing to go into a Committee upon certain Resolutions, were regarded as assenting to the principles of those Resolutions. ["No, no."] Certainly, when he recollected various occasions in that House, and when he more particularly recollected the course of proceeding on the Catholic question, he ventured to state that whoever the hon. Member was who undertook to move that the Speaker should leave the Chair, for the purpose of the House going into a Committee to consider of certain Resolutions, that hon. Member found it his duty fully to state the nature and objects of his Resolutions; and he undoubtedly thought, that the Resolutions of his Majesty's Government ought to be stated to the House on the present oc- casion. The House ought not to be called upon to go into Committee upon Resolutions of which they knew nothing. They should not betaken, as would be the case according to the practice of Parliament, to assent to the principles of the Resolutions, which the right hon. Gentleman had not as yet thought proper to declare. He did not however, state that he was altogether sorry for the course which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued; because, in a certain degree, it removed him, and some of his friends who agreed with him, from the painful position in which they might otherwise appear to stand, of being opposed to his Majesty's Ministers, and to the Resolutions which they proposed. He and his friends were unacquainted with the Resolutions. They had received no intimation upon the subject, and, therefore, they could not be understood as objecting to them. In the absence, therefore, of all such information as he certainly thought it was reasonable to expect, and as it would have been consistent with the proceedings of Parliament to communicate on the subject, he must proceed to apply his observations, as well as he was able, not to the statements of the right hon. Secretary, but to the partial report to which the right hon. Gentleman said he would draw the attention of the House, but upon which at present he was perfectly ignorant. He was sorry—he deeply deplored—that the House was called upon by the right hon. Secretary to deal with that partial Report. He thought the proceeding premature and unseasonable and unwise. Why should they be called upon to deal with a partial Report? Why was not the whole subject before the House? Why had not the whole of the evidence by which the whole subject was capable of being elucidated been collected and heard, by the Committee, and presented in every point to the consideration of the House. That would have been the right course of proceeding. With an ample inquiry and full evidence, the House might have approached with justice to the consideration of the Resolutions and of the practical measures to be founded upon them. But he protested against this partial Report, as pressing the House with undue speed and precipitancy to consider the case of the parish clergy by itself, without reference to all the other great features of the question. But did he, when he said this, hold lightly the case of the parish clergy? Far from it; but he thought, that the case of the parishioners ought to be considered along with that of the parish clergy—along with the case of the Church should be considered the case of the congregation; along with the case of the incumbent should be considered that of the tithe-payer. It should be taken as one indivisible subject. Something like a settlement might be hoped for when the whole question was fairly brought under the consideration of Parliament. He begged again not to be understood as undervaluing the parish clergy. He felt that the parish clergyman was placed in a situation of great difficulty; that he was reduced to very great deprivations, and even dangers, by no fault of his own. He felt that, amidst extremely trying circumstances, the parish clergy had behaved with great temper and great moderation. But he said, that, even as regarded the clergyman, this was not a wise course to pursue, because he conceived the House was to understand that the Resolutions were to go to the fearful extent that additional laws of coercion and severity were to be called for by the Government, to enable the clergy to collect their dues in Ireland. He said, that this course would not serve the parish clergyman, and that it would injure the cause which his Majesty's Government had in view. He undertook to say, that the evils, great as they had been at the commencement of the Session of Parliament, and unmitigated, as they had continued to the present day, would be aggravated by the statement of the right hon. Secretary—that additional laws, if the fancy of man or the ingenuity of lawyers could devise a system of greater coercion and severity, were necessary for upholding the Church Establishment in Ireland. Could any announcement be more fatal than this? Would it produce peace between the parish clergy and the people? Would it dry up the sources of bad blood between the Church and the congregation? He believed, on the contrary, that it would promote dissension between the parish clergy and the people. It would place the clergyman in a situation of great difficulty, if not of danger, and would render him unfit for discharging any of those offices of benevolence which were so nearly connected with the duties of his profession. He felt that there could be nothing more injurious to the Church Establishment than the Resolutions which he understood his Majesty's Government were about to propose, because he thought that the only way to deal with this case, and to uphold the Church in Ireland, was to remove it, as quickly as could be done, from all connection with the causes of injustice and tumult and civil war. He did not mean to say, that the interests of these reverend gentlemen were not to be considered by Parliament. They had qualified themselves for their profession, and had entered upon that profession with the same rights as other professions, under the protection of the laws of England. He did not stand up there to defend illegal popular combinations in Ireland. He dreaded and denounced them. He felt the danger of them. He knew that they led to disgrace and discomfiture, and destroyed the peace of Ireland. He did not mean to state that the sums which had become due to the reverend gentlemen under the old tithe law, so long as that old law remained, were not to be recovered, if by possibility they could be. But he did state, that if the object was to protect the clergy, to uphold them and enable them to recover their incomes, the House was taking a very fatal course by looking to measures of coercion and severity for the accomplishment of such objects. They would not accomplish them. He thought that, by the side of such measures of coercion and severity. Ministers should have placed, in distinct and unambiguous language, measures of reform, of solid amendment, and of radical change, in the whole Church system of Ireland. If those measures of improvement and reform were proposed in accompaniment with the other resolutions, he should be disposed to see no great objection to measures of severity for a season, if, on the other hand, he saw that the Government was disposed to win the confidence of the people by conciliation and kindness. That was his plain opinion. Measures of severity, and additional laws might be necessary; but, in conjunction with them, let the House try the simple, easy, and wise course of conciliation and reform. It was much to be desired, that the House should know from whence sprung the opposition to tithes in Ireland. There was a Committee appointed to examine into the whole question, and yet they had not said a word on this subject. In order to be able to adopt a remedy, it was necessary to know from what opinions and prin- ciples the resistance to tithes proceeded, and to what extent it prevailed. Whence arose this opposition to the payment of tithes? From what causes did it originate? These were the all-important questions which the Committee had done little or nothing to answer. In his belief, the resistance to pay tithes arose from no oppressive measures which had been adopted by the clergy for the purpose of exacting their due, for such had never of late been the conduct of the clergy of Ireland. They had, on the contrary, generally exercised their rights with a singular disinterestedness and moderation, and they did not by many degrees enforce their legal rights. He was bound to say, that they conducted themselves with the greatest temper and moderation. He wished to be understood as bearing his humble testimony to the moderation of the clergy of the Established Church in Armagh. It appeared, then, that it was not exaction and oppression which caused the resistance. The clergy took nothing like the tenth part of the produce of the soil. He recollected the case of one gentleman, a witness, who was examined before the Committee—a Gentleman adverse to the collection of tithes, who, on being examined, stated that he held a farm of 700 acres, the rental of which amounted to 1,000l. a-year, and the amount of tithe he paid was 30l., which was not above one-thirtieth part of the rent. Supposing the produce to be double of the rent, the tithe, therefore, was not above one-sixtieth part of the produce of the soil. In many parishes in Tipperary, he believed that the tithes were not one-fourteenth of the rental, and supposing the produce to be double that of the rental, that made the tithes only one-twenty-eighth of the produce. There were seventeen such cases before the Committee. A tithe agent, Mr. Palmer, he believed, stated that, in general, the tithes did not exceed the fiftieth part of the produce. In the whole Province of Ulster the exaction was, he believed, still more moderate. In Tipperary, in the county of Dublin, in the province of Ulster, the tithes were moderate. It was very different, he believed, from the tithe system of England. If he were not misinformed, it was not unusual here, he believed, to exact a third of the rental. Generally, he might say, that the exaction exceeded one-fifth. It was not, therefore, from exaction and oppression; and he wished this to be clearly understood in justification of the clergy, and for the better knowledge of the question—he wished it clearly understood that avarice and oppression on the part of the clergy were not the sources whence the resistance had arisen. Whence then did it arise? That was the important question. Why did he ask this? Because that was the important question for the Representatives of the country to answer. It arose, from somewhat similar causes, as there arose among the people of England—the sober people of England—at a former period, the period of the Reformation, a new religion, and the people could not be brought to see with patience that the great mass of the community was of one religion, and the Church Establishment of another; that they should be of one creed, and their pastors and moral teachers of another. But that was the case of Ireland. There the majority of the people were of one religion, and there the instructors, the moral teachers and paid clergy, were of another. That was the great blunder which had been committed. In all the blunders ever committed by Irishmen, in all their bulls, there was something ludicrous, some stroke of wit, some touch of merriment, some mirth—but in this practical Bill there was no redeeming quality; it had no merriment, no mirth, no laughter in it. The establishment was strange to the disposition, and provoked the opposition of the people. He wished it to be understood, that the opinions of the people were in opposition to the institutions of the Church in Ireland. That was at the root of this difficult question. That had been, he believed, the source of the difficulties of Ireland through many centuries, and the great cause of her crimes, miseries, and distractions. Other circumstances might have some effect. It was impossible to mingle in society and not perceive that there was a visible, if not a strong current setting in against the payment of any religious establishment maintained by the State. Such a current had certainly set in against religious establishments. When did any individual hear a society of ten or twelve persons discussing the merits of religious establishments, and find any one of them maintaining that such establishments should be of the religion of the small minority of the people. Such opinions were gaining ground, and were lying at the root of this evil. The people, the whole people, nearly, were going one way, and the Church Establishment another. He begged, however, that it might be understood that the opposition to the payment of tithes was not confined to the Roman Catholics. God knew the question would be difficult enough if it only went to that extent. But that was not its limits by any means. What was the opinion of the Presbyterians? They were a numerous body strongly imbued with religious sentiments, and what opinions did they hold as to tithes? Undoubtedly they were one and all for what was called a free trade in religion. They wished that every man should pay his own Minister, that every man should support his own Church, and not pay for another. That was the sentiment of the great majority of the Presbyterian population of the northern part of Ireland. But what was the opinion of the Protestants—of the Episcopalians of Ireland? He should like to know what answer would be given by the men who were denominated Protestants in Ireland, if they should be called on to pay the Presbyterian Minister, or, who could picture their rage, should they be called on to pay tithes to the Popish Priests? He believed the sturdy yeoman of the North, on whom such a demand was made, would give those who made it to understand that he bore the King's Arms, that he would not submit to support an institution that he regarded as an injury, and that he would not pay a clergyman from whom he received no benefit. He should think those men justified, and they were, he believed, generous enough to concede to others the privilege of acting on principles of which they themselves approved. They made considerable allowance, then, for the feelings of their Catholic countrymen, and went along with them to a considerable degree. Whether it was right or not, he gave no opinion, but that was, he believed, the fact. But was the House sure that the Protestants, who were supposed to be the most attached to the Government—was the House sure that they wished to maintain the Church Establishment as it now existed? Was the House sure that the Protestants were satisfied with, that they approved of, the dignity assumed by the Bishops, and of the pomp, wealth, and splendor, they exhibited, while the poorer working clergy were obliged to put up with the most miserable pittance? He believed that no man was to be found, and, undoubtedly, there were but few Protestants, who did not wish to see that the emoluments of the clergy of the Established Church were in some measure proportionate to the service performed. The humble curate had been described as rising at six in the morning, to say the morning prayers; he rose from his dinner to repeat the evening service; he it was who baptized and who married—and for all these labours he received a miserable pittance not equal, in many instances, to the labour of a mechanic; he received 70l. a-year. With that system the Protestants Were not satisfied. The important question for the House, then, was, how would it deal with the Church? How would it deal with the tithes—how would it deal with the whole question between the Church and the people? Was the Church property to continue as at present distributed? He did not apprehend that Parliament could give security to the present distribution much longer. What, then, was to be done? Would the Establishment not be better if some proportion were established between the institutions and the opinions of the people? Every man admitted that something must be done, and that speedily. The great source of the complaints and of the mischiefs of Ireland was the lateness of legislation. That which, granted to-day, was received only with gratitude, if delayed till tomorrow was altogether unfit, and was received with distaste. What, then, was to be done? He believed that he was not about to state anything but what was publicly known, and, certainly, he was about to state nothing but what had transpired in the Committee. He might state it, he believed, as an opinion of a dignitary of the Church delivered in the Committee, though, as that dignitary was cross-examined, and he was not present at the cross-examination, he would not mention the name of the individual: he might state what he was about to say, as the opinion of that dignitary, but as he might misinterpret it, though it had, he believed, all the weight of the highest authority, he would mention it as merely his own opinion. It was, however, suited to the occasion and his sentiments of duty. The question was, what could the House do to meet the difficulty—what practical measure could it adopt? He would state then, as his opinion, that respecting the rights and privileges of every existing in- dividual—for he would never, for the sake of any Reform, sacrifice the right of individuals—he certainly would proceed to consider all ecclesiastical benefices, as they became vacant, at the disposal of the State; and he would make the application of their revenues as best accorded with the spirit of the country, and with its circumstances. That was the line of conduct which ought to be adopted to meet the circumstances of the case, and that was the principle which should now be proclaimed to give satisfaction to the people. As long as the Church was in opposition to the people, and they were completely dissatisfied with it, no measure would succeed. They might talk of the danger of illegal combinations, of resistance to the law, of the danger of the people learning their own power, and of their capability to resist legal authority; all that was undoubtedly true, but for it all, there was only one remedy, that of making the law so as to ensure for it the support of the opinions of the people. But if the Parliament should embark in any scheme of coercion, if it should adopt measures of severity to support the Established Church—that would be a fatal day when it entered on such measures—it would meet with dangers such as it had not yet encountered, for the feelings of Irishmen never were stronger and never were more unanimous than on this question, and they were guided by good sense, justice, and moderation. Whatever was proposed he would say, as the first thing to be attended to, be cautious; be cautious how you adopt measures of severity and coercion. Were there not already measures of severity enough? There were severe laws to compel or recover the payment of tithes; and were other measures more severe to be adopted? At least let great caution be used, for if they enforced severe laws; if they adopted measures of coercion, it was plain that the Government and the Parliament would sustain a signal defeat. He would say one word more, and that was to entreat the Parliament promptly to apply itself to the subject. He wished that inquiry should be speedily made into the whole matter. He would take upon him to say, that anxious as he was to have the tithe question brought to a conclusion, and anxious as he was to support the Church Establishment, he was sure that not one landlord would claim the tithes as his, he distinctly renounced for them and for himself, as a landlord, all claims to tithes; they were a public revenue, to be disposed of for the public service. They were endowments made by the State for the service of religion, and for the support of the clergy; but if they desired to preserve these revenues from the State, for the benefit of the clergy and for the instruction of the people, they must act on these principles, and they must act speedily; or rapidly as things went from bad to worse in Ireland, they would lose their tithes altogether. He would say, then, that so valuable a revenue should not be lost; that the whole question should now be gone into, and they should not wait for the confusion and tumult of civil war to destroy this revenue altogether; but directing it towards those proper purposes for which it was already destined, it should now, and at once in order to secure it, receive a popular application. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That with a view to a full inquiry into the whole question of tithes, and to the just appropriation of Church property, the debate be adjourned till the whole of the inquiry be concluded by the Tithe Committee, and the evidence and the Report be both laid before the House."

The Amendment having been seconded,

Lord Milton

wished to observe, that the suggestion of his hon. friend did not seem likely to attain the object he had in view. He doubted the expediency of his hon. friend's Motion for postponing the debate, and thought it would be better to allow the House to go into a Committee. A stranger who had heard the speech only of his hon. friend might have supposed that his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had to propose only measures of coercion and seventy, and that they were not accompanied by any propositions for relief. He did not know what those measures were, but he thought it most desirable to postpone the discussion till they got into the Committee. If the Committee adopted the suggestion of his right hon. friend, they might hear the proposition of Government. He would not go into the quesion; he merely wished to throw out the suggestion, that his hon. friend's Amendment did not seem to him so well adapted to attain his own object as the original proposition of his right hon. friend.

Mr. Maurice O'Connell

was surprised at the innocence of the noble Lord with re- respect to the question of tithes, and his ignorance of the intended propositions of his Majesty's Government. Was there a single Irish Member in the House who was ignorant of the measures the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose? Certainly not; nor could the noble Lord be ignorant of their objects. He could not surfer this—he would not call it humbug, but the—veil which was attempted to be thrown over the movements of the House. There was not, he was sure, an Irish Member in the House who did uot feel with him in this respect; and, whatever might be the skill of the practised debater which had been used on the present occasion, he should think the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, would have discharged his duty much better to the House and to the country, if he had come forward at once with the statement of the proposed measures, and thus have given all parties an opportunity of knowing distinctly what they were to be. However, he was aware (and so he believed was every Member of the House) that, in the first place, a measure of remuneration to the Protestant clergy was to be proposed, and, in the next place, a measure for the recovery of the arrears of tithes. In both these he considered no man could hesitate to acquiesce; the latter point involved vested rights, and he, as a Catholic, was ready to stand up for them. But in the proposition of the Government there were ulterior views involved. The real object was to establish other and severe measures of coercion. In Ireland the arm of the law was already felt sufficiently strong and powerful, and he could not see the necessity at this moment of giving to the Government any extraordinary power. Indeed, last year, when the country was in a state almost of civil war, the Government had neither solicited nor sought for increased power, and he could not think an additional power was wanted at the present time, when the country was in a state of armed neutrality. The propositions of the hon. Gentleman could now lead to no satisfactory conclusion. He thought the information was not yet sufficient to adopt any measures, and he should support the Amendment.

Sir Robert Peel

suggested that there would be a great advantage in separating their views as to the order of proceeding, and as to the discussion of the principles of the proposition to be submitted by the Government. There was at present a mixed discussion of two questions, and till they were separated, they could reach no satisfactory conclusion. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, thought it would be better if his Majesty's Government would come forward with a distinct proposition. In his opinion, it would be more satisfactory if his Majesty's Government were enabled to state its proposition in Committee, and for the House to dispose of it on its own merit, and avoid all discussion as to the form of proceedings. The question was, what course was most conformable to the usage and practice of the House; and in offering his opinion on that, he gave no opinion on the merit of the propositions to be submitted to the Committee. Reserving his opinion on them till the proper time came when they were proposed by the Government, he must say, that the course proposed by the Government was most conformable to the usages of the House. It was supposed that one part of these propositions was to vote money for the support of the clergy. If that were the case—as it was impossible that his Majesty's Government could make any proposition of that kind, except in Committee—it surely would be inconvenient to discuss one part of the proposition in Committee, and the other part while the Speaker was in the Chair. There was also a Standing Order of the House—an order to provide a security against any sudden change in the religious establishments of the country, that no business relating to religion, or to the laws concerning religion, should ever be brought before the House till after it had been considered in Committee and agreed to. He did not say, that the propositions of the Government related precisely to religion, yet they were so connected with it, that it might be doubted whether it ought not first to be considered in Committee. Besides, going into a Committee was an additional security against surprise. By assenting to the Speaker leaving the Chair, hon. Members pledged themselves to nothing; and though the Resolutions might be approved of in Committee, the House might reject them on bringing up the Report. It afforded, therefore, an additional opportunity for discussion, and he considered that both friends and foes might concur in the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Going into the Committee was but a preliminary step; and only security against precipitate discussion.

Mr. Sheil

said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had become the auxiliary of the Government. This did him credit, and afforded proof, if any was wanting, how much superior he was to the prejudices of party. He would not—he was above it—turn the Government round upon a point of form. A little reflection would convince him that the Irish Members were not unreasonable in the course they had adopted. They did not object to the Resolutions, like the noble Lord (Lord Milton); they had not sufficient sagacity to conjecture the course which the Government meant to take. They objected to the premature Report of which the Committee had been suddenly and abortively delivered. They thought that no legislation should be founded on this precocious document. Wait, they said, for the final Report. Therefore, they met the proposition of the Minister on the threshold, and said, "Do not act on a Report resting exclusively on evidence on one side." How stood the facts? First, the Government had injudiciously introduced the tithe system to the notice of Parliament. Reform was a labour sufficiently Herculean for their gigantic powers. Their next mistake was, the exclusion of Catholics from the Committee. This was unfortunate enough; but to give consummation to this calamitous proceeding, out of eighteen witnesses, they had examined only one Catholic witness, and then they produced their Report, and went on with their examination. It was as if the Jury were desired to retire on the closing of the plaintiff's case; they find their verdict, judgment (the Report) is pronounced, and then the defendant (Ireland) was requested to proceed with her case. Was this just—was this fair dealing? Was this pure, impartial British justice? Eight clergymen, four policemen, a Secretary to an Ecclesiastical Commission, a Registrar to an Ecclesiastical Court, had been examined, and on such evidence a Report, recommending coercion to the people, and largesses to the clergy, was produced. This was monstrous. If the Committee had confined themselves to the recommendation of charity to the clergy, the Irish Members could not complain; but they came here with a purse of gold for the Church, and a rod of iron for the people. But since you are so strict in investigating the offences of the one, what are the merits of the other? The evidence proves that the clergy have ministered to the excitement. Look at the evidence of Mr. Langrishe (a name familiar to the readers of Edmund Burke); he tells you that Dr. Hamilton of Knocktopher (the scene of sanguinary disturbance) refused a just composition, and refused twice to produce his books in order to enable a just estimate of his profits to be made. Dr. Butler hints that he is a starving exile; yet he admits that, for thirty-six years, he has received 2,000l. a-year. He has fourteen parishes, with scarcely a single Protestant. This splendid sinecurist—he may be a good man—has got 60,000l.; and he is one of the objects of eleemosynary commiseration to the Committee. There is evidence that, by a pious fraud, the clergy have availed themselves of the change of currency. Mr. Dwyer states, that the people are the victims of the most horrible oppression. Will you relieve the Church, and give no aid to the people? But you are to raise the arrears. Mr. Langrishe, a clergyman, tells you that you cannot raise them. The thing is to raise the arrears. The Lord Lieutenant (the gallant and high-minded Anglesey) is to be turned into a Tithe-Proctor-General of the Church. You are to shift the odium of tithes from the clergy, who are to receive the benefit, to the executive, which is to reap all the detestation. There will be cause, and cross-cause, in the Civil-Bill Court; we shall have the King versus the People; and in the tribunal of public opinion you will have the People versus the King. Infatuated men, what are you doing? Look before you—you are walking blindfold upon the brink of a gulph. You will exasperate Ireland; you will array the nation against you; then will come a general election in November; Reform will have thrown the close boroughs open; the democracy will have become gigantic; then will the people have their revenge. The poisoned chalice will, in just retribution, return to your own lips. It is your turn this Session, but it will be ours the next. What are you doing? Succouring a clergy, from which you expect nothing—affronting and irritating a nation, from which you look for much—opening the boiling fountain of popular indignation—leaguing a nation against you by your threats of coercion. We have served and supported you, and stood by you in many an emergency, and have received your praise for our zeal, our vigilance, our devotion to your interests; but, alas! what can we do for you in the hurricane of popular passion, which you are about to raise? Our voices in your behalf will be like whispers in a tempest; our arms are not strong enough to swim against the tide that knows no returning ebb, and if we attempt it we shall be swept before it. Reform, an election in November, and Ireland exasperated for the sake of certain persons of the establishment! Awake—you are on a precipice, and you must be rudely shaken to raise you from your perilous slumbers. But I may be told that relief was offered. What relief? It is a mere mockery of the national understanding. Tithes are to be abolished. How? By providing for them a sepulchre from which they are to arise in an immortal resuscitation. Nay, I do not exaggerate. We are informed that tithes are to be abolished, and uno flatu, that the revenues of the Church are to be effectually secured on land. What does this mean? Is it not a palpable contradiction, or is it not as if a judgment creditor were to say, "Sir, this judgment of mine may be incommodious, and in order to accommodate you, I shall oblige you by taking a mortgage, or, if you prefer it, a slice of your estate?" Is it not so? Do you call this relief? Relief! Pray content yourselves with a violation of our rights, and do not offer an insult to our ordinary sense. It is better to speak out at once. The collection of tithes is not the question—the amount of tithes is not the question—John Hampden was sent to gaol for 20s.—but the question is, shall the tithes be otherwise appropriated? I tell you that a deep conviction has seized hold of the nation's faculties, and taken possession of its entire heart, that Church property is the nation's property. It is idle to tell the people that it rests on the same right as private property, and that an inroad upon one will afford a precedent for an invasion of the other. This is mere phrase—gainless and empty apothegms—with which we are not to be caught. I'll tell you how matters stand. The Irish nation look back to their history, and they find tithes originally divided into four parts, of which one-fourth was given to the poor, and another fourth was given to the priest of the poor. They find the Protestant gentry and aristocracy leagued in 1735 against the tithe of agistment, and pronouncing their parliamentary ana- themas against all those who should, in violation of their ordinances, dare to pay it—they see the Statesmen of their House of Commons (for once they had a House of Commons) the best and most enlightened Irishmen, confederated against tithes—they behold the pinnacles of the establishment shivered by the lightnings of Grattan's eloquence—they look round Europe, and they see tithes everywhere abolished—in France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Sweden, in Norway, in Denmark, in Prussia, in Tuscany, in Scotland—they see in Scotland a poor Church in a rich country, and in Ireland a rich Church amidst a starving people; and with these facts before them, and with the recollection fresh and vivid of what they have themselves achieved—conscious of what was effected by a virtuous organization—knowing that here they had a body of firm and dauntless advocates of their rights, they have arrived at the determination to put to these hideous abuses, these enormous anomalies, an immediate end. This may not be—I perceive it is not—relished by either party; but it is the truth. To both parties I fearlessly address myself; conservatists and resumers, I speak to both of you; you that are the prompt auxiliaries of the Government in every project of coercion; you that are to have none of the responsibility, are to reap all the advantage. You that would fain help the Ministers to their ruin, think a little, and look back to the year 1829. What did your great Captain do—he who was pledged almost from childhood against Emancipation—he who had declared that Ireland ought to be re-conquered—he who left his proxy against Ireland when he went forth to fight those battles in which English victory was achieved with Irish blood—he was the first to offer homage to the will of an united people, and after having called on England to throw away the scabbard, was the first to implore her to put by the sword. Wherefore do I mention this? to ask of you (for Tories, I speak to you) whether you think that the Whigs ought after emancipation to act on the principle on which you did not dare to act before it? Reformers, I turn from your antagonists to you. Do you imagine that your principles do not extend beyond a Reform in the House of Commons? What course did you pursue in the conduct of this great proceeding? Did you appoint a Committee? Did you refer schedule A to the right hon. member for Tamworth? Did you name a Committee formed of all parties (this is the phrase) to inquire into the state of the boroughs of England, and the constitution of the House of Commons, and to "report their observations thereon?" No—you saw that hesitation for a moment would be ruin for ever—you grasped at the irrevocable occasion, and you seized and held it. "We must content the English people." This was your answer to every objection. If it was urged that the Lord Chancellor had digested a very different plan of Reform, you replied and well and nobly, it is too late—we must content the English people. If it was said, that Lord John Russell's book was at variance with Lord John Russell's Bill, still you answered, we must content the people of England. If it was said, that the Representatives of the colonies would be excluded—that the avenues by which Pitt and Fox and Burke had obtained admission to this House, would be closed against genius—that the present system had saved the country at the Revolution, and had been concomitant with its glory since—still you well and wisely answered, we must conform to the great change and transition which has taken place, and must content the people; and if this be true, as it beyond all doubt is true; if you find it necessary to content the English people, by a Reform in the Parliament, is it perfectly unnecessary, is it matter for consideration, scepticism, and Cabinet debates, whether you must not content the Irish people upon the Church? Take warning in time—what is your policy? You have got up a race between legislation and events; an incident happens, straight comes an Act of Parliament; another incident arrives, behold a Committee, and another Act of Parliament; thus you go on, running a race with events, and events are sure to win it. Awake, for God's sake, to a sense of the condition of Ireland; embrace her evils in one large and comprehensive system of immediate amelioration; let us not have (to use a phrase of such powerful homeliness, uttered with such a pregnant familiarity, by lips so touched with fire)—let us not have "a bit-and-bit Reform," lay not that unction to your souls—do not burn that incense which self-adulation offers to itself, or hope conceives, nor so far delude yourselves as to think that, by dallying with the evils of Ireland, by procrastinations, and putting off, and sometimes giving buffets, and sometimes offering caresses to Ireland, you can effect her tranquillization, or, I should rather say, that you can save the country. For it has come to this pass; and it is not I alone that tell you this; events—those tongueless, but eloquent monitors—call on you, as they pass, to throw your prejudices aside, to legislate, not on the views of party, but on the principles of human nature, and from the calamities that impend over us, to rescue that country, which, under all changes of Government, and all vicissitudes of party, appears to have been pre-disposed to distraction, and pre-destined to misrule.

Mr. Wallace

objected to the course proposed by the right hon. Secretary, because it was impossible for the House to know what ulterior measures were in contemplation, or what it was the Committee were to be called on to accede to. In fair dealing, and according to the precedents set by former Governments, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to let the House know for what reason it was to go into a Committee of the whole House on a part of a question which was still under the consideration of a Special Committee. He would put it, indeed, to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was right that they should go into that Committee without knowing what they were to be pledged to by assenting to such a course? There was, indeed, enough in the history of the practice of the House on former occasions, to demonstrate that the right hon. Gentleman was not warranted in calling on them to go into a Committee without some explanation. The Government had committed a mistake, but it was not the first they had been guilty of in connection with the question. They had, as it was rightly observed by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, been guilty of an error in alluding to the subject in the Speech from the Throne, without being prepared with some specific proposition to submit to the immediate consideration of Parliament. The next mistake that they had fallen into was the appointment of a Committee which, although composed of men of the highest capacity and undoubted worth and honour, did not include a single Catholic—a single member of that religious party which was so deeply interested in the result of their inquiries. The members of the Committee were at the same time men so devotedly attached to the Constitution in Church and State, as it stood—the majority of them were so thoroughly convinced that the property of the Church was as inalienable as any other property in the State, that their recommendations could not be looked on with confidence or satisfaction by the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had made out no case for the House to go into a Committee, nor had he given the House any explanation as to the nature of the measures which he intended to call on that Committee to approve. But if it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to propose Resolutions which should be made the foundation of coercive measures, without at the same time recommending the removal of the grievances which oppressed the Irish people, he would oppose such Resolutions, because the compact would be broken by which the Ministers had pledged themselves that they would adopt no measure of coercion unaccompanied by measures of remedy and conciliation. He could not have supposed that, after the Ministers had so pledged themselves, they would have come down that night with a proposition for going into Committee, not for the remedy of grievances, but solely to pledge the House to a measure of coercion. Amongst the witnesses examined by the Committee, whose Report had been laid upon the Table, was the reverend Dr. Doyle; and that gentleman, than whom there was no man who brought to the consideration of the question greater ability, a more honest judgment, or more accurate knowledge of the condition and of the feelings of the people of Ireland, said, in reference to the resistance of tithes, that he would rather give up his last table, his last chair, or even his life, than pay tithes. Such was the opinion of that gentleman. But, he added, that the resistance which he would offer to their payment would be passive, not active; and that the people for the most part would offer none other than passive resistance. Was the testimony of that gentleman of no value? and was it fit that it should be withheld from the House? Was it fit that they should be called on to legislate on so important a subject when they had before them no part of the evidence that had been taken respecting it? Would the House go into a Committee whilst it was in the dark as to the measures which the right hon. Gentleman meant to submit to it, and as to the evidence upon which those measures were to be founded? The only means which the House at present possessed of forming an opinion as to the intended propositions of the right hon. Gentleman were furnished by the Report of the Committee; and to judge of them from that, he (Mr. Wallace) would say, that evils incalculable might follow from the course which the right hon. Gentleman was taking. He apprehended that there was in the Report an exact specification of the measures which he (Mr. Stanley) intended to propose. He apprehended that it was intended to give the clergy a remedy against the persons of those who neglected or refused to pay tithes, and to give that remedy, not according to the usual form of the law, but by a summary process, upon the affidavit of the clergyman claiming the tithe, or that of the tithe proctor.

Mr. Stanley

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was somewhat irregular in going into the discussion of a question which was not before the House. Besides, the hon. and learned Gentleman was stating as the measure of the Government that which was not their measure.

Mr. Wallace

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having set him right. But if the right hon. Gentleman had followed the usual course in moving for the Committee, of stating what were the intentions of the Government he should not have fallen into an error. He was compelled to argue without documents, which ought to have been before the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion. But, in the absence of the information which he ought to have, he should be satisfied to hear a statement of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. If the right hon. Gentleman would make the statement, he (Mr. Wallace) would sit down cheerfully to hear it. From all the information which he possessed, he must infer that it was the intention of the Government to act upon the recommendation of their legal advisers in Ireland, who in their evidence before the Committee, had stated that it was necessary to give the clergy a personal remedy against those who refused to pay tithes.

Mr. Henry Grattan

regretted that he was obliged to oppose his Majesty's Ministers on the question before the House. But they were wrong in going into the Committee, without having first given the House an intimation of the measures which they would propose; and they were still more wrong in the measures, which, it was to be supposed from the only information before the House, they intended to adopt. He objected altogether to the recommendations of the Committee in their Report. He objected to the summary remedy which they proposed to give to the clergy against those who owed tithe, and he objected to the plan which they proposed to substitute for the present system of tithes. He was sure that such a plan would give no satisfaction to the people of Ireland, and he, for his part, would support no plan less effectual than that of his noble friend, the member for Armagh. There never was a Report—even in the times when the most virulent party spirit raged, and the most virulent party had power—there never was a Report returned to the House more pregnant with mischief than that of the last Tithe Committee. The gracious Speech of his Majesty at the opening of the Session recommended the removal of grievances; and how was that recommendation followed up? By a Report which recommended that the law of the land should be superseded; and that a process as arbitrary as that of martial law should be substituted in its stead. The Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had made was a deceitful one. He wished to get the House into Committee for the purpose of compelling hon. Members to agree to the measures which he proposed; but he would not go into Committee, he would say as Falstaff said to his ragged regiment, "I'll not march through Coventry with you that's flat." He would not join the right hon. Gentleman in imitating Falstaff's followers by stripping the hedges of the shifts and shirts of the unfortunate peasantry. If the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Acts of the Irish Parliament of 1786, 1787, and 1799, he would find no precedent for this measure. Were not fifty-five Acts of Parliament sufficient for the protection of the Church? The people of Ireland were willing to support the clergy, but that did not mean the present incumbents. The people looked back to first principles, and they found that the revenues of the Church were intended as a public trust. They found that the money was given for four objects, the support of the poor, the Churches, the Bishops, and the clergy in general. These objects were not attended to when a poor incumbent was receiving his 60l. or 70l. a-year, and a Bishop was living luxuriously upon 10,000l. or 12,000l. a-year. It would be impossible for hon. Members to face their constituents if they should agree to the measures which the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose. The people felt that Ireland was not treated fairly, and that her interests were not attended to. The ordinary forms of law were to exist in England, but in Ireland they were to be abrogated. The Members of that House deceived themselves if they imagined the people of Ireland would much longer endure the system of Government under which they had suffered so long. The Irish people would no longer look to men, they would look only to measures. They would not care whether the right hon. member for Tamworth, or his right hon. friend were in office; it was only their acts which they would look to. They had lost all regard for party. Ireland had been subjected to misrule for centuries. A variety of shameful Acts of Parliament had been enacted for Ireland, which some of the most eminent English writers had said to be more fitting for Barbary than a part of the British empire. The Government called upon the landlords to tax themselves, and, in point of fact, to become tithe-proctors, for the parsons. It was most unjust that the landlords should be made the collectors of a tax for the support of the parochial clergy only, and not for the original purposes of tithes, the support of the poor, the Church, the Bishop, and the incumbent. No benefit whatever would arise from pursuing the present course. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted his opinions in consequence of the statements of mistaken men who were interested in inducing the Government to exert all their power to keep up the present system of tithes. He should not have addressed the House at such length on this occasion, had he not been impelled by a sense of public duty. Ireland complained that the spirit of the English law was departed from in this abominable system. Shortly after the acknowledgment of the independence of the United States, the Congress of that country passed a law which was worthy of them as a free people. And here he might, perhaps, observe with propriety, that the colonies separated from the mother country because it was attempted to govern them in a manner opposed to the spirit of British laws. The Act of the American Congress of 1786, said, that the endeavour- ing to make a man contribute money to the propagation of opinions which he believed to be erroneous, was sinful and tyrannical. In the opinion here expressed he cordially concurred, and the time, he trusted, was not very distant when this principle would be acted upon. He would call upon the right hon. Secretary to pause before he went into the Committee and proposed his Resolution, as he would do irreparable injury by such a course. He trusted that the House would refuse to go into Committee on these Resolutions, which were alike injurious to Ireland, to England, and to the Sovereign on the Throne. There never would be peace in Ireland until the people of that country were put on a footing of equality with the other parts of the empire. He would only add that, as an Irishman, he would never cease to raise his voice in the language of complaint until this was granted.

Lord Ebrington

would not follow the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House through the whole range of his observations; but, as a member of the Committee, he felt called upon to state the grounds upon which he had agreed to the Report which had been presented to the House. Before he proceeded to do so, he wished to state, that in one observation only of his hon. friend below him (Mr. Brownlow) he entirely concurred; that was, respecting the unfortunte anomaly which the Church of Ireland presented. He should not think any plan could lead to a final settlement of the question, which attempted to exclude the consideration of a thorough Reform of the Church of Ireland. When he saw the clergy of that Church receiving salaries so disproportioned to the number of Protestants under their care; and when he saw that those salaries were paid chiefly by Roman Catholics, he looked upon the system as pregnant with injury to the cause of religion. He protested, therefore, against the number of the clergy being so disproportioned to their congregations; and he should be glad to see some more just, distribution of the revenues of the Church, such as would afford a more adequate provision for the working clergy; and he should also be glad to see a state of things in which no part of the revenues of the Church should be diverted from the use of the Church. He could think no settlement of the existing complaints satisfactory, which, with a due regard to all existing interests—for God forbid that they should attempt to strip any man of that which of right belonged to him—did not contemplate the reduction of the Church of Ireland to a condition better proportioned to the wants of the Protestant inhabitants. But, independently of the many obstructions which stood in the way of any immediate arrangement for those so desirable ends, he thought that such an arrangement did not come within the province of the Select Committee. It certainly was not the wish of the Committee that any part of the revenue at present belonging to the Church should go into the pockets of the landlords; and he would ask the Gentlemen in that House who were connected with Ireland, whether it was not the wish of a great proportion of those who encouraged the present resistance to tithes, to appropriate the amount to themselves? Now his hon. friend, the member for Armagh, had admitted that the Protestant clergy in Ireland were placed in a situation of great difficulty and distress, and even of danger; and under those circumstances it was not too much that the Committee should have recommended a law to enable them to recover so much of the tithes now due to them, as the Attorney General for Ireland should think to be necessary for their support. If his Majesty's Ministers had shown any disposition to adopt coercive measures, without substituting for the tithe system some other less vexatious, he would not have given them his support. But he had done so, in a confident hope that it would not be necessary to use any new powers that should be given; but that liberal inducements would be held out to the people to pay the tithes now in arrear, without the necessity, on the part of the Government, of having recourse to any severities. It was with that view he bad agreed to the Report of the Committee. Under all the circumstances, he did not think that Ministers would have done their duty, if they had not pledged themselves to measures of conciliation and relief at the same time that they called for powers to put down the combination.

Lord Althorp

did not rise to enter into a discussion of the question before the House, but to invite back the attention of hon. Members to the real merits of that question. His right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) merely asked the House to go into Committee, so as to afford him an opportunity of stating the object of Ministers with respect to the Report of the tithe Commit- tee, and yet hon. Members expressed in very strong language their views of this object without waiting to hear it stated. This, he could take upon him to say, was not the ordinary course pursued by hon. Members in that House; it was customary to hear what were the propositions to be discussed before opinions were promulgated on their merits. And what were the arguments against his right hon. friend's Motion? The most extraordinary was that which some Gentlemen had made as to the effect of going into Committee. Some Gentlemen said, that, by consenting to the Committee they would pledge themselves to concur in the propositions which his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) had to submit. There was no reason to suppose any such thing. It had also been said, that it was the usual course, in asking for a Committee, to state the resolutions which it was intended to propose. That also he denied. It was true, that, when a Committee of the whole House was moved for, respecting the Catholic claims, the Gentleman who made the Motion explained his views at the same time. But there was no analogy between the two cases; for, on the Catholic question a large proportion of the Members of that House were strongly opposed to any alteration in the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, and it was, therefore, necessary for the Government who applied for the Committee to convince the House that some alteration was expedient. But, in the present case the Gentlemen who opposed the Motion for a Committee of the whole House were the very persons who most insisted on the necessity of an alteration. They were the last persons, he should have thought, who would object to the form and course of proceeding. But there was another objection, which he considered to have much more weight. That was, that the House ought not to proceed without further information than it at present possessed. That was an argument which he thought it was his duty to meet. Now, what was the objection to the present information? First, that it was ex parte: that the Committee had examined only one side, and that the persons examined were connected with the Established Church. But he thought that the information received from those persons was sufficient to induce Ministers to submit to a Committee of the whole House, some propositions for a change of the present system; and that the information ought to be so far satisfactory to the advocates of a change. It had been proved that the clergy were in the greatest distress, and that there was the greatest difficulty in collecting tithes; that a combination to resist the payment of tithes existed in one part of Ireland, and was spreading over the whole country; and that, if a change did not take place, the payment of the revenues of the clergy would cease throughout Ireland. It was proved, therefore, that the state of things was such as to make a change of system necessary. With such information before them, the Committee only did their duty in immediately calling the attention of Parliament to the state of Ireland, particularly to the situation of the Protestant clergy, who were deprived of their income by a combination against tithes, which was hourly spreading over the country, and called for an immediate remedy. It was the imperative duty of that House promptly to attend to the call of the Committee, and to adopt such immediate measures, and effect such a change in the tithe system, as might appear just and necessary. If one part of the Report pointed out a case of urgent necessity calling for an immediate remedy, and another pointed towards a measure of change, which necessarily must require time for its accomplishment, was it, he asked, consistent with common sense, to keep back the measure of urgent necessity till that which required time should be completed? It was the duty of the House, as it was certainly the duty of Ministers, indeed both would be acting inconsistently with honour and duty if they did not promptly apply themselves to affording a remedy to the urgent grievance, whilst they devoted their best attention to preventing a recurrence of the causes of that grievance. This was all that Ministers proposed in the present instance, which was merely a fulfilment of what he had stated on a former occasion, namely, that a measure coercively asserting the authority of the law should not be had recourse to, without a pledge of an efficient remedy for the evil effects of the tithe system in Ireland, which had led to that state of things which called for this extraordinary measure. He had not risen to follow the hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Committee through all their arguments respecting the general question, but only to state the reasons wherefore he thought that the House ought to go into Committee.

Mr. Leader

said, if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, had deemed it expedient to have pursued the course which the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had just adopted, and, if a strait forward and generous confidence in his political friends who represented the popular interest in Ireland, and in the full confidence of the wisdom and justice of the measures he was about to introduce, had prefaced his Motion for a Committee of the whole House to consider the subject of tithes in Ireland, by a full disclosure of the remedy he proposed for the long-endured and now intolerable grievances of that country, it was more than probable that a protracted debate might have been avoided, and, at all events, a division on the subject rendered unnecessary. The line of conduct which the right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to pursue, on one of the greatest questions which could engage the attention of the Representatives of Ireland, had been attended with considerable embarrassment to those Representatives who had to this hour been the steady and undeviating supporters of all the Ministerial measures of liberal policy. Would any English Gentleman contend, that if it was expedient to move for a Committee on a subject involving the tranquillity, the prosperity, and possibly the existence of the institutions of his country, the measures proposed to be introduced in that Committee ought not to be fairly developed and fully discussed before the motion for going into that Committee was submitted to the House? He admitted that, in common with those Representatives from Ireland who bad supported Ministers, he was apprised of the nature and import of the resolutions which it was probable the right hon. Gentleman might deem it his duty to propose; but, as it had been the unanimous opinion of those who objected to any part of the preliminary Report, that the manly and candid course was, to make their objection in limine, and enter upon the discussion in the first steps proposed to be taken, he was compelled to imitate the example of his hon. friend, the member for Armagh, and give his best support to the Amendment which he had introduced to the notice of the House with so much eloquence and ability. In the many debates which had taken place on motions for a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of the nation, or other great questions of national or imperial policy, he had always seen those motions prefaced by statements fully explanatory of the object for which the Committee was proposed to be appointed; and as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House, he should feel an ardent and earnest desire to see observed the same courtesy and the same attention to the old and established usages of Parliament, on questions which involved the deepest interest of Ireland, as every English or Scotch Representative would expect to be pursued in the instance of Great Britain. Under these circumstances, it was his bounden duty to declare, that the evidence which was affixed to the preliminary Report was of too imperfect a description to warrant any measure but an immediate remedial measure for a change in the tithe system in Ireland. As one of the tithe Committee, he was under the impression that the preliminary Report was never intended as a measure on which any legislative proceeding was intended to be founded. He considered it as a measure intended to demonstrate to the House and the public the zeal and the diligence of the Committee, and, even in the Committee, it had occurred to him that the evidence was not sufficient to report the necessity of any pecuniary advance being made to the Protestant clergy, or, at all events, accompanied by laws of unusual, and probably unprecedented, severity, to enforce the recovery of arrears of tithe and composition rent in the disturbed districts. The first ground on which he would rest his opposition to the going into the Committee was, the inadequacy of the evidence. The right hon. the Secretary for Ireland having thought proper to decline prefacing his Motion for a Committee, by the full developement of the measures he proposed to bring forward, he was driven to the necessity of supporting the Amendment. In the first place, he begged to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee. Could it be denied that nearly one-half of the Report was taken up in the statement of an organized and systematic opposition to the payment of tithes in Ireland, and the description of the dioceses and districts in which the resistance had principally occurred, and the great probability of its extending itself to other districts? He admitted that so much of the case had been fully made out, and that there had been abundant evidence leading to the conclusion that, without a change involving a complete extinction of tithes, including those of lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge on land, or an exchange for, or an investment on land, there was no prospect of tranquillity in Ireland. With these observations his admissions, as one of the Tithe Committee, ended. He contended that, before any Report was made, the entire property of the Church in land and tithe, and the just appropriation of it ought to be inquired into; and he had earnestly insisted, in that Committee, that although strong cases of individual distress amongst the clergy were satisfactorily established, still there was no evidence of such widely extended distress as made it necessary that the immediate relief of the Protestant clergy, and the enactment of new, extraordinary, and unprecedented laws to enforce payment of the arrears of tithes, should be made the prominent object in the Report. He felt fully satisfied that the evidence on the impossibility of the present tithe system continuing in Ireland was so clear, and the Reports of the Tithe Committee, as to the necessity of a change of the entire system so decided, that there was no reason why they should go into a Committee of the whole House on these two topics. But when he proceeded to the other heads of the Report—the expediency of opening the Treasury for the relief of the Church, and of converting the King's Attorney General, by Act of Parliament, into a tithe agent for the clergy, he asserted that the evidence on these topics was by no means of so satisfactory a nature as that the House could come to a just conclusion without much further evidence than that which was contained in the preparatory Report. As one of the Representatives of the district alleged to be most disturbed—the diocese of Ossory—it was his duty to look with a scrutinizing eye, not only to the sufferings of the occupying tenants and tithe payers, in which he most deeply sympathised, but also to the alleged deplorable and intolerable distress of the Protestant clergy, by the illegal withholding of one year of their income. To establish his view of the case, he prayed the particular attention of the House to facts which, in the precipitancy for a Committee, Ministers appeared to have entirely overlooked. As far as had transpired in the Tithe Committee, it appeared that the districts in which the resistance to tithes had assumed the most inveterate and determined character, were the dioceses of Ossory, Leighlin, Cashel, and Emly; and that, in the dioceses of Ferns and Kildare, there had been also some small deficiency in the payment to the Protestant clergy. It appeared, by the Report of the Lords Committee, that the estimates of the aggregate amount of the arrears due to the several incumbents was—

In compounded parishes £.14,345
Uncompounded ditto 10,130
In compounded parishes 18,092
Uncompounded ditto 2,760
In 113 compounded parishes 23,490
In 25 Uncompounded ditto 4,197
FERNS (supposed) 7,000
KILDARE (supposed) 5,000
Total £.85,014
If he understood the case, this was the amount of the arrears of tithe due to the clergy of these disturbed dioceses, for which it was intended to grant pecuniary relief; and it had been stated, he believed, by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, that it was probable that 30,000l. would be sufficient as an advance for the sum due in those dioceses for 1831. Had it been reported by the Committee, that the diocese of Ossory consisted of 138 parishes, and that, of these, ninety-nine were divided in unions among twenty-one distressed incumbents? Had it been reported, that the diocese of Leighlin consisted of eighty-four parishes, and that, of these, thirty-three parishes were divided in unions amongst nine suffering and reduced incumbents? Had it been reported, that the diocese of Cashel consisted of ninety-nine parishes, and that, of these, sixty-three were divided in unions among thirteen starving and disconsolate incumbents? Had it been reported, that the diocese of Emly consisted of fifty-three parishes, and that, of these, thirty-three were divided in unions among seven ruined and impoverished incumbents—making a total of 374 parishes in the four dioceses, 228 of which were divided in unions among fifty incumbents? If these were facts, and if those reverend divines had, some of them, been in possession of fourteen parishes, others of nine, seven, six, and some five parishes—would any hon. Gentleman say, that the interruption of one year's payment of tithe could cause this devastating ruin amongst the Protestant clergy, who, in tithe property alone had probably 800,000l. per annum, and who, through the other provinces of Ireland, were never better paid? He did not mean to contend that, in those dioceses, there was no individual distress; nor did he presume to deny the illegality of the resistance to the payment of tithes; but the inference which he drew from the fact, that, out of 374 parishes in the four most disturbed dioceses in Ireland, there were 228 parishes held by fifty clergymen was, that the Protestant clergy, from their immense unions, their limited number, and from the large sums they derived from these unions, could not be in that distress which, for the purpose of silencing the prayers of the most oppressed and impoverished tenantry in the world, was blazoned forth in party papers, and at public meetings. He begged that it might not for a moment be supposed that he was adverse to a pecuniary advance to relieve the wants of any Protestant clergyman: but he was adverse to the Government and the Committee—ignorant of the state of Ireland—going further than the condemned Parliament of Ireland, under the guidance of Lord Clare and a Tory Government, after a frightful and devastating rebellion, which, through the years 1797 and 1798, shook the whole frame of society, and plunged the country in anarchy and blood. In 1800, when a measure for the relief of the clergy was brought forward, it was admitted by all parties in Ireland that proctors were murdered, tithe securities and tithe books destroyed, process-servers cruelly and scandalously persecuted, and every vestige of evidence, which could lead to the enforcement of the payment of arrears of tithes, sought for and destroyed in every part of Ireland; and the Protestant clergy were not only reduced to the greatest distress, but were without any lien on the land, and without any evidence to enable them to recover the arrear of tithe. Did Lord Clare propose, or did the Irish Parliament, at his suggestion, invite, the Protestant clergy to the Irish Treasury, and open the purse of the people for the arrears of tithe due to the Protestant Church. Did Lord Clare, or any Irish Minister in those awful times, besides, opening the Treasury, propose to convert the Attorney General of Ireland into a tithe-agent and collector for the clergy, or a plaintiff in their suits; or entertain, for a single moment, the monstrous and novel measure of interposing the law-officer of the Crown as the plaintiff, in every cause which the clergy found it necessary to commence any legal proceedings? In the Acts of Parliament passed after the rebellion of 1798, powers were given to the clergy to proceed by petition in the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in Ireland; and those Courts were empowered, in cases in which it appeared that a valuation of tithes could not be made in 1797 or 1798, or in cases where evidence of valuation was destroyed, to assume the average of the three preceding years to be sufficient evidence of value; and, in those cases, the Courts were empowered to refer the cases to their officers; and after debt proved, to issue injunctions against the goods or persons of defendants. It was true that, under the Act of the Irish Parliament passed after a general rebellion, the clergy were aided with new legal power, but still they were left to superintend the conduct of their own suits, and were not armed with all the powers of the Attorney General. Was the House prepared, after hearing these facts, to say there was sufficient evidence stated in the Report to go now into a Committee of the whole House, to open the Treasury to the Protestant clergy, and convert the King's Attorney General into a tithe-agent for the Protestant Church? Was it not a question of most grave and serious consideration, whether the Government ought to place itself in the situation of a plaintiff against each individual in 374 parishes, and encounter the legal and inevitable hostility of the immense population of occupiers and tithe-payers in these extensive and populous parishes? Was it expedient, for the Government to assume this new character and position? Would it be contended that it was not infinitely more judicious and wise to leave every Churchman to assert and prove his own claim, and then for Government to render him every assistance to put his judgment or decree into execution. Was it expedient to transfer to Government the odium and unpopularity of tithe exaction? Had not a considerable portion of evidence been given that, on account of the enormous expense in the superior Courts, the tithe-payer had little chance of resisting the clergyman? Would this expense be diminished when the Attorney General was the plaintiff? Would Attorneys General and their solicitors act in these causes without liberal allowance, and would not a severe increase of expense be occasioned to the already ruined and impoverished tithe-payers? No further evidence was requisite to show that the present tithe system must be entirely changed, but much further evidence was requisite to show that a grant of money to the clergy, and coercive measures of an alarming character were necessary to enforce the arrears of tithe for 1831 due to the Protestant clergy. He was fully convinced that the time was come when the abolition of the tithe system could no longer be delayed. The appropriation of the amount of tithe was the only thing to settle. In his opinion, that could be settled by Bill, without going into a Committee of the whole House, and, as to the measure of pecuniary relief to the clergy, and coercive laws for enforcing payment of arrears, further evidence was necessary, before the House could arrive at sound conclusions. The country might, by unwise and rigorous severity, be made a desert, the landlord might be ruined, the occupier starved, the clergy pauperized, and the King's Attorney General, and his train of solicitors, enriched; was that a wise, humane, or politic course for aliberal Government to pursue towards one of the most impoverished countries in the world, and under an excitement unparalleled in the history of Ireland? In his view of the question, it was wholly immaterial whether the combination against tithe was universal through Ireland, or was confined to a certain district, with the danger of extending to every part of the country. The resistance to tithe was no new disease—it was an inveterate and long-existing disease, deeply seated in the bosom of the community. The correction of that evil admitted of no delay; the remedy proposed would aggravate the evils, and being convinced that the evidence in its favour was quite inadequate to justify it, he considered it his duty to support the Amendment.

Sir Henry Parnell

said, he never knew an instance of a proposition to go into Committee, upon any subject whatever, without the individual Member who made the proposition for going into Committee coming forward, and explicitly stating the grounds upon which he called upon the House to take that step, and, at the same time, fully developing to the House the plan which he meant to call upon them to pursue. That was the course of proceeding adopted upon the Catholic Question, and he recommended hon. Members to require it upon the present occasion; for, if they did not, they would lose an opportunity of stopping that which they conceived to be a bad measure. He was thoroughly convinced that the measure which, he had reason to suppose, would be brought forward was one which would prove miehievous—nay, ruinous. Why, then, should they lose that opportunity of voting against it? It was in vain that they endeavoured to shut their eyes to the facts that stared them in the face. However nominally ignorant, they were not really ignorant of the plan of his Majesty's Government. He, for one, had heard the Resolutions which had been moved in another place; and if similar resolutions were adopted in that House, they would pledge the House to arming Government with increased power and authority, with the view of coercing the people of Ireland, and compelling them to pay tithes. He was not opposed to giving that relief to the clergy which their present condition demanded. There was no Irish Member who could be opposed to that part of the plan; but the mode of the re-payment to the Government—that was the real question. Now, he really thought that the means by which that object was proposed to be effected would not succeed. They had the most distinct proof in the evidence given before the Committee, that it could not succeed. To his knowledge that evidence was most correct. He entertained not the slightest doubt that it would not succeed; there was not one of the forty or fifty Irish Members who supported the Government would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the plan had the slightest chance of success. He would just ask the right hon. Gentleman—was there any one of his Irish supporters who gave him the slightest encouragement to proceed? The present was, indeed, a serious case, and one which could not be trifled with; and how did it stand? The right hon. Gentleman brought forward a measure for the relief of the Irish people, and every one of his Irish supporters in that House was opposed to it. He thought that that very fact of itself ought to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that he had much better have waited until he could lay the whole Report and all the evidence upon the Table of the House.

Mr. James Grattan

regretted the necessity of voting against his Majesty's Government, but if the present plan was to be persisted in, he should feel it his duty to offer to it every opposition in his power. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his plan must succeed but he was undoubtedly going upon insufficient data. He was a Member of the Committee, and he had not the slightest difficulty in saying that there was nothing like sufficient evidence to support the case which the right hon. Gentleman thought essential to the success of his measure. No man could doubt that the clergy were entitled to the protection of the law, but it was equally certain that there was no sufficient evidence to entitle the clergy to that amount of parliamentary relief which it was understood would be proposed. Not that he objected to giving them relief; but he thought, that some means ought to be devised for obviating the necessity of applying to Parliament. Such an application, as a precedent, was fraught with danger: there was nothing that would satisfy the people of Ireland but a total change in the appropriation of the revenue derivable from tithe.

Mr. Stanley,

looking at the time of night, felt that it would be impossible for him to do that which he should have wished to do, had he been permitted, namely—to lay before the House in one view the plans, intentions, and opinions of his Majesty's Government. The course of opposition which had been taken with respect to the present discussion, though it could not be called an unfair course, yet it placed his Majesty's Government, and him individually, more particularly, in a very embarrassing situation. He had not that night come forward to call their attention to the subject of tithes in Ireland, as though it were a matter which had never been brought under their consideration before. It came to them after repeated warnings—it came to them recommended by the Speech from the Throne—it came to them in conformity with the Address which that House had voted in reply to the Speech from the Throne—it came to them after their solemnly expressed determination to make it the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee, and, finally, it came to them after evidence received, by a Report made by that Committee. That Committee having considered the question referred to them, arrived at the conclusion, though they were not prepared to recommend the immediate adoption of any final measure, that sufficient evidence had been laid before them to warrant their coming to the House, laying before it such evidence has had been taken, and calling for such immediate steps as the exigency of the case seemed to require. Now, before Government adopted any particular course definitively, was it not proper that they should come before Parliament at the earliest possible moment, and not come forward pledged to any particular measure? The most striking part of the objection raised by those who supported the motion was this—that they found fault with Government for being too early in consulting Parliament; it was really the first time in all his parliamentary experience, that he had known hon. Members find fault with his Majesty's Government for taking Parliament into their councils. That was the real state of the case. Had they not called upon the House to go into an inquiry? And he would appeal to the Report of the Committee, to show whether or not they had grounds for at least taking some steps. Was the present a time in which they could wait and trifle? Were they to be met in a time like that with the announcement, that the executive authority had not power to enforce the law? He was prepared to admit that, as a permanent system, such a law ought not to be enforced; but, so long as it was the law, there could be no doubt that it ought to be obeyed. But they were told by certain Irish Members, that they ought to propose nothing, because they could carry no plan into execution in Ireland. Was it becoming—was it safe, to be influenced by such a threat? That Report, then on the Table of the House, was one which, while it held forth a prospect of relief, at the same time, suggested measures by which Government could maintain the authority of the law; but certain Irish Members met them at once with the reply, that they could not, in that country, enforce the execution of the law. That was a fatal announcement, not only for Ireland, but for the British empire. Those hon. Members in effect said to his Majesty's Government, you must not stir an inch in this matter, because you cannot command the execution of the law. That was an opinion, which, if it had any force at all, was equally stringent with respect to England or to Scotland. He entreated hon. Members to consider what that announcement led to. They were told they could not enforce the laws, for that the people would not obey them. Let the House, then, look to the legitimate conclusion of such a doctrine. Whenever an ignorant and oppressed people conceiving themselves insulted, and feeling themselves injured, being, at the same time inflamed by the agitating spirit of the times, ground down by real oppression, and excited by fancied wrongs—when such a people, so stimulated, had signified that they would not obey the law, were Members of that House to come forward and tell the Government they should do nothing, but sit still, and submit to a state of things so utterly unheard of? Were they to be told, that the people had resolved to set aside the law, and that, therefore, the Government must do nothing? Was that the counsel which the right hon. Baronet opposite thought proper to give them? Was that the conclusion at which the right hon. Baronet would have the House of Commons arrive? It was idle to suppose that the House did not possess all the information which was necessary for taking, at least, a preliminary step. There was not a Member of Parliament who had not had the Report in his hands—who had not the evidence delivered before the Committee. He confessed he could not easily account for the objections to going into a Committee, for, in his judgment, that mode of proceeding would give the fullest scope for discussion. It really did appear to him that some hon. Members endeavoured to suggest that he had some design of tricking the House. The whole extent of his parliamentary experience did not furnish him a single instance in which it had been held that going into Committee pledged the House to the proceedings that might be adopted there. He would ask the right hon. Baronet opposite, did his experience tell him, that Members who voted for a Committee were pledged to the principle of the measures to be proposed in that Committee?

Sir Henry Parnell

I said no such thing.

Mr. Stanley

I am glad that the right hon. Baronet disclaims that doctrine.

Sir Henry Parnell

I give no opinion on the subject.

Mr. Stanley

The right hon. Baronet will allow me to ask him, as a person of great parliamentary experience, whether, in his opinion, the persons who vote for going into a Committee on a particular question, are thereby pledged to the decision of that question?

Sir Henry Parnell

Under such circumstances, I should feel myself to be pledged to the principle of the measure.

Mr. Stanley

Then the hon. Baronet, and those who resisted the present Motion, did so on the ground that it pledged them to the principle of taking into consideration the question of tithes in Ireland; but the House had already acted upon that principle, and not only that, but the right hon. Baronet had himself declared his full concurrence in the leading feature of the proposed resolutions, namely, relief to the parochial clergy. The right hon. Baronet, who seemed to be well informed as to the intentions of Government, from whatever quarter he got his information, said, that he approved of one part of the plan, and yet he refused to go into Committee. He must say, that, if ever misrepresentation had been indulged in, in one case more than another, it was with respect to the measure of coercion that had been talked of. He implored hon. Gentlemen who had not very regularly obtained a knowledge of that measure to suspend their judgment till they heard the Resolutions he should bring forward, and not decide upon the representations of those Gentlemen who, unintentionally, but mischievously and fatally for the impression which the measure might make in Ireland, had pronounced a verdict against it, even before they had heard the arguments and grounds upon which it was to be supported. He protested against this premature course. They were told, that they were premature in coming to the House; but what were their opponents, who, before the Ministers had brought forward their Resolutions, passed judgment upon them? Such a course, in such quarters, was of itself sufficient to make the measure fail in Ireland. Such opinions coming from Gentlemen who were naturally looked up to in that country, were not calculated to assist the views of the Government to relieve the people, for they taught the people, instead of accepting this relief as a boon, to spurn it with indignation, as an additional oppression. As to the present Report every body knew that it was never intended to be final; it bore upon its face that it was a first Report, but upon matters which every member of the Committee considered so urgent and pressing that they decided it ought to be made. He freely admitted that this Report could not be considered final, and that there was not sufficient evidence as yet before the Committee to enable them to make a final Report. Then, as to the necessity of a change, did those who opposed the Committee mean to say, that no change was necessary? If they did, their opinions were at variance with that of all others, not only of Catholics, not only Presbyterians, but of ministers of the Church Establishment, who had been examined, and without whose testimony the examination would, indeed, have been partial and incomplete. What was the meaning of this call for delay? Were they to wait three, four, five, or six months on a subject like the present; or did those who recommended delay think it would be more possible for the Government to vindicate the majesty of the law at the end of that time than at the present? There had been a charge made against the Government that they had encouraged agitation in Ireland. It was a false, a foul, a calumnious accusation—but it had been made; and yet, when the Government wished to produce a measure which would have the effect of quieting agitation, they were called on to delay for some time longer; and thus, while the charge itself increased the amount of agitation, the effort of the Government to prevent it was opposed and attempted to be frustrated. He had made these observations, because he had been unjustly accused of taking an unfair advantage of political circumstances in order to prevail over those who did not take the same view of the matter with himself—a conduct of which he had never been, and trusted he never should be, guilty in the whole course of his political life, any more than he should be guilty of it in any transaction of private life.

Sir Robert Inglis

concurred with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, in the expediency of his Motion, reserving, however, the power of entering, upon another occasion, into a fuller consideration of the details of this subject. But he was unwilling to come to a vote this night without stating to the House, in the first instance, one of the grounds upon which he should rest that vote, and without noticing some of the general principles which, in the course of this discussion, had been brought forward by two or three of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, protested against the Church of England and the Church of Ireland being bound up together on this occasion. He begged to recall to the recollection of his noble friend, that in law there existed no Church of Ireland; that the Church of England and Ireland was one united Church; and that if any thing was done to injure what the noble Lord called the Church of Ireland, from that instant there would be no security for any of the external frame-work of the Church of England. From the cheers on the opposite side of the House, he gathered, that he was not wrong in assuming, that those hon. Gentlemen felt there was great danger to the Church of England when any thing was done to the Church of Ireland. An hon. Gentleman who spoke early in the debate, asked, what a Presbyterian would think if called upon to pay tithe to a Roman Catholic pastor? But his answer was, that the people did not pay tithes—the principle had been established over and over again, but, as this objection was again urged, it was necessary to repeat the answer—the people did not pay tithes as Protestants, or as Roman Catholics, as Episcopalians, or Presbyterians—not according to their creed, but according to their property. The hon. member for Meath quoted a passage from an American law, in which it was stated to be contrary to the rights of man to compel any individual to pay to the support of a religion in which he did not believe. Now, was it not clear that there was no analogy in the case? There might be some ground for the objection, if it were now proposed to raise de novo a general tax for the support of a particular faith; but the question was not about a poll-tax, to be from this time forth regulated by the population, in which case only there could be the least ground for taking into consideration the creed of the parties; but it was a common question of property, whether tithes already existing be not like rent payable in respect to property, whoever may hold it—whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jew. The hon. member for Kilkenny entered into a variety of details, into which he should not attempt to follow the hon. Member; but there were one or two tempting points upon which the hon. Member touched, to which he must momentarily allude. The hon. Member said, that the attempt to call attention to the distress of the Irish clergy, was a factious endeavour to divert the public mind from another object; that the distress was exaggerated, if not unreal; and that, at any rate, there were in other parts of Ireland, clergy whose property ought to be made available for the relief of such distress. The hon. Member, from his natural feelings of humanity, could not disregard such suffering as had been described. He must, therefore, come to the conclusion, that the hon. Member could not place credit in the evidence upon which the description rested; but he would ask the hon. Member, on what authority he could deny the statements of Gentlemen whose characters were unimpeached, and who were summoned before a Committee willing to investigate the subject, some of the Members of which had no very friendly feelings to the existing Establishment? On what authority did the hon. Member suppose, that these Gentlemen had exaggerated the distress, or had not described that which really existed. But the hon. Member said, that there was other property of the Church which ought to be applied to the relief of this distress;—that in Ireland, generally, the clergy had 800,000l. a-year in tithes, and that, from this source, the sufferers ought to be relieved. Without stopping to examine the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement, he would ask, whether the hon. Member meant, that the income of one clergyman in one part of the country ought to be seized to discharge a debt due to another clergyman? Did the hon. Member know what the clergy had done for their brethren? He had not the honour of being acquainted with the Prelate concerned in the fact which he was about to state to the House, but it was so creditable to him, that he could not forbear mentioning it. The Bishop of Ossory, in whose diocese were some of the most disturbed districts of Ireland, summoned his clergy together, and stated to them, that, knowing the distress in which they were involved, he had taken the liberty of arranging the salaries and discharging the arrears due to all the curates in his diocese. With respect to beneficed clergymen, he was prepared to give those amongst them who had neither friends nor relatives to assist them such pecuniary aid as was in his power. He must also remark upon another statement prominently put forth by the same hon. Gentleman: he seemed to imply, that Ministers ought not to proceed against the inclinations of the liberal Irish Members, in producing any measure for the relief of the clergy, because they had supported them in their measure of Reform.

Mr. Hunt

said, that, at that hour of the night, he would only make a few observations. He must complain, that the House had no information respecting the subject upon which they were asked to go into Committee. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland seemed to feel very indignant at what was stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell); but, had not the noble Paymaster of the Forces moved the Reform Bill without sufficient information? He concurred with much that had been said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Brownlow). The tithes, it appeared, were five times heavier in England than in Ireland; and, if they were put an end to in Ireland, rely upon it the people of England would soon offer them the strongest resistance. There was a Union going on at Birmingham, which had circulated a pamphlet calling upon the English Members to resist the payment of tithes. He, however, felt the very strongest objection to making the English public pay the bad debts of the Irish clergy. To such a measure he, for one, never would consent. [Cries of "Question.] Some Gentlemen cried "Question." Why, what this House required was the question, and he was satisfied that there was property enough in Ireland to pay the clergy, without calling upon the English people. The Irish Members had read a lecture to the English Members; they had acted as a compact body in favour of Reform; and, if they would look to the division to-night, they would see how they had acted.

Mr. Jephson

asked the right hon. Secretary, whether he would go into Committee, pro forma?

Mr. Stanley

said, that he would not even go so far to-night; but would, on carrying his motion, not move that the Speaker leave the Chair, but postpone the Committee to a future night.

The House divided on Mr. Brownlow's Amendment: Ayes 31; Noes 314—Majority 283.

Question put on the original Motion, and Committee postponed till Monday.

List of the AYES.
Bainbridge E. T. Killeen, Lord
Bellew Sir P. Lambert, H.
Blackney, W. Lambert, J.
Bodkin, G. G. Leader, N. P.
Brabazon, Lord Macnamara, W. N.
Brownlow, C. O'Connor, D.
Burke, Sir J. O'Connell, M.
Chapman, M. L. O'Farrell, R. M.
Doyle, Sir J. M. Parnell, Sir H.
Duncombe, T. S. Power, R.
French, A. Ruthven, E. S.
Grattan, J. Shiel, R. L.
Grattan, H. Torrens, R.
Host, Sir J. W. Walker, C. A.
Hunt, H. Wallace, T.
Jephson. C. D. O. Wyse, T.