Commons Sitting of 3 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time. On the Motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL:—Ecclesiastical Revenues; Turnpike Acts' Continuance.—On the Motion of Viscount MORPETH:—Public Roads' (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Registrar Office Improvement; Bankrupts' Estate.—Sheriffs' Declaration; Polls at Elections.
Petitions presented. By Mr. R. WALLACE, from Greenock, against the Redcar Harbour Bill; also against the proposed Alteration in the Bonding Warehouses System; from Postmasters and others between Port Patrick and Dumfries, against the present System of Farming the Post-Horse Duty.—By Mr. CAYLEY, from two Parishes in the North Riding, against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill; and a Petition from Preston, against the Factory Act.—By Mr. HUTT, from Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour of the Irish Church Bill.—By Mr. FINCH and Mr. SHAW, from a Number of Places,—against the Church of Ireland Bill.—By the latter, from Dublin, against the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. MARK PHILIPS, from Sheepshead, for the Remission of the Sentence on the Dorchester Unionists.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from two Places, against Tithes; also against the Light-Houses' Bill; also for the Construction of a Railway from Valentia Harbour; also against the Steam Vessels' Pilotage Bill.—By Mr. MARSHALL and Mr. W. H. ORD, from two Places, against the present System of Farming Post-Horse Duties.—By Lord STANLEY, from Glasgow and Kingarth, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Dr. BOWRING and Mr. HUME, from several Places, against the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By Mr. FINCH, from Killeshandra, for Incapacitating Roman Catholics from Voting at Elections.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Prestwick, against any Grant to the Church of Scotland.—By Lord STANLEY, from Colne and Halifax, against Drunkenness; from Aberdeen, against the University of Aberdeen Bill.—By Mr. TOOKE, from the Solicitors of Doncaster, against the Duty on Attorneys Certificates.—By Mr. LEADER, from Bridge-water, against Beer being allowed to be drunk on the Premises of Beer Houses.—By the Sheriffs, from the City of London, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Sir William Rae, on presenting a petition from Kincardine for support to the Scotch
2
Church, took occasion to advert to the Commission lately issued to inquire into the subject of the Church of Scotland. From what had already passed, the country expected that the Commission would be of a character to carry with it universal confidence, and least of all was it expected that it would be founded upon party principles. It was therefore not without considerable surprise that he had read the list of the names of the Commissioners, by which it appeared that out of eleven persons, some paid and others honorary, ten were decidedly adherents of the present Government; so that only one individual could be considered an independent Member. If he had succeeded in the Motion he formerly made for a Committee to investigate the question, what would the noble Lord opposite and his friends have said, had he suggested that ten Members should be taken from one side of the House and only one from the other. It would be recollected that his Majesty, in his speech from the throne, had noticed the Church of Scotland, and the late Government intended to follow up that notice by the grant of an additional endowment. When the present Government came into office nothing was done until he had moved for a Committee, and then a Commission was accorded. If Ministers were honest and sincere in their intentions with regard to the Church of Scotland, they would have taken the utmost care to appoint persons who were free

3
from all party feeling, and he well remembered that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. C. Fergusson) had admitted the propriety of such a course. He had other objections to the Commission. In the first place he generally disapproved of paid Commissioners, and they were quite unnecessary in Scotland, where, until lately, nothing of the kind had been known; and not the least difficulty had been experienced in finding men of high character and qualifications ready to undertake the duty without emolument. Such were the Law Commissioners, and such the University Commissioners, who had patiently and gratuitously investigated the affairs of the Universities of Glasgow, St. Andrew's, and Aberdeen. When the selection was made with no expectation of payment, it was usually more pure, since nothing was to be gained, and it was rather a favour conferred upon the Government than upon the individuals. With the exception of one or two, the Commissioners were men at the Bar of only a few years standing, who had shown no peculiar qualification for an inquiry into the state of the Church, and the majority of them might be considered hostile to that Establishment. One of them, in particular, had not only been the avowed champion of the Dissenters, but he had even published a treatise against the Church of Scotland. If he were wrong upon this point he could easily be set right, and he asked whether a person who had so mixed himself up with the adversaries of the Church, ought to belong to the Commission? He had understood that the name of Mr. Colquhoun, late Member for Dumbarton, had been suggested, but withdrawn. He had been informed also, that an individual who had been very active against the Established Church in Edinburgh was to be Secretary to the Commissioners; and if this were true, how was it possible for the people of Scotland to have confidence in such an inquiry, or to look to the result with any satisfaction? These were the parties who were to take the evidence for the investigation, which would necessarily embrace the statistics of the various parishes. It appeared to him as if the appointment of a Commission was merely a means adopted by Ministers to get quit of the subject; but he trusted they would adopt some means of adding to the Commissioners persons of independent
4
principle, who would act as a counterpoise to the persons already named. After this public notice, they would at least see the necessity of reconsidering the construction of the Commission.
Lord John Russelldid not mean to enter into the merits of the individuals, especially as he was not acquainted with some of them, in consequence of their residence in Scotland, and practising as advocates at the Scotch bar. He would say generally of them that they had been chosen with a view to fairness and impartiality. Neither did he think it any impeachment of that fairness and impartiality to say that the majority of the Commissioners were of his way of thinking on political questions, because not a few of those in Scotland who agreed with him in politics were the warmest and steadiest friends of the Church. Some were most anxious that a grant of money should be made, and others did not see sufficient grounds for refusing it. He would not make up his mind one way or the other on the subject, but as to any party bias in the Commissioners he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman was totally mistaken. What objection could be made to the noble Earl who was one of the Commissioners—a man of great ability, great knowledge, and as great impartiality? The same might be said of Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, a gentleman of whose aid any Government would be glad, and he believed that he had been more than once solicited to take office. Other members were known to be firmly attached to the Church of Scotland. The procurator of the Church was also one of the Commissioners, and the brother of two hon. Members, who had so far taken part with the right hon. Gentleman as to have voted for the Committee. It was fair to presume, therefore, that there existed among the Commissioners no feeling unfavourable to the Church of Scotland. With regard to the individual who had printed his hostility to the Church he had understood from those who were anxious for an investigation of the subject that it was only fair that some person attached to the Dissenters of Scotland should belong to the Commission—that it would be taken by the Dissenters as an evidence of impartiality, as far as they were concerned. They would naturally be anxious to show the nature and means of religious instruction among them. The

5
right hon. Member might be one of those who thought that dissent should be suppressed, but that was not the opinion of the distinguished men who had lately attended in London on behalf of the Church of Scotland. Therefore it seemed proper and judicious, with a view to all parties, that some member of the large Dissenting body should be included in the Commission. Other Commissioners were advocates at the Scotch bar, who had been represented as well qualified for the task by knowledge and assiduity, and he did not consider it any proof that they were inimical to the Scotch Church because their politics were rather of a liberal than an illiberal cast. He did not look upon the subject at all as a party question, and he believed that the Commissioners would act fairly and impartially under the same impression.
Sir George Clerksaid, the way in which the Commission was filled up had given general disappointment. He admitted that many of the Commissioners were friendly to the Church of Scotland, but then, with one exception, their politics were the same as those of the Government. The unpaid branch of the Commission was above all suspicion, but the others were Barristers, not in high practice, some rather known for the active part they took in party politics, and others against the Church of Scotland. The people of Scotland were serious in their habits, they were attached to the Church, and could not be pleased to see such important interests left to the care of young men, whose talents at the same time he did not mean to deny.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, the hon. Baronet who spoke last endeavoured to impress the House with an idea that the friends of the present administration could not be friendly to the Church of Scotland. Now he was a supporter of the Government, and there was no man more friendly to the Church of Scotland. He had no means of ascertaining what were the merits of the paid Commissioners, but the unpaid were above all suspicion. If the former were not in extensive practice so much the better, because they could devote all their time to the inquiry. When first this Commission was proposed, he said the appointment should be made without party considerations, but he could not admit that it was sufficient objection to any appointment, in such a case, to say
6
that the individual was of the same politics as the Government. Friendship to the Government did not imply enmity to the Church of Scotland, and the conduct of Ministers showed that they were not hostile to that Church. If there were not one or two members of the Commission to represent the Dissenters, Government would be justly liable to the charge of partiality.
The Lord Advocatewas surprised to hear the junior Commissioners spoken of as political partisans and young Barristers. The very youngest of them was of four years' standing, a period which would entitle him to the situation of a Judge. One of them, certainly, took part in an election; but surely that did not constitute him a political partisan. It was not uncommon, however, to have political partisans raised to the highest situations. The Gentleman alluded to stood as high as any man at the Scotch bar for honour, integrity, and talent. The other junior Commissioners had been from eight to ten years at the bar. He had heard no objection to Lord Minto, to the Member for Dumfries, or to the Procurator of the Church of Scotland. The other members were well known for their attachment to the Church of Scotland. Perhaps it might be better if it were possible to select men to whom no suspicion of political bias could attach; but he did not see how it could be done. It was but fair that the Dissenters should have at least one Representative on the Commission. It was not, in fact, a party question. Politics had nothing to do with it, and no Commission was ever more impartially selected.
Mr. Pringlesaid, he had various communications from Scotland, disapproving of the manner in which the Commission had been filled up. There was one of the Commissioners who had shown himself to be deeply and zealously connected with the voluntary principle, and the Secretary was known for entertaining such opinions on the Church of Scotland that it was impossible he could give satisfaction. The better course would be to revise the Commission.
Mr. Bainessaid, instead of complaining that the Dissenters, friends to the voluntary principle in Scotland, had too large a number of members on a Commission, which had for its object to make provision for all religious denominations in Scot-

7
land ["No, no!"]—Gentlemen might say no, no, but he contended that the object of the Commission was to inquire into the means of religious instruction and pastoral care afforded to the people of Scotland—that is, to all the people of Scotland without distinction of sect—and how far those means are available for the religious and moral improvement of the poor, and of the working classes. It was not fair that ten out of the Commissioners should be of the religious denomination of the Established Church. From the explanations that had been given it appeared that this great inequality existed, and he must therefore expect that so far from there being any well-grounded complaint against the Ministers for placing one Dissenter upon the Commission, the real ground of objection to the appointment was, that the friends of the voluntary principle in Scotland was not more adequately represented by the Commission.
Mr. Fox Maulebegged to state that if he had understood the Commission to have been appointed in the sense attributed to it by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) he would not have voted for it.
Petition laid upon the Table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF MR. KEITH.
Mr. Humemoved the resumption of the adjourned debate on the subject of Mr. Keith.
The Speaker informed the House that he had received a letter from one of the Members for the Eastern Division of the county of Norfolk, stating that the Grand Jury would conclude their business by Tuesday, and that the evidence of Thomas Moore Keith, then in the custody of that hon. House, was necessary on the bill of indictment preferred against John Pilgrim.
Mr. Rigby Wason, to meet that contingency, begged to move,—"That Thomas Moore Keith, now in His Majesty's Gaol of Newgate for a breach of the privileges of this House, be sent down to Norwich in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, for the purpose of being produced as a witness on any charge, adduced against John Pilgrim."
Lord Stormonthad given notice of his intention to move, on Wednesday that Thomas Moore Keith be brought to the Bar of the House, reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged. Since giving that notice he had received a letter similar in effect to
8
that which had been stated from the Chair. Considering all the circumstances of the case, and the expense which would necessarily be entailed on Mr. Keith, if he were sent down in custody, he should beg to move, "That all the words in the question, after the word 'That,' be left out, for the purpose of inserting the words, 'Thomas Moore Keith be now called to the Bar, reprimanded and discharged.'"
Mr. Humebegged to submit a question to the Chair on a point of form. He wished to know whether the noble Lord having giving the notice to which he had adverted for Wednesday next, it was competent to him to anticipate that motion by moving the Amendment he had just read?
The Speakersaid, that the usual rule of proceeding was, that an hon. Member having given notice of motion for a future day, was not at liberty to anticipate that motion, by making a new one on the same subject, without any notice. The present question, however, was one of privilege, and a motion having been made on the subject he was not prepared to say that the noble Lord was out of order in proposing an Amendment.
Mr. Wasoncontended that it was a perfect mockery to say that five days' imprisonment was a sufficient punishment for the offence of which Keith had been proved to be guilty; more especially when the witness Sparrow had been in jail for no less than six weeks. He was not aware of any case in which an individual in the custody of that House had been released without previous notice being given of a motion to that effect.
Lord John Russellentreated the House to recollect that this was the seventh prisoner whom they had detained in his Majesty's jail of Newgate, on account of the Report of the Ipswich Election Committee. Therefore, without denying that the offence of Mr. Keith was as great as or greater than that of Sparrow, he submitted that the fact of their having afforded a warning to other offenders, by detaining so many persons, some of whom had been confined in Newgate for six or seven weeks, was sufficient to induce the House to come to some immediate determination on the subject. He could not help complaining—not of the noble Lord opposite, nor of his hon. Colleague behind him, but of those who had instructed them to say, on a former occasion, that it was not probable the evidence of Mr. Keith would be

9
required. If they had not received this information, the House might have come at once to the decision that he should be sent down in custody. He did not say he should have given that vote himself, but the House might have been disposed to come to that decision. The Counsel and Solicitor, who gave the hon. Members for Norwich this information, must, he should have thought, have been as well aware of the fact then as now; and he must say, that they had practised an unfair deception on the House. Under all the circumstances, however, if the question came to a division he should vote in favour of the Amendment, for immediately discharging Mr. Keith.
Mr. Humewas so surprised at what had just fallen from the noble Member for Stroud, that he must be permitted to appeal from his Lordship's judgment. The noble Lord's argument went to this—that if seven persons were all equally implicated in the commission of a murder, you would do enough for the purposes of justice in punishing five of them, and in letting the remainder escape unpunished. There had been six offenders punished in this case; what was the reason for stopping short and letting the seventh off unscathed? Those who had been confined for some weeks would complain, and with reason, that they had been unfairly dealt with, supposing Keith got off with five days' imprisonment only. He trusted that the sense of the House would be taken on this subject.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartlooked upon the case of Keith as one of a very aggravated nature. He had originated the absence of Pilgrim, and was afterwards accessory to the continuance of it, not merely by supplying him with money, (as Mr. Clipperton had done to those whom he had advised to abscond) but also by undertaking a journey in person to Calais, and by their offering Pilgrim to relinquish the charge of embezzlement against him, provided he would still continue abroad. What, he would ask, was the report of the last Committee? That Keith had made use of this charge against Pilgrim to induce him to continue that breach of the privileges of that House which was calculated to thwart the ends of justice. What then was the House now asked to do? To deliver Keith out of custody, to prosecute that very charge of embezzlement which he had promised to forego, provided Pilgrim
10
would continue to set the House and its privileges at defiance. He could not understand why, after imprisoning Clipperton for seven weeks, they should discharge Keith, who had been guilty of exactly the same offence, after an imprisonment of only five days? He would also ask on what grounds the noble Lord assumed that Keith would be discharged by the House immediately after his return from Norwich? He, for one, knew of no grounds for such an assumption. The House might sit seven weeks longer, and from reports of what had occurred to day, it was impossible for any man to say that he now foresaw the termination of the Session.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas extremely sorry that it was not in his power to vote for the Amendment to which his noble Friend had acceded. A careful perusal of the evidence convinced him that it was one of the most aggravated cases in his recollection. The noble Lord (Stormont) seemed to take it for granted that on Keith's return on Wednesday the House would at once concur in the propriety of his being forthwith discharged. He (Mr. Fergusson) for one, could arrive at no such conclusion. Neither the country nor that House would be satisfied that justice had been done if they consented to Keith's liberation. This man had committed a gross breach of privilege and the punishment for that ought not to be determined by the day on which the assizes commenced at Norfolk.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that it was with regret that he differed on this occasion from his noble Friend, the Member for Stroud. If ever there was a case in which the House was bound to vindicate its privileges, it was in this case of Mr. Keith. Of all the parties implicated by the evidence taken before the Committee, it did appear to him that Mr. Keith was the most guilty.
Mr. Estcourtcould not agree that Mr. Keith was the most guilty of all the parties whom the House had ordered into custody for this offence; nor could he agree that he was the person who originally procured Pilgrim's absence. He did not, however, mean to deny that Mr. Keith had favoured and facilitated Pilgrim's departure from Norwich, and that in so doing he had rendered himself guilty of a breach of privilege. There was not, however, a tittle of evidence to prove that he had used the charge of embezzlement as a menace to

11
deter Pilgrim from returning home. He thought that Mr. Keith had acted wrongly in becoming a party to an illegal transaction, but he had been taken into custody by order of the House, and had suffered some imprisonment. He was therefore of opinion that enough had been done for the purposes of justice, and he should in consequence support the Amendment.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the hon. Member for Oxford was mistaken in saying that there was not a tittle of evidence to connect Keith with these transactions. On the contrary, he was inclined to contend that Keith, if not the only, was certainly the principal, person engaged in procuring Pilgrim's absence. Pilgrim's evidence on this point was, that Keith said to him, "It will not do for you to be subpœnaed to attend the Committee—you must go away." That evidence was confirmed by all the other parcels of Pilgrim's evidence, and also by that of his wife. Moreover, Keith went over to Calais to induce Pilgrim to stay away from England, and that fact appeared upon the testimony of Mr. Jay, the attorney. If the House would assure him that it was its intention to discharge Keith out of custody as soon as he returned from Norwich, he should have no objection to discharge him forthwith, for he had no desire to keep any man in prison vexatiously. House divided on Mr. Wason's Motion:—The Ayes 110; Noes 102;—Majority 8.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clive, E. B.

Alston, R.

Collier, J.

Bradshaw, J.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Baldwin, Dr.

Donkin, Sir R.

Baring, F. T.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Berkeley, Hon. C.

Divett, E.

Barnard, E.G.

Duncombe, T. S.

Baines, E.

Ebrington, Lord

Barry, S.

Etwall, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Elphinstone, H.

Bewes, T.

Fergusson, C.

Bish, T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Blake, M. T.

Fitzsimon, C.

Blamire, W.

Fitzsimon, N.

Bodkin, J. T.

Finn, W. T.

Bulwer, H.

Finch, F.

Burton, H. P.

Gaskell, D.

Bridgman, H.

Gordon, R.

Brotherton, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Browne, D.

Grattan, H.

Byng, Hon. G.

Grote, G.

Brady, D C.

Handley, H.

Callaghan, D.

Hall, B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hay, Colonel

Cave, O.

Harvey, D. W.

12

Hawes, B.

Philips, M.

Hume, J.

Pryme, G.

Humphery, J.

Raphael, A.

Kemp, T. R.

Ronayne, D.

Kerry, Earl of

Roebuck, J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Scholefield, J.

Leader, J. T.

Sheldon, E. R.

Lefevre, Shaw

Spiers, A.

Lushington, Dr.

Stewart, P.

Lushington, C.

Talbot, J. H.

Maher, J.

M'Taggart, J.

Macleod, R.

Tracy, H.

Marjoribanks, S.

Tooke, W.

Moreton, Hon. A

Tulke, C.

Methuen, P.

Thornely, T.

Nagle, Sir R.

Tynte, C.

O'Brien, W.

Vigors, N.

O'Connell, D.

Wason, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell, M.

Walker, R.

O'Conor, Don

Walker, C.

O'Ferrall, R.

Wakley, Thomas

Paget, Captain

Warburton, H.

Parker, J.

White, L.

Pattison, J.

Wilks, J.

Pease, J.

Wilde, Sergeant

Perrin, Serjeant

Williams, W.

Power, P.

Wood, Alderman

Potter, R.

Wood, C.

Poulter J. S.

THE LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
Lord J. Russellrose to move the Resolution, of which he had given notice, relative to the late Sergeant-at-Arms. No other opportunity had occurred for the Members of that House to express their opinion of the services rendered by that individual, and he had no doubt that they would readily avail themselves of the present. It was well known that the late Sergeant-at-Arms had been a zealous and faithful servant of the House for a long period of years, and that he had now retired upon an allowance, the amount of which would entail no additional expense upon the country; Appreciating, as he did, in common he believed with the rest of the House, the services of Mr. Seymour most highly, he would conclude by moving the following resolution:—"That Mr. Speaker be requested to acquaint Mr. Henry Seymour that this House entertains the highest sense of the exemplary zeal and fidelity with which he has uniformly discharged the duties of his situation during his long attendance in the service of the House."
Sir Robert Peelhad the greatest pleasure in seconding the motion of the noble Lord. Strong as political opinions were in that House on all party questions, there was always great satisfaction in finding one

13
on which they could express an unanimous opinion. He believed the opinion of the House would be unanimous on the occasion. He did not believe that the duties of Sergeant-at-Arms could be discharged with greater assiduity patience, or suavity than they had been performed by Mr. Seymour. He knew little of Mr. Seymour personally, but judging of his mind and character by all he had seen of him in the performance of his duty, he very much doubted whether this unanimous record of the approbation of the House would not give much more satisfaction to a mind like his than any pecuniary reward.
The Resolution agreed to nem. con.

COMPENSATION—ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that perhaps the most convenient way for him to communicate to the House what had recently passed on the subject of the loan for paving the compensation to the slave-owners, would be by moving that the Compensation Act be read, and that the House do resolve itself into Committee upon it, when he would take the opportunity of making his statement, and moving certain resolutions with a view to carry the money provisions of the Bill into effect. He also moved that a Copy of the Contract for raising 15,000,000 l. under that Act, be laid on the Table.
Copy laid on the Table and read.
Mr. Humeasked whether his right hon. Friend was going to lay any information before the House? If so, he apprehended that the Papers or Resolutions should be printed before calling on a Committee to agree to a Vote on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that his object in going into Committee was, pursuant to notice, to propose a Vote to give effect to such provisions of the contract he had entered into, as required parliamentary sanction. With respect to the loan, it required no confirmation, being contracted according to Act of Parliament, and, as far as that was concerned, his object was to explain to the House the circumstances that attended the negotiations and the conditions under which the loan had been contracted. He believed he was pursuing the usual course in proposing to go into Committee on this occasion.
The House resolved itself into a Committee, and the Act was read.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercon-
14
fessed that, if it were not for his confident reliance on the kind indulgence of the House, he should feel great difficulty in rising to address it on the present occasion, because he well knew that the details into which he was about to enter, were not of a nature very likely to captivate the attention of hon. Members. But, at the same time, he felt conscious that the transaction in question was one of the most important of the kind which had been laid before Parliament for many years; and he might therefore hope to receive that attention to which individually he had no claim. The House was aware that under the Slavery Abolition Act, which had just been read, there were provisions enabling the Government to raise, by way of loan, a sum not exceeding 20,000,000 l. for the purpose of giving compensation to the owners of slaves in our colonies. The provisions of this Act were seriously discussed at the time when it was passed by the Legislature, and the powers vested in the Government under it, differed materially from those which had been granted to it on all former loans. By former Acts, it was left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to open negotiations for loans with individual contractors, and he was then to come to Parliament and ask for a recognition and confirmation of the contracts which had received his approbation; but, under the powers conferred by the present Bill, the Legislature intrusted the Government with full authority to contract the loan, only saving the power of Parliament by providing that the loan should be contracted while the Parliament was sitting, and the papers connected with the loan should be forthwith laid on the Table of the House. Acting under the provisions of this Act, it became his province, as soon as he could ascertain the time when it was necessary to make provision for the required sum, to take the necessary steps for effecting a loan. He believed that there were some individuals disposed to censure him for the delay that had occurred in the transaction, and to impute some blame to him for not having taken those steps at an earlier period than, he did; but there were many circumstances that had induced him to postpone to the latest possible moment, the act of entering into a contract for the loan. With those circumstances, however, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House. Under the provisions of the Compensation Act, while the Government had full power

15
to raise the 20,000,000 l., it was restricted as to the period of entering into the contract, within the limit of the time when Parliament should be sitting; and, therefore, now binding himself in the month of August, he felt compelled to make provision for the maximum amount of the demand to which, under the Compensation Act, the country might be liable from this period till the usual time of the House meeting again. The full amount of the compensation for all the colonies was 20,000,000 l., of which sum 2,100,000 l. was devoted to the Mauritius, and 1,200,000 l. to the Cape of Good Hope; and as neither of these sums could come into course of payment between this and February next, he felt justified in excluding that 3,300,000 l. from the loan. There was also a sum of 1,721,000 l. apportioned to the island of Barbadoes, to the circumstances connected with which he would call the attention of the House. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonial Department, in his admirable statement on the subject of our West Indian Colonies, had informed the House, that the Colonial Act passed by the Legislature of Barbadoes, in pursuance of the Slavery Abolition Bill, was of such a nature that it became necessary to communicate to the Assembly, that in the opinion of the Government its enactments were inadequate and unsatisfactory, and could not be allowed by his Majesty in Council. This being the case, till a new Act was passed by the Colonial Assembly he should not be required to provide compensation for the proprietors of slaves in Barbadoes, but he might be put in that position before long, an act might pass that would be considered adequate and satisfactory, and in that case, if he excluded Barbadoes in contracting the loan on this occasion, and if the colony agreed to such an act as he had described, before the next Session of Parliament, the proprietors in that island would be deprived of their compensation till the re-opening of Parliament. He therefore proposed, not as a part of this contract, but upon a separate Resolution, in compliance with a provision pointed out by a noble Lord not now a Member of the House, to ask the House for power to create a fund representing the amount of the Barbadoes compensation, to be dealt with subject to the orders of the compensation Commissioners. Here
16
then was a sum of 1,700,000 l. (speaking in round numbers) which possibly might not be soon required, and adding to this sum the 3,300,000 l. awarded to the Cape of Good Hope and the Mauritius, but which could not be wanted before the usual time of the meeting of Parliament, he obtained a gross amount of 5,000,000 l., which might be excluded from a consideration in contracting the present loan. He found himself therefore bound to make provision for a sum of 15,000,000 l. sterling, but the precise period at which he might be called on to pay it was uncertain. He might be called on to provide a considerable sum in September next. For all claims to compensation which should be unopposed, and for all which being opposed became matter of reference to a court of law, he might be called on to provide at once—in the first case at the desire of the parties, and in the second at the instance of the court; and the public would be liable in both cases to make immediate provision for the demand. Looking at so large an operation as this loan of 15,000,000 l., it appeared clear to him that he could only raise such a sum with convenience by distributing it in instalments over a given time; but in taking this course he felt it might happen that the amount of the instalments to be paid might not be sufficient to meet the just claims of the West Indian proprietors at the time, and that they might call for a larger amount of compensation than the contractors would have been bound to furnish. To provide for these two cases—namely, to be enabled to meet the required payments, and at the same time to avoid the inconvenience of raising a large amount of the loan at once, he proposed that where the instalments already paid were not sufficient to meet the demands of the West Indian proprietors, it should be the duty of Government to issue certificates or debentures, bearing interest, and specifically charged on the next instalment of the loan. Those debentures should be payable to the bearer. In fact, they would be bills at thirty-one or sixty-one days, as the case might be, redeemable at the period fixed, and issued so as not to act inconveniently on the Exchequer - bill market. These certificates should be receivable in payment of the instalments of the loan. As the instalments were intended to pay off the debentures, if a

17
party delivered up debentures, it amounted, in point of fact, to a money payment and would not be objected to. He proposed that the instalments should be distributed over a period of time, from the 6th of August till the 13th of September, and they would be so regulated that the larger amounts should be payable at the same time as the greater dividends would be demanded, and the smaller when the amount of money required might be expected to be less. This, he must here remark, was the first loan made under circumstances such as the present, and since the alteration in the currency. This might be said to be the first considerable loan contracted under the new state of the circulation and of the money-market, as it was also the first loan effected when the price of stock was so high as at present; consequently, if the loan contractor anticipated a fall rather than a rise in the price of stock, it would govern his biddings accordingly. Before he stated the terms of the loan, he must observe, that at the time the tender was made in the money-market he understood, and had reason to believe, that he should have the advantage arising from the competition of two or three parties. It would have gratified him exceedingly to find that there was such competition, for then he should have felt himself free from the responsibility of dealing with one tender only, and if he had been enabled to come down to the House and assure it that the contract was regulated by open competition, it would have been extremely satisfactory. Well, then, the opportunity for such competition was tendered to the public, but it so happened that two out of three parties declined availing themselves of it, and he this day found that the only tender made was by the house of Rothschild and Co., a firm the name of which was a sufficient guarantee to the House. Under such circumstances the only protection he had, as against the contractor, consisted in the terms which he had previously enclosed in his own sealed paper; the form of that proceeding being, that if on receiving the contractor's tender he found it more advantageous to the public than the terms contained in the sealed paper, he was bound to accept it; but if, on the contrary, it proved to be less advantageous, he had the option of declining the tender. He would open his paper on receiving the tender, and if it contained lower terms
18
than the contractor offered, the alternative afforded to that individual consisted in their rejection, if he did not choose to accede to them. He would now tell the House what proposal he had that morning received, the terms which the first Lord of the Treasury and he had previously placed in their sealed paper, and the result of the whole transaction. The closing price of Consols on Saturday was 90½, which gave for the proposed amount of 75 l., in money 67 l. 17 s. 6d.; the three per cents reduced left off at ninety-one,25 l. in which amounted to 22 l. 11 s.; and the tender by by Messrs. Rothschild was a long annuity of 14 s. 11 d. The terms he had proposed in his own sealed paper were a long annuity of 13 s. 7d., which, valued in money at the closing price of Saturday—16⅝, amounted to 11 l. 5s. 9d. Having rejected the proposition of Mr. Rothschild, that Gentleman, after considerable deliberation, acceded to his, and on those terms was the loan contracted for. He would now state the exact difference between the one tender and the other. But first he must observe, that in the Act of Parliament under which this loan had been contracted for, there was a limitation on the operations of Government, which, though it had an absolute right to raise a loan which should be binding on the nation on being formally completed, was nevertheless restricted to this condition—that the interest payable to the contractor should in no case exceed, by more than 5s. per cent, per annum, the current rate of interest, according to the market price of redeemable securities at the time. At that rate, the maximum amount of interest under the Bill would be 35,760 l. per million, or 760 l. above the 3½ per cents, as calculated on the average price of Consols during the last six years. The terms on which he had made his proposal, as contained in the sealed paper, differed from the maximum amount of interest provided by the Act, by a sum of 23,613 l. a-year, or by a principal sum of 405,535 l. The terms proposed by him, and accepted by Mr. Rothschild, differed from the terms originally offered by the contractors to the extent of an annual charge of 10,075 l., representing a principal sum of 149,233 l. It therefore appeared, that the Government had saved, between the tender of Mr. Rothschild and the terms contained in the sealed paper 10,075 l. a-year, and between the maximum amount of interest

19
allowed by the Act and the actual terms of the loan 23,613 l. per annum. At what rate of interest was this loan practically contracted? The money amount was 101 l. 18 s. 3d., the contractor being entitled on paying up the instalments to a discount; the value of that discount was estimated at 1l. 19 s. 9d., making a total sum of 103 l. 18 s. Now the ordinary discount on former loans having been four percent, there never had been a rate of discount so low as that to be allowed on the present loan. In addition to this, take the actual rate of interest on the loan, and compare it with the fairest standard, the average interest of Consols during the last six years, years of peace. He hoped the next six years would be as tranquil as the preceding, and in that case the contractor would reap the full advantage of his bargain. Referring to the last six years—no unfair standard—he found the average interest of Consols to have been 3l. 10 s., while the present loan had been contracted for (even with the funds at 90, 90½, and 91) at a rate of interest of from about 3l. 7s. 6d. to 3l. 7s. 8d. per cent. A more advantageous loan had never been contracted, and he could not but expect that the arrangement, would prove satisfactory to the House and the public, seeing the unparalleled low rate of interest to be paid. Comparing the interest payable on this with that paid on other loans, he found the advantages of the present arrangement exceedingly striking. The interest on the loan contracted in 1812 was 5l. 5s. 7d.; on the first loan in 1813, 5l. 10 s. 6d.; on the second loan of 1813, 5l. 6s. 2d.; on the loan of 1814, 4l. 12 s. 1d.; on that of 1815, 5l. 12 s. 4d.; on the loan of 1819, 4l. 5s. 9d.; on that of 1820, 4l. 3s. 3d. and on this loan, no more than 3l. 7s. 6d. More favourable terms than these could not be expected by the House or the country. This rate of interest was to be computed, not exactly as the present charge, because 101,000 l. consisted of terminable annuities but the charge for permanent debt was no more than 3l. 7s. 6d. per cent. He had now completed his statement on the subject of this loan, and he congratulated the House that security had been taken which enabled it to see that whenever the Session might close no claim could be made on the justice of Parliament by the West Indian proprietors which the Government would not be in a condition to answer. It
20
was satisfactory to find that, under the present arrangement, every portion of our obligations would be rigidly fulfilled, because no West Indian proprietor could consider that wrong was done to him by paying him in debentures instead of money. He took pride in saying, that the whole operation had been effected, without imposing on the Bank or the Government any species of obligation which had the remotest tendency to disturb the circulation of the country. In carrying into effect similar objects heretofore, arrangements had been, perhaps necessarily, made with the Bank to facilitate the payment of instalments under loans. But here, though the rate of interest did not exceed 3l. 7s. 6d. or 3l. 7s. 8d., no obligation to take in the omnium was imposed on the Bank, and the management of its concerns was left to its own unfettered discretion. He hoped the House would not have wished, even if he could have reduced the terms of the loan, that the operation should have been effected at the hazard of causing embarrassment to the circulation of the country, or at the risk of exposing the Bank to the necessity of making an undue issue of paper at a time when it might not be disposed to take that course. He had now explained to the House the plan he had taken; but the means he intended to pursue with regard to a provision for past interests required further explanation. The Resolutions which he was about to propose would be reported to the House, and afterwards printed, so that they would be completely known. His noble Friend (Lord Althorp), in the statement which he made with respect to his plan for providing for the interest on the West Indian loan, assumed the maximum of the amount that would be required, and stated that he would make a reserve of 800,000 l. This would have carried the interest up to four per cent, deducting the expenses to be incurred. But his noble Friend had never pledged himself, nor was he in a position to pledge himself, with respect to the amount of interest that would be due; yet, because he had stated that the maximum of the sum required would be four per cent, some individuals had mistakenly assumed that this was in fact the minimum, and that there was an obligation on his noble Friend with respect to the rate of interest to be hereafter paid. No such thing ever occurred. His noble Friend was not

21
pledged either as to the amount of interest, nor as to the period when that interest was to begin. In order to decide the latter point, it behoved the House to inquire on what ground this charge became payable. It was payable as a compensation for loss sustained under the Slavery Abolition Bill. When, he would ask, did that loss arise by the alteration in our colonial system? The answer was on the 1st of August, 1834; consequently, in justice, the House was bound to provide interest for the West Indian proprietors from that day. His Resolution would affirm that proposition. But they must next inquire what should be the rate of interest? At first he was inclined to propose fixing it at what might not have seemed unreasonable—the rate of interest on Exchequer Bills. On reflection, however, he considered that this might press too heavily on the slave-owners, and therefore, he proposed that it should be paid in accordance with the rate of interest chargeable for the present loan, and he should call on the House to allow this rate of interest, from the 1st of August, 1834. By the Abolition Act it was provided, that the expenses of the Compensation Commissioners at home and abroad should be deducted out of the sum available as compensation to the West Indian proprietors. The principal sum had been apportioned among the colonies, and a table, fixing their respective proportions, having been approved of by the King in Council, had been published and sent out to the colonies. If, therefore, he could get the means of paying these expenses without disturbing this order, be thought it would be more satisfactory to the colonists than if he made a rateable deduction from the amount fixed by the order of apportionment. He proposed, with this view, to raise a sum payable out of the interest due from the 1st of August to meet the whole expenses of the Compensation Commissioners, and he estimated that sum at 150,000 l. He had now stated the two points to which he referred at the outset; he had explained the terms on which the loan had been contracted, and the precautions taken to make the contract advantageous to the country. He had compared the interest payable with the interest on former loans—with the interest of the three per cents, on an average of the last six years—and on all these points he had shown that the loan had been effected on
22
advantageous terms, while the operation exposed the circulation of the country to no risk and imposed no undue obligations on the Bank. He had explained that in the proposition he made was contemplated the payment of interest to the West Indian proprietors, from the 1st of August, 1834, up to the period of their payment out of this loan. He knew not whether he had had the good fortune to make his statement clear and intelligible to the House, but knowing the difficulty of the subject, he had endeavoured to be as simple and explicit as he could. He thought himself warranted in saying that this loan possessed two characteristics, which no loan ever before had. He had provided for the payment of the interest after the reduction of a vast amount of taxation without looking to any increase of the burthens of the country. It was also to be observed, that this loan had not been contracted for the purposes of national defence, or to gratify our ambition abroad, but with a view to carry into effect at once a great object, long desired by the friends of humanity in this and other countries. In doing that it was above all things necessary to preserve a due regard for the interests of parties, in a particular species of property which had been created by our laws rather than by their own, and was the creature of English encouragement rather than the production of the colonies. Such being the case, England was justly called on to make compensation for destroying interests which it had itself created, more especially at a time when he trusted he might venture to say, the great experiment undertaken under the care and superintendence of his noble Friend had already exceeded in the favourable results by which it was attended the expectations of the most sanguine—a matter that was the more deserving of congratulation at a period when the state of our colonies had been a subject of deep anxiety. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman begged leave to move the two following Resolutions:—"That the Commissioners of his Treasury be authorized to direct the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of a sum sufficient to pay to the owners of slaves entitled to compensation in pursuance of the Act for the Abolition of Slavery, interest on the amount of their respective compensations, not exceeding 3l. 7s. 9d. per cent, from the 1st

23
day of August, 1834, to the time when the amount of such compensation shall be awarded, after deducting thereout the expenses which may have been or may be incurred in the execution of the said Act." "That Bank Annuities equal to the sum of 1,721,345 l. 19 s. 7d. sterling, shall be placed in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, to be applied in payment of the compensation to the owners of slaves in the island of Barbadoes, on the terms and conditions specified in the Act for the Abolition of Slavery, which sum shall be added to, and shall form part of, such Bank Annuities, and the interest thereon shall be charged upon and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." He must explain that the variance between the terms of the first Resolution and his statement of the rate of interest arose from the difference between the charge of the loan as actually contracted, and supposing it contracted wholly in perpetual annuities. To explain this accurately to the House, required certain abstruse calculations to be made, in order to ascertain the precise rate of interest which were not yet completed, and therefore in the Resolution the rate of interest had been taken at the highest possible sum, 3l. 7s. 9d., but he had every reason to expect it would not exceed the amount mentioned in his speech,—namely, 3l. 7s. 6d.
The Question having been put,
Mr. Humecomplained of the nature of the transaction, as far as he could understand it. His right hon. Friend had contracted a loan of fifteen millions, for which he gave 100 l. Stock, and 11 l. 5s. 10 d. Long Annuities; so that in point of fact he gave 111 l. 5s. 10 d. for every 100 l.; with this difference only, that 100 l. of that sum was paid in Stock. The goodness of the bargain depended upon the fact, whether the three per cents, should be at par or not. His right hon. Friend thought, that they would not be at par for several years; and his (Mr. Hume's) expectation was, that they very soon would be at par, in which case the contractor would have a great advantage. He would have preferred a more simple system of making the loan. He would have preferred if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said to the contractor, "I want 100 l.
24
say what rate you can give it at?" and whatever the rate on which it was borrowed was, it might be reduced to 3½ per cent. Whether the loan was profitable or not, depended entirely upon the rise or fall of Stocks. He did not think that the loan was either so simple or so favourable as might have been obtained. He was not disposed to think that it was a favourable loan, considering the present state of the Money Market.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas rather disappointed to find that the terms of the loan did not give satisfaction to his hon. Friend, but he hoped that on consideration it would appear more and more satisfactory to him. He was expressly precluded from the arrangement proposed by his hon. Friend, by the provisions of the Act itself, to borrow a part of the sum by way of annuity. He was rejoiced however, to find that his hon. Friend objected to the terms of the loan on the grounds of the flourishing state of the country, in which he was very happy to agree with him. His hon. Friend had objected to the annuity system, and said he could have contracted the loan entirely in stock; but the effect of that was, to prevent this loan becoming to that extent a permanent burden on the resources of the country.
AN HON. MEMBERobserved, that he could not help congratulating the country on the good state of public credit, as exemplified in the terms on which this loan had been effected. If any insidious measure for tampering with the currency had ever been listened to by Parliament, most assuredly a large loan like that now proposed could not have been effected on the terms stated by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present loan differed from all others; all former loans had been raised for the purpose of carrying on war, the present, however, had been effected for the purposes of humanity, and for removing a foul blot on the nation.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodremarked, that at present there were four millions of gold and one million of silver disposable in the Bank of England. He wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether this loan of fifteen millions was to be paid in paper money or in gold, and if in gold where it was to come from.
The Resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.

THE CHURCH (IRELAND)—COMMITTEE.
The House went into a Committee on the Tithes' Committee (Ireland) Bill. The question was the postponed Clauses.
On Clause 9 (compositions for tithes may be revised on application to the commissioners of land revenue),
Lord Clementssaid, that he, as well as other Irish Members, objected to a permanent composition of tithes on the basis of the old system, for in numerous cases improvident agreements had been entered into. On this ground he was anxious to afford facilities to re-opening compositions now entered into. He was satisfied that the course he suggested was the most convenient that could be adopted. He objected to so large a number of tithe-payers being required to appeal against a composition, before it could be re-opened. His object was, not to make a reduction in tithes, but when they had been raised above their real amount that they should be reduced to their just value; or where the clergyman had received less than he ought to have done, that there should be an increase. He could not consent to the Clause in its present state; he therefore trusted that his noble Friend would consent to re-open a composition when an appeal was entered by considerably less than one-half the number of tithe payers.
Viscount Morpeththought that it would not be advantageous to open compositions, unless it appeared that some grounds of complaint existed; and if they did, there would not be any difficulty in getting the requisite number of signatures. He thought that the Bill at present pressed sufficiently hard upon the clergyman, and he did not wish to add to his trouble. There was, under this Clause, sufficient power of appeal, and he objected to open appeals without good cause.
Mr. O'Connellsuggested that a revision of the composition might be allowed on the appeal of one-third of the tithe-payers instead of one-half. He also recommended that the period should be extended in which the appeal was to take place.
Viscount Morpeththought that if there was good ground for complaint, parties were sufficiently alive to their own interests. He therefore should in this instance adhere to the general rule—that the question should only be opened at the discretion of the majority.
Mr. Sergeant Perrinsaid, that
26
it was not necessary that there should be a majority of the tithe payers to open a composition, but even a single individual might do so, if he paid more than half the tithes.
The Clause was agreed to.
On Clause 50, providing for the remission of the million advanced to the Irish clergy,
Mr. Harveysaid, that as he understood the Clause now proposed was that which remitted the repayment of the 1,000,000 l. which had been granted by this House to the clergy of Ireland in aid of their defective funds, consequent upon the arrear of tithes due to them, he could not but express his surprise that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Morpeth) and those who formed the Government with the noble Lord, should think it sufficient simply and solemnly to make this proposition to the House without offering any explanation, and without condescending to give any information as to the grounds upon which the people of England were to be called upon to pay 1,000,000 l. of money, wherewith to pay the debt due by the people of Ireland to the clergy of the Established Church of that country. It was a wholesome practice (usually followed) that at least some explanation should be afforded when a proposition of this kind was introduced, or that something should be done, either by quoting a Resolution of the House or by reading part of a Speech from the Throne, to call the attention of the House to the subject. In this instance, he took it that the Government held it for granted that no individual would be found to dissent from the palpable justice and equity of the proposition, and that by their silence upon it they meant to convey, that no good reason could be urged against such a prodigal grant, as he would term it, of the public money. With respect to that grant, he would beg to recall the House to the observations which had been made by the Government by whom the loan, as it was then called had been advanced. He had before him extracts from the speeches of the noble Lord at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Althorp), and others of the then Government, from all of which it appeared that it was then contemplated the loan was to be repaid. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "that he wished it to be understood that the last proposition which he would make to

27
the House and to the Representatives of the people, was a proposition that 1,000,000 l. of money wrung from the industry of England should be applied to pay the debts of the Irish landlords to the Irish clergy." Lord Althorp also had observed, "that if he felt this measure (that effecting the advance of the loan) would fix the people of England with the repayment of the advance, the Government would not be justified in proposing, nor the House in supporting it." In addition to this he had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at that time Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Littleton), in which he had said that, "it would be most improper for a minister of the Crown to propose to give to the Irish clergy 1,000,000 l. sterling, unless its repayment was secured to the people of England, by whom it was to be advanced. He had also before him the opinions expressed on that occasion by a right hon. Gentleman, now one of the Cabinet, and who, anxious to exonerate himself from the imputation of being a party to a grant so prodigal in amount, and so profligate in principle, had said—and he (Mr. Harvey) alluded to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester—that "nothing could be more at variance with his own opinions, and with what he considered to be the interests of his constituents, than to vote away the money of the people of England for the payment of the Church Establishment of Ireland. He, continued the right hon. Gentleman, should however ground his vote in favour of the grant, on the assurance which his noble Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given, that it was not intended the money advanced should be a gift, but, on the contrary, that measures would be taken to recover the whole advance, and that its repayment would be legally secured." The same sentiments had been re-echoed by the present Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Perrin), and, indeed, there was not amongst the present Government, or their supporters in this House, a single individual who viewed the advance otherwise than as a loan, to be amply and sufficiently secured. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had also expressed an opinion to the effect that in making this advance the interests of the people of England, who paid their own tithes, were to be regarded. The right hon. Baronet had also added that this
28
loan ought to be repaid by the people of Ireland. It was for those who had expressed these sentiments formerly now to afford some reason upon which they justified the remission of the repayment of this advance. Even the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in the eloquent speech with which he introduced his motion of instruction to the Committee to divide this Bill into two parts, had failed, though he had urged much against the misappropriation of the revenues of the Church, to breathe a syllable or to utter a word against such a misappropriation of the funds of the people of England. The Government were, however, now prepared to remit that appropriation without one syllable of explanation from the Government; for though he had heard the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Morpeth), and though he had since read that speech, corrected by authority, yet he had failed to find any explanation afforded as to the course proposed by Government. It was true that the noble Lord had admitted that this was not the least difficult branch of the whole matter, but there the point rested, and he (Mr. Harvey) had no doubt but that if instead of a gift of 1,000,000 l., this measure had extended to 5,000,000 l., it would as easily have been disposed of as at present. With regard to the original grant of 1,000,000 l., he begged to say that he would not express an opinion hostile to the assistance which had by that means been afforded to the clergy; on the contrary, he thought it most proper, and his only complaint was, that there had been no discrimination used in dealing with it. It might be just and proper to afford a gift or grant to a man pre-eminent in the discharge of his clerical duties; but, on the other hand, he could fancy that there were some clergymen of the Irish Church who were not to be found resident in their parishes—not promulgating the doctrines of the religion of which they were the ministers, but who were to be found in the club-houses of Cheltenham, or whose tithes were remitted to them in Paris or elsewhere. The pluralist was thus paid in the same way as the man of small means and of great labour, and this was the undiscriminating principle upon which the loan had been administered. It was true that it had been insinuated by the wisdom of the Government that the remission of the million was but a small

29
price to pay for the great benefit which would result to the community; but, even so, it was marvellous that the Government should not have endeavoured to inform the people of England, who were to pay the price, the nature of the benefit that was to ensue. Often had the outpourings of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin gone forth that Ireland and her interests were neglected in this House—that everything that was Irish was regarded with distaste by the House; but he would declare that the activity of the Irish Members not only succeeded in occupying the attention of the House, but that also, as in this instance, they secured benefits to their country. He hesitated not to say, that a more beneficial measure than the present could not have been obtained for them even from a Parliament sitting in College-green. It was a measure essentially selfish and conservative. It was a selfish measure, because the Government and their adherents supported it with a view to their continuance in place, and the Conservatives supported it because the maintenance of the clergy was a portion of their own measure. The only extenuation to be advanced on behalf of the noble Lord was, that he was not the author of this suggestion, but had adopted it lest the measure should be lost. He did not doubt but the Bill was supported by one party because they regarded it as an instalment, a sort of 6s. 8d. in the pound, and as a step by which to obtain the remaining 13 s. 4d. This would be of no advantage to the people of England. He believed that every man was quite prepared to recognize the claims of the clergy to all their existing interests, and he was ready to pay them not 75 l. out of the 100 l., but 100 l. so long as they lived, but after that he was anxious to have the entire property to be disposed of according to the wisdom of Parliament. If the Government had propounded, or should propound, wholesome measures of Reform, he ventured to say, that so far from finding any prejudice in the minds of the people of England, they would be the first to recognize the system to which he had thus but slightly alluded. But he was prepared to show, that by this Bill not less than 5,000,000 l. of English money was given up to the Irish Church; but without entering into that question he maintained that let the tithes belong to whom they might, even if the Church was
30
wholly abolished, the whole tithe property was attached to the people, to be disposed of as Parliament should direct. It was true that the House was told that the remission of the million was the oil to the measure, and would facilitate its pas sage through another place. He begged to inquire what evidence of concession there was at this moment in the quarter to which he referred. On the contrary, the other House of Parliament was now running the race of popularity with this branch of the Legislature, was now manifesting a peculiar jealousy for the vested rights of the lower orders, and a desire to throw the shield of their order round the unprotected. He would not give the House of Peers the opportunity of saying that they had saved the country the sacrifice of the million to which the Representatives of the people had consented. But it was said that it was impossible to recover the amount advanced. If so, let it at once be declared by the Government to have been a loan advanced upon bad security, and, with true commercial spirit, let it be classed amongst the bad debts which they had incurred, but let it not be said that it was the price or purchase-money of a benefit to Ireland. If the arrears of tithes could not be enforced, he was at a loss to know how it was possible, mutato nomine, a rent-charge for the same purposes was to be levied. He had looked to the laws relating to tithes in Ireland with some trouble, and he found the result to be this—that the Bill of 1823, known as Goulburn's Act, encouraged voluntary composition for tithes. Then came the Bill of 1832 (Lord Stanley's), which made composition compulsory; and at the present moment the law was, that the same remedy was afforded for the recovery of tithes as was provided for the recovery of rent. Again, he contended that tithes were a primary charge, and recoverable as such; and he begged to inquire from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite in what manner they thought the recovery of this substituted rent-charge could be enforced? He had no doubt but that before two Sessions were over, the House would be informed of agrarian disturbances against tithes, or, as they would be then called, rent-charges. Agitation would follow, and he should be sorry it should be otherwise, for the simple reason—namely, the principle adopted by the Dissenters of this country, not against

31
the amount of the imposts to which they were liable, but to the system of their being obliged to contribute to the maintenance and support of a Church Establishment from which they derived no benefit. What benefit, he should like to know, would the commutation of tithe into a rent-charge be to the numerical population of Ireland? None whatever: it might be a benefit to the landlord, but it could be of advantage to no one else. The landlord, indeed, would benefit by it, for he would get the thirty per cent, now remitted. He (Mr. Harvey) called upon the Government to state in what way the people of England would ever derive any advantage equal to the amount of this 1,000,000 l. now remitted to the clergy. With the example of Ireland before them, the tenants of England would in a few years—say from 1835 to 1838, or so long as it was necessary to make agitation successful—be coming forward to claim a remission of tithes like that obtained by the tenantry of Ireland. If that were the course pursued by the tenantry, then the clergy of England would come to Parliament and require not 1,000,000 l., but 3,000,000 l., or 4,000,000 l., to satisfy their claims on the benevolence or justice of their country. Out of whose pockets, he would ask, were those three or four millions to come? He would ask the Conservative landlords about him, who called on his Majesty's Government to give up the tax on cur dogs, and on pantiles, and who thanked God when such concessions were made to them—he would ask the Conservative landlords he said, to act honestly by their tenants, and to declare at once that they would not allow them any longer to pay down their solid money on account of Irish tithes. That language he had not yet heard from the Conservative landlords, but that language the House might yet be fortunate enough to hear from them. The hon. Member concluded by saying, that he should not propose any specific Amendment, as he did not know any specific fund upon which the million could be charged; but if the Government carved out the way, he would assist them in carrying it into effect, at the same time he should oppose the Clause.
Viscount Morpethwould not attempt to defend the proceedings and the circumstances which rendered it necessary for him to call upon Government to remit the
32
repayment of the money advanced under the Million Act. The only ground upon which he urged the remission of this law was that under existing circumstances without worse sacrifices and greater evils, they could not avoid making that remission. He, therefore, opposed the hon. and learned Member's proposal for the omission of this Clause, and equally opposed was he to the other suggestion of the hon. and learned Member to enforce die payment of interest upon the sums advanced out of the Million Fund. He was opposed to the latter proposal upon the following grounds, that the payment of that interest must either be collected from the landlord, from whom he money was not due, or from the occupying tenant, or from the clergyman. He could not consent to enforce this payment from the clergyman unless the Government were at the same time to hold themselves prepared to back him in a crusade for the recovery of all the tithes which were due to him from the occupying tenant. He could not consent to recover it from the occupying tenant, because the very object of this Bill was to do away with the payment of tithes by that class of people. Finally, he could not consent to support this claim of interest against the landlords, because whilst by the Bill they were imposing a new responsibility and charge upon that party, it would not be fair, in defiance of all promises held out, to impose this additional burthen upon them. He would rather call upon the people of England not to refuse to take their part in the great common sacrifice which was necessary for the peace of Ireland—he would rather do this than depart from the terms of the compact under which this measure had been introduced, a measure equally necessary, in his opinion, to the very existence of the Church Establishment as to the safety of the empire.
Lord Stanleyagreed with much of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject; but he differred from the conclusion at which he had arrived. He agreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the Motion of the hon. Member would not accomplish the object for which it was intended. The people of this country, he thought, ought not to be called upon to pay a sum of money which was due by others; though he at the same time believed that they would not object to pay, if their doing so

33
could lead to a final settlement of the Question under consideration. The great objection which he (Lord Stanley) had to the payment of the million by the people of this country was, that it would be, in effect, holding out a bonus for the successful violation of the law, and imposing a penalty for its observance. It would be an act of gross injustice, which would weaken the hands of Government. He was most anxious to withdraw the Clergy from the possibility of collision with the people, and at the same time to satisfy the claims of justice. His noble Friend opposite was now charged with the administration of the affairs of Ireland, and no more important trust could be committed to his hands. He begged of him then to look to the situation in which he would place the gentry and the tenantry of Ireland by his present mode of proceeding. In the first place, he made no particular reference to any individual, the noble Lord would find a resident landlord who was respected and looked up to by his tenantry as their guide and friend. His tenants would come to him to ask his advice on the subject of tithes, and inquire whether it would be better for them to resist or not. The landlord, acting conscientiously, would tell them by all means not to resist, but to obey the law—would picture the likelihood of litigation and bloodshed if they resisted—and assure them that in the long run, Government would succeed in enforcing the law, and they would be made to surfer for their disobedience. Suppose a contrary case, of a harsh landlord, little caring for anything so that his own rent was paid, and who, consequently, recommended his tenants to make passive resistance to the law enforcing tithes, assuring them that in the end, by such conduct, they must succeed in procuring the abolition of tithes. These two distinct pieces of advice might be given and followed; and in what condition would the Government and the landlords, be placed in respect to the tenantry when he who recommended obedience to the law was held up to odium and contempt, and he who advised disobedience to the law turned out to have acted in accordance with the views of, and to receive a sort of tacit applause from, the Government, who should have vindicated the law as it stood? But, as he had before stated, if he thought there was any chance that this Bill would settle the
34
Question of Tithes and ensure peace to Ireland, he might be induced to consent to this Clause as a part of the price of so happy a change. But he would ask the noble Lord were there any fifty of those who supported this Bill who did so under the impression that it would bring about the final settlement of the Tithe Question? But his noble Friend said, he could not collect the money paid on account of tithes. Then, he would ask, what chance had he of collecting the rent-charge? He quite agreed that it was expedient to withdraw the clergyman from actual collision with the occupying tenant; but if it were supposed that beyond this advantage therewould accrue benefit to the occupying tenant to the amount of one sixpence through the operation of this Bill, that supposition was contrary to all the dictates of common sense. The occupying tenants could not benefit in the slightest pecuniary way by the new arrangement introduced by this Bill. It might be said the tithe would be paid more readily, as being intended for purposes of education. He thought not. Those who expected that, he felt confident would be no gainers. With respect to the million that had been advanced he did not desire that one farthing of it should be repaid, but he did not wish that they who refused to pay should be as well off as those who paid. Let every farthing of that million be applied to education, public works, or anything else for the exclusive benefit of Ireland. Apply it as they pleased, but let no preference, no advantage be given to those who did not pay their tithes.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he was by no means desirous of procuring for his Church that which it had been asserted he was, for in his opinion a connexion of the nature alluded to by the hon. Member would secularize the Establishment. The hon. Member for Southwark complained of the people of England being compelled to bear the burthen of the million loan to the Irish clergy. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) on the other hand was ready to lavish the amount upon public works, provided he could first gratify his feelings by extorting it from the wretched people, who were unable to pay it. The noble Lord had talked largely of the mode in which he would punish them for having evaded the law, by making the tithe-defaulters pay up their arrears, in order that those who were not defaulters might not be placed in a worse

35
situation by their obedience to the law than those who defied it. Did the noble Lord recollect his loan of 60,000 l.? Did not one party advise the tenantry to pay the tithes, and did not another party advise them not to pay the tithes? And did the noble Lord not do at last what the Ministers were now doing? Did he not, after taking every possible step to recover his loan from the peasantry, in the form of exacting the tithes, after using every means in his power, authorising his police to break into houses at night, driving the corn and cattle off whole districts, and turning the barrack-yards into hay and corn yards—did he not, after taking all this trouble, and, God knows, after occasioning all the useless misery which attended his proceedings, give up the matter as a bad job, and did he ever realize a single shilling of his loan? Oh, yes, the noble Lord did,—he forgot—the noble Lord got back 12,000 l. out of his 60,000 l. but the process of getting it cost 28,000 l. and turned the whole army into a host of auctioneers and cattle drivers. In that notable instance the very persons who advised the people to resist the tithes were the persons who profited. And were the Government, after all this experience, and after the many expedients they had tried, to set to work again to try to force the people to pay their tithes in order to repay the amount of a loan which the noble Lord professed his desire not to profit by. If he had not known the noble Lord to be in earnest he should have suspected him of an affectation of cant. Did the House desire to tranquillise Ireland, let them settle the Question of Tithes. For a series of years the successive Governments had bent their whole force to accomplish the object of making the people pay them. They had turned out their infantry, cavalry, and artillery—they had shot, stabbed, and hanged man, woman, and child in their endeavour, and with what success? The value of the present Bill consisted in that it was a totally new experiment. It abolished the very name of tithes. It altogether obviated the necessity for the clergyman to come in contact in a temporal way with the peasantry and agriculturists. It diminished the amount of the impost, and it vested the collection in the hands of the landlord in the new form of rent. He had been told that the landlords would pocket the whole of the diminution, but this was not the fact.
36
The landlords of Ireland had as much interest in tranquillising their tenantry as England had, and he believed the resident landlords were as considerate to their tenants as in England, and they would not let the burthen rest altogether upon the cultivators. As to the million loan, he should like to know how its payment could be enforced? Should they go to war again to levy it, or would the House consent to let the experiment of the Bill have its full play in appeasing the people? The noble Lord had declared that the clergy ought not to be made repay it; but then if he insisted on its not being repaid he must alter the present law, for under that the clergy were those who were liable to the nation for its amount. If they did not alter the law, the clergyman would be compelled to enforce its payment upon the tenants in arrear, and thus a fresh scene of irritation would be created for the sake of this, he would call it, paltry million. There was no law in existence which would compel the landlord to pay the amount of arrears. The present Bill put the tithes upon him in future, but the arrears were intangible and hopeless. The tithe system had now disturbed Ireland for three quarters of a century. The Government at last came forward with a generous and soothing proposition for the final settlement of all the irritation which existed. If it failed, then they would have a right to turn round upon Ireland, and say, we have done all we could to appease and satisfy you; we have changed the very nature of the impost; we have relieved you of one-third of its amount; we have placed it in the hands of your landlord, and of him alone; and now we will enforce the law by every means at our disposal. The very point which the noble Lord now wished to enforce the right hon. and gallant Officer next him gave up during his recent Secretaryship, for he candidly acknowledged when he brought in and explained the provisions of this Tithe Bill, that it would be impossible to levy the arrears. Was it therefore, worth while, when both Governments had given the matter up as hopeless, to shackle this Bill with so useless, so irritating a proviso? Under these circumstances he hoped that neither the noble Lord's virtuous wish to see equal justice meted out to both parties in Ireland, nor the doctrines of the economists, would interfere to prevent the Government from passing this Bill unmutilated.
Mr. Shawsaid, he would not enter into the religious part of the question with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), further than to observe, that if it was the doctrine of the Roman Catholics in Ireland that any connexion with the state would degrade their religion, it was certainly peculiar to that country; and he (Mr. Shaw) could not but think that such a sentiment would not prevail long amongst Roman Catholics there if once they could subvert the Protestant Established Church. The hon. and learned Gentleman was no doubt bound in duty to advocate the remission of the million to those who had resisted the law, for it was but a bounty to those who had followed the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself.
Mr. O'Connellrose to order. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was untrue.
Mr. Shawwould put it to the House who was most out of order. He had in debate drawn an inference which the House could not think was very violent or unjust—that in passive resistance and refusal to pay tithes, the people of Ireland had followed the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, supposing even that he (Mr. Shaw) had been in that expression, (which he believed no hon. Gentleman in the House thought he meant offensively) in some degree out of order, still he would appeal to the House whether it was to be borne that night after night the hon. and learned Gentleman circumstanced as that hon. and learned Gentleman was, should not only violate the order of that House, but the rules of all gentlemanlike society, by such offensive expressions as that which he had just employed? It was however, unworthy of further notice, and he would turn to the question immediately before the House. Upon that question of the advance of the million, he (Mr. Shaw) was peculiarly clear, for he had advised that House not to grant it—he had recommended the clergy not to take it—and he had from the first declared that if advanced it never could be recovered from the tithe payer. His reason was, that he regarded it as a premium to disobedience and resistance to the law—as shaking the foundations of all property, and as a millstone round the neck of tithe property in particular. And was repayment to be expected while at the same time you re-
38
warded the defaulters for the past, and added a fifth to the ordinary tithe payments for five years to come. With regard to the 60,000 l. Act referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), it was true that a large cost had been incurred, and a comparatively small sum recovered. But what was the fact?—that when all the costs had been incurred—all the necessary machinery provided—in short, all the difficulties overcome, and the people had universally commenced payment, Lord Althorp, the then leader of the Government, in an unguarded and inadvertent moment, had become personally committed to an hon. Member, of the politics of the hon. Gentleman himself, not to go on with the collection, and thence followed the fatal declaration of the noble Lord which had caused such infinite mischief in Ireland, and led to the necessity of the Million Act. It was satisfactory now to hear it admitted on all hands, that the advance had been made to the land and not to the clergy. It was, indeed, at any time absurd to contend, that when that House had sanctioned the suspension of the payment to those to whom it was legally due, and had advanced a portion of the money for the debtor to pay to the creditor, that it was the creditor and not the debtor who should repay it. While he objected to the benefit being derived by the wilful defaulter to the prejudice of the honest tithe payer, still if the question assumed the shape now given to it by the hon. Member for Southwark, simply whether the House were to remit the million or to recover it primarily from the clergy, then clearly it must be remitted as the lesser of the two evils. But he was most desirous to avoid giving the bonus to those who had been in arrear, and though he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) that they ought not either to charge the clergy or put them to collect from the occupying tenantry, yet he considered that they might very justly vary the bonus now about being granted to the landlord in the imposition of the rent charge according to the arrears which might be owing by any particular land, allowing the landlord to recover the same over from his tenant when the tenant was the same who had been originally liable and in default, and letting the land itself— that is, the landlord—bear the loss where the occupying tenant had changed; and

39
this latter class would furnish all the cases where the landlord could complain; and the additional five per cent, given by the present Bill over that proposed by the Bill of his right hon. friend (Sir Henry Hardinge) would more than indemnify the landlord, supposing even all his tenants to have changed. This proportion of charge might be observed whether the million was entirely remitted or a reasonable interest for it imposed as a permanent annual payment along with rent charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) said, why refuse to Ireland the boon of forgiving these arrears. It was not to the sum to be remitted that he (Mr. Shaw) felt any objection, but to the principle of not even sharing that boon with the orderly and obedient, but to their positive prejudice, conferring the entire on those who had been wilful defaulters and designedly resisted the law.
Mr. Humefelt the Government was in an awkward situation on the present question, for with every disposition to support them in their views, he was at a loss how to do so consistently. It ought not however, to be forgotten, that the first direct proposal for altogether sinking the million loan originated with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Tamworth. He would also ask the hon. and learned Member for Dublin whether he would answer for the effect of the present measure in tranquillising Ireland? Let it be recollected that there were portions of four years tithes now in arrear, of which three-fifths had been paid, and two fifths were unpaid; and why, he would ask, should the persons allowed two-fifths be placed in a better position than those who bad paid? It was holding out a premium of resistance and would be a ground for resisting the payment of seventy per cent. He opposed the grant, considering that it would not answer the purpose.
Sir Robert Peelwas glad to have the means of refreshing the memory of the hon. Gentleman opposite, by referring the hon. Gentleman to a speech made in a former Parliament, when there was a prospect of repayment of the sum proposed to be granted. The hon. Member now said "enforce the law," and blamed him as having set a bad example on that former occasion. [Mr. Hume: You were the first to propose such a grant.] On what grounds did the hon. Gentleman then refuse to acquiesce in the grant? Why
40
because he thought that it was impossible it could be repaid, and yet the hon. Member charged him with having set a bad example in remitting what could not be levied; whilst the hon. Gentleman said, that it was clear the money was lost to England, and that any attempt to recover it would only tend to bolster up the Church in a contest against the people. At any rate he trusted the House would not follow the Government in their mad career. That speech established the hon. Member's fame as a prophet—his abilities as a logician were known and appreciated; but here the circumstances had vindicated what he foretold, when he refused to be a party to the grant of the million; and strange to say, the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, concurred with him in his prophecy; and why should the hon. Gentleman then charge, him with the blame of the fulfilling of his predictions! The hon. Member asked also in his speech, whether it were just that the House should be driven into such a course by the imbecile folly of a Government, who proposed first one thing and then another, whilst it was clear the landlords would not repay their part. They had not paid it, at this time, and yet the hon. Gentleman turned round on him, and accused him of having set a bad example. Why, he agreed that in regard to the clergy the money should be advanced, but he must confess that he was not at all sanguine of its repayment either by the landlord or the tenant, for he considered that with respect to the Question of Tithes in Ireland, it was impossible for any Government to attempt to settle it, without including in the plan many details, open to objection when viewed abstractedly; and therefore after he had had the experience of the measures proposed and adopted by previous Governments when he was at the head of the Administration, he felt that it was impossible to recover any arrears of tithes that were due, at the point of the bayonet, and he therefore virtually proposed a remission of them. But his hon. Friend had asked, were defaulters and those who had submitted to the law, to be placed on the same footing?—and he had also said, that when the Bill was brought in, a distinction between those classes of persons should have been established. If the man who had submitted to the law could be placed in a

41
position contradistinguished from that of the man who had broken the law, he should be most anxious to follow such a plan; for the principle was just. But its practicability must be proved before the distinction could be drawn; and even if its practicability were made out, he should be inclined to doubt the policy of acting upon it, if the result should be, as he doubted not it would be, an expenditure of double the amount recovered in the attempt to recover it. On the other hand, there remained another great difficulty in the way—the making the landlord liable to the whole amount, and thus compelling him to pay, not only what it is but just possible he might recover from the occupier who was in possession when the grant was made—but also what he could not justly recover from those whose occupancy was subsequent to that period. Between those classes there should necessarily be a distinction drawn, and that he was afraid would be a very operose proceeding; but he admitted entirely the justice of the principle, and if any one would provide a machinery by which it could be carried into effect, he should be most willing to adopt it; but, as to the remission of this grant of the million, he said, once for all, that he was inclined to doubt the policy of drawing a distinction between the different parts of the kingdom; and to this effect, when he was in office he had intended to propose, on the principle which had been suggested by Lord Althorp, that the occupier of land in England should be relieved from the burthen of paying the Church-rates, and, in lieu of it, that 250,000 l. or 300,000 l. should be paid from the public revenues of the country. He might be told, that Ireland would derive no benefit from such a measure, as it was not burthened with Church-rates. That was perfectly true; but he nevertheless considered that when important arrangements of this nature were to be carried, they were not to be baulked because it subjected another part of the kingdom to a portion of the price to be paid for its removal. If, then, peace were likely to be conferred on Ireland by the measure now before the House, he should not consider the remission of the million an insuperable objection to it, although England must necessarily bear her portion of the loss; but his intention was to have connected three pecuniary benefits to-
42
gether—namely, an advance to the Church of Scotland, an advance from the public funds to relieve England from the Churchcess; and to meet this on the part of Ireland, he should have proposed, as a bonus, to release that country altogether from her obligatiou in regard to the million. It certainly could be shown, that in taking this course the three parts of the kingdom would not receive each of them its proportionate share of benefit, but he considered them as one empire; and unless that were the principle by which the measures of the Legislature were guided, the same objection would arise in respect to every proposition of relief, and to every attempt to abate the grievances which might exist in any one part of the kingdom. Under all circumstances, then, he could not accede to the proposition to negative the Clause, for if this course were adopted the Treasury must recover the money; the law gave no indemnity to the Treasury, and as the proprietors of the land could not be applied to, the onus must, therefore, fall upon the clergy; the Treasury would have no other remedy, but to proceed against the clergy, and the clergy would necessarily say—we must apply to the occupying tenant; and thus the police and the military would be again put in requisition, and new distractions of the most injurious tendency must be created; he therefore could not consent to negative the Clause. A great portion of the debate had been expended upon the principle of this Bill, and the prospect of its being a final settlement of the Question it involved. His experience lessened his hopes of this every day, and his expectations that a surplus would be obtained, had been completely annihilated, for an advance of 50,000 l. from the public revenue was required for the purposes to which a surplus was to have been appropriated; but he had been led, by the example of other Members, to allude to the principle of the Bill. As to the Question immediately before the House—if Government despaired of recovering these arrears, as the remission of them corresponded with what he had intended to propose, he should support the Clause.
The Committee divided on the Clause, Ayes 252; Noes 25: Majority 227.
Clause agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
The House Resumed.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pease, J.

Blackstone, E. S.

Philips, Mark

Bowring, Dr.

Potter, R.

Benett, J.

Sheldon, E. R.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Stuart, Lord James

Duncombe, T.

Thompson, Colonel

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Gore, Ormsby

Wallace, R.

Handley, Major

Walter, John

Hume, Joseph

Williams, W.

Hutt, W.

Williams, Sir J.

Kerry, Earl of

TELLER.

Long, W.

Marjoribanks, J.

Harvey, D. W.