Commons Sitting of 10 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Vagrants Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, from Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Birmingham, and other places, for an Alteration of the laws regulating the Sale of Beer.—By Captain GORDON, from the Shipowners and Shipmasters of the port of Aberdeen, and by Sir C. STYLE, from Scarborough, against the Bill for the regulation of Pilotage.

TITHES (IRELAND).
The Order of the day having been read for Committee on the Tithes (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that before the House should resolve itself into Committee upon this bill, he rose for the purpose of moving an instruction to the Committee, which he considered to be an indispensable preliminary, and without which he saw no chance whatever of the successful working of the bill. He would not for a moment delude the House by the supposition that this bill was calculated to work well: on the contrary, he thought, that it would increase the existing amount of dissatisfaction and disturbance in Ireland, unless they agreed to the resolution which he was about to propose, and which he should most certainly feel it to be his duty to press to a division. He felt, that the House must listen with natural reluctance to a renewed discussion upon Irish affairs, a lengthened discussion having not long since taken place upon this particular subject; and he (Mr. O'Connell) would gladly omit any fresh allusion to those topics, if he were not impressed with the deepest sense of their importance. It was for the House to take into consideration the present state of Ireland, to examine how far the proposed remedy was applicable, and to see whether in the attempt to amend a mischief they did not positively increase the evil. At the present moment the affairs of Ireland were pregnant with the utmost danger. It was true that for the last three or four years a system of conciliation had been carried on by the Government of that country; that the policy of that Government had been that of vigilance in the detection, united to firmness in the suppression, of crime, accompanied by a soothing and conciliatory spirit towards the mass of the people. For the first time in the lapse of centuries the people had become reconciled to the administration of an English Government. Great, however, as were the advantages of that novel system of policy, it had by no means cured the evil, the substantial evil—which consisted in real unmitigated oppression, and in the deep-rooted conviction of the people that they were suffering under downright injustice. So long as the fact existed that nine-tenths of the Irish population consisted of Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, it was idle to think of forming any scheme for reconciling them to pay for maintaining the re-

85
ligion of the other tenth. It was undoubtedly true, that the resistance to tithes had of late assumed more of a passive than an active character; but no man could dispute the fact, that the opinion of the people of Ireland on the subject of tithes still remained unchanged. He devoutly believed it to be unchangeable. When he last addressed the House upon this subject he had spoken of ten anti-tithe meetings which were advertised as about to take place within a few succeeding days. Since that period no fewer than thirteen of these meetings had taken place. At each of those meetings from 50,000 to 150,000 of the people had assembled, and recorded their immutable hostility to tithes. A striking circumstance at all these multitudinous assemblies was, that they were neither characterised by disturbance, nor by the slightest violation of the peace; and the expression of their determination not to pay tithes was only rendered the more emphatic by this total absence of tumult. The resistance to tithes might, therefore, be fairly assumed to be now as great as ever. Government proposed this measure as a soother, as calculated to diminish the existing mischief. It had intended to strike off thirty per cent. of this burden, which was dwindled down, however, by a vote of that House to twenty-five per cent. It had been said, forsooth, that this was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. But was it not made a question of pounds, shillings, and pence? A miserable contest had been carried on upon this wretched remaining five per cent, and a paltry party triumph had been gained—640,000 l. of the tithe million remained unpaid, and arrears had accrued since that period. By their new system the landlords of Ireland were to be made tithe proctors. Was this a system calculated to promote peace and that tranquillity in Ireland? Did they think they were establishing friendly relations between the landlord and tenant by making the landlord sue his tenant for tithes? Why, it was self-evident that they would convert into hostility to the landlord, the odium which had been hitherto directed exclusively against the clergy. The odium would now be shared by both, or rather the burden of it would be borne by the landlord. He asked any man who knew Ireland whether that was a system calculated to produce tranquillity there? Whether, on the contrary, there could be any more fertile source of agrarian dis-
86
turbances, of the most horrible crimes' with all their fearful consequences, including the punishment of the innocent for the guilty? Was the house prepared to inflict that mischief upon Ireland? He (Mr. O'Connell) would take the arrears as hey stood; and he would ask of the House whether they should look for the payment of the arrear of 640,000 l. Who were they that owed that arrear? Must lot the answer be, that they were the most lenient and forbearing of the Protestant clergy in Ireland—men who preferred the peace of their neighbourhood to the chance—perhaps the certainty—of disturbing it by enforcing their claims—who chose the course of Christian like meekness and forbearance in preference to violence and tumult? If there was any class of men who deserved in an especial manner the kind consideration of the House, it was this set of peacefully disposed Protestant clergy. It was not to be expected that these men should pay back that arrear without having recourse to those who were the original debtors; and, having been made the victims of their ow forbearance, to call upon them now for payment of this money was to make a continuation of that forbearance impossible. He could not conceive anything more mischievous, anything more likely to be productive of serious consequences, than the idea of applying for this 640,000 l. to men, many of whom could ill afford to pay it. When this tithe million was first proposed, he had announced that they would never get it back, and he told them now that they would never recover it. Was not the House aware of what had happened to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who had lent 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. to be distributed among several parishes? He had since tried every means to recover it, but found it impossible. To be sure, the sum of 12,000 l. was recovered, but at an expense of 29,000 l. Did they wish to make a similar experiment by way of conciliating Ireland? But in order to enforce legal proceedings, the assistance of a military force would, in almost every case, be necessary. Did any man dream of introducing horse, foot, and artillery into Ireland for this purpose? He implored the House to look calmly and dispassionately at the question; and if their object really were, to produce quiet in Ireland, and to make the burthen of tithes as lightly felt as

87
possible, he asked them whether they should leave this festering sore—this national blister—this canker—preying upon the vitals of the country? Instead of conciliation, increased disturbance must result from any attempt to levy this 640,000 l. If they persevered in the proposed system, with reference not only to that sum, but to the arrear which had since accrued, they compelled the parties to do all they could to recover every farthing of the money. It would be better to leave matters as they were, than, under the flimsy pretext of conciliation, to make it not only the interest but the duty of every tithe-owner to look for his arrears. They urged the tithe-owner, in fact, no longer to forbear. They might take this course if they pleased; but let them not remain for a moment under the delusion that they were establishing a system of conciliation in Ireland. They might talk as they would of the impropriety of allowing men to set the law at defiance; they might talk of submission to the constituted authorities, and of the necessity of enforcing the majesty of the law—all admirable phrases, truisms of the most perfect and undoubted excellence, but utterly inapplicable to any statesmanlike attempt at governing Ireland by the policy of conciliation. What did the people care for such phrases? The more they talked of abstract justice and abstract law, the more would the people recur to the abstract injustice of making one, and that the greater, portion of the inhabitants of a country pay for maintaining the religion of the remainder. When they came out with these fine phrases, the people of Ireland would say in reply, that they saw the church in England supported by the people—a church which was the church of the majority of the people; that the church of Scotland was paid by the people—a church which was the church of the overwhelming majority of the people; while in Ireland the church of the people had no connexion whatever with the state—and God forbid that it ever should—while the state establishment (of which he did not at all mean to speak disrespectfully) was the church of a miserable minority. Under these circumstances, what was it that he proposed? The House had drawn the line; tithes and tithe composition were now to disappear for ever. They were entering on a new plan, and he (Mr. O'Connell) proposed
88
to enter with them; but he called on them in the first instance to blot out all the encumbrances which had embarrassed the former system. He called on the House to remit the 640,000 l., of which they ought never to have demanded payment; and with respect to the remainder of the arrears, he proposed that a committee should have the power of diminishing it at least to the extent of the diminished rent-charge. He proposed that they should strike off twenty-five per cent. Let there be a committee or commission to investigate how much was due to each of the clergy, and by whom. Wherever solvent persons were discovered, let them be obliged to pay their arrears, and let the arrears be remitted in those districts in which there were likely to be disturbances. In the meantime let the operation of the law be suspended. As to the residue, the arrears which had since accrued, he proposed to remit no more than twenty-five per cent. to any solvent person; but there should, at all events, be an inquiry as to the places in which the suing for these arrears would give rise to disturbances. The report of the commission might be completed by the first day of next Session. Two or three intelligent men would be sufficient to conduct the inquiry. By this means they would remove the irritating process of litigation, they would be enabled to ascertain with accuracy in what districts disturbances were likely to take place, and in what districts it was probable, that they would be unable to levy the tithes under the present system. By the first day of the next Session they would be enabled to devise proper means for recovering all the solvent arrears. If it were to be a new system, let it be altogether new. Let it not be a partial and piebald system, with so much of the old system as would tend to produce vexation, and so much of the new as would create embarrassment and confusion. He had trespassed at greater length upon their attention than he had originally intended; but he could not help conjuring the House to make this concession in a spirit of genuine conciliation. Let no man taunt him with desiring to take English money. It was true that he did; but, when they looked to the advantages which would result from the sacrifice, they would not hesitate to make it, if they were actuated by a sincere desire to win over the people of Ire-

89
land by conciliation. Notwithstanding all the veneration in which the Marquess of Normanby was held in Ireland—notwithstanding the perpetual counsels which the people received from the clergy, and their commands, where that was possible—not, as it were, to tarnish the administration of the noble Lord by offence or outrage—it should still be remembered, that as yet the people of Ireland had obtained no real measure of legislative relief. The Municipal Bill they had not yet passed. All that they had given them was a poor-law. He had seen it reported that the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government had stated it in another place to be the great objection to the Poor-law that it would become a burthen on the landlords of Ireland. There never was a more fatal mistake. The real objection was, that the burthen was imposed upon the occupiers of the land, who must pay in every case one half of it. From placing the burthen on the shoulders of the landlord he should not be at all disposed to shrink. What he did shrink from was, placing it upon the occupying tenant; and he denounced it as another ingredient in the cup of Ireland's misery. It was also proposed under the new system of tithes to levy these arrears; and here was another source of discontent and disaffection. He knew that insurrection in Ireland would be put down. He should be sorry to think, that it should not be suppressed. No undisciplined force could resist the mighty army of this country; but since they talked of their wish to conciliate, he took them at their word. He called on them to do so, and to agree to their resolving themselves into a Committee with an express instruction to take this matter into consideration. He hoped that his plan was wide enough to embrace the opinions of hon. Gentlemen at every side of the House, and he should therefore move, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to provide for the means of discharging the arrears of tithes now due in Ireland."
The Speakerobserved, that the motion appeared to him to be informal, inasmuch as it was, in point of fact, asking for a grant of public money.
Mr. O'Connellreplied, that he did not want the House to make any grant of money. All that he wanted was a receipt for money which had been already granted. As there was an objection to his motion
90
in point of form, he would give notice of his intention to move an address to her Majesty for the remission of the 640,000 l., and would now move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to make arrangements for the diminution or discharge of the arrears of tithes now due.
Lord John Russellwas very doubtful as to the formality of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion, and, even if it were carried, he did not think that it would obtain for him the object which he proposed. His right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had a proposition to make with regard to the arrears of tithes, and when that proposition was submitted to the House would be the most proper time to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal into consideration.
Lord Stanleysaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite pressed his motion to a division, and if it were consistent with the forms of the House, he should feel it his duty to support it. He wished to guard himself against more than expressing an opinion, in which he fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the bill would fail in a beneficial result, even in a larger degree than was anticipated, if it did not involve some provision for the settlement of the arrears. The immediate object of the acts which had been already passed was, to promote the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, by substituting a payment to the clergy from the landlords, the majority of whom were Protestants, for a payment by the occupying tenants, who he was ready to admit were very little able to bear the burden, and were, besides, of a religion different from that of the Established Church. In his opinion the whole benefit to be derived from the bill must depend on the condition, that from the period when the bill shall have come into operation there shall be no more demands made by the Protestant clergy upon the Roman Catholic population. The bill, he repeated, would fail in its object if the House either allowed or compelled the clergy, in vindication of their rights, to proceed against the occupying tenants for the arrears now due. The question for the House to consider was a grave and serious one—namely, in what manner, doing justice to all parties and injustice to none, it was possible to provide for the payment of those arrears. His right hon. Friend opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had

91
stated to the House the other day the outline of a plan for remitting to the clergy the arrears, if they would consent to remit to the people the whole of what was due to them. But it was not fair to the clergy, who had waited with exemplary patience for the fulfilment of the hopes which were held out to them of a final and satisfactory settlement of the question, and who had upon the faith of these representations forborne to put their claims in force; it was not fair to them to say, that the condition of remitting the arrears or debt due by them should be their remitting to the occupying tenants not only all the arrears due to them up to 1835, but also those which had since accrued to the present year. To exact such a condition was imposing upon the clergy terms grossly and manifestly unjust. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to relieve the occupying tenant at a grievous expense to the clergy, and none to the landlords, and without any assistance from the state. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to relieve them and the clergy to a certain extent at an expense charged to the State alone. He (Lord Stanley) knew the difficulty of dealing with questions like the present in such a manner as not to give occasion for invidious observations or irritating discussion. This he was most anxious to avoid, but he must say, that there was one consideration which both his right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dublin should not leave out. There was this additional objection to both plans, that those who pertinaciously resisted the law would obtain a benefit which those who had complied with the law would be deprived of. He admitted the force of all the arguments against calling upon the occupying tenant for the payment of those arrears, which for a long time they had been taught to hope they would not be called upon to pay. He saw the importance of the case, and he thought that the State ought to make a sacrifice if the peace of Ireland was to be obtained by it. As an Irish landlord, he would say, that they had no right to call upon the State to bear their burdens. He would say, that although the Irish landlords might not have derived any pecuniary advantage directly in their own pockets, they had yet derived an advantage to some extent. In those districts where the opposition to tithes was greatest, and none were paid,
92
the landlords received their rents better and more satisfactorily than before. That such was the fact was notorious. He said, then, that they had derived some advantage from the state in which the law had been left by the tithe agitation and the non-payment of tithes by the occupying tenant. Having derived this benefit, the Irish landlords had no right to call upon the clergy to make a large sacrifice upon their parts, nor upon the State to make a sacrifice of the public money, and contribute nothing themselves. He understood his right hon. Friend to say, that until he knew the amount of the arrears due and payable by the occupying tenant, he could not tell whether the 360,000 l. remaining would be sufficient or not. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to make the landlords liable to a certain per centage of the arrears due by the tenants. [Mr. O'Connell: Due by themselves and all solvent tenants.] He was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition would lead to a general declaration of insolvency throughout Ireland if insolvency were to be the exemption from the payment of the arrears. He thought that where the arrears were due from the landlords themselves, they ought to be paid without deduction. He hoped he understood his right hon. Friend to say, that the arrears should be paid partly by the landlord and partly by the State; that the landlords should pay a portion, say 20 per cent., of the arrears due to the clergy upon their estates, and, that in consideration of the sacrifice thus made by the clergy, a discharge be given to them by the state of the amount of arrears now due. Without some such provision, which it was the duty of the Government to propose, and of Parliament to agree to, with a view to the peace and conciliation of Ireland, the bill would fail to produce any beneficial results. His object in supporting the motion was, to express his opinion, that without these arrangements the measure would not succeed. It was most material, that after the bill came into operation, no levy should be made by the clergy upon the occupying tenants. In justice, the House could not deprive the clergy of this right, nor refuse to assist them in the exercise of it, unless they made with them some fair and reasonable compromise. He felt confident, that the clergy would not be found hard or unreasonable in the exaction of this compro-

93
mise, and he hoped, that Parliament would do everything they could for the settlement of this painful and embarrassing question.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed entirely with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley), that the present measure would be defective, unless they made some provision for the payment of the arrears. He also agreed with his noble Friend, in thinking the question one of great difficulty and importance. Before he explained his plan, he wished to meet an objection made by his noble Friend, but which applied to his noble Friend's suggestion as well as to his own plan. Nothing could be more plausible than to say, that the House ought not to countenance a principle the effect of which conferred a reward upon those who had pertinaciously resisted the law. He felt strongly (none could feel it more) the inconvenience of calling upon the House to affirm by Act of Parliament a measure producing such a result. He must say, however, that every plan for the settlement of this question was open to the same objection, and they could only get rid of it, by rigidly enforcing all the arrears from all the parties. His noble Friend had come to a conclusion which had certainly surprised him very much. His noble Friend had stated, that the plan which he proposed, involved no sacrifice from the state. Why, it involved no less a sacrifice by the state than giving up the right to the recovery of a sum of 640,000 l. That perhaps might not be considered any very great sacrifice, but to say, that there was none, was altogether a misapprehension. He was prepared at the proper time fully to explain the proposition which he had thrown out. At the risk of anticipation he would do so now. He wished, however, first to call the attention of the House to the principle of the present bill. That principle was this—that with respect to tithes, they ought to relieve the occupying tenant. From the owner of the land they ought to collect whatever Parliament should determine he ought to pay. He admitted, that there was a difficulty, amounting almost to an impossibility, to recover the tithes from the occupying tenant. This difficulty arose partly from his being of a different religion from the minister, partly from his poverty, the smallness of the sum, and various other causes. With respect to the owner of the
94
land, however, the case was different. He was assumed to be a person of intelligence and education, of the same religion as the clergyman, and therefore identified with the Church establishment, so that in respect to him, there could be no difficulty about the collection, or the effectual service of legal process. Let them apply this principle in respect to the arrears due by the clergy. In considering the settlement of this question, were there any grounds of public expediency or public policy, to require from the occupying tenant the arrears due to the clergy? It was utterly impossible to collect these arrears from the occupying tenants, without endangering the peace and tranquillity of the country. There were two inquiries to be made—first, what was the amount of the proposed sacrifice? and secondly, what was the nature and extent of the compensation given for it? If it should turn out, that the sacrifice was not great, while the compensation was considerable, he did not think there ought to be much difficulty about the adjustment. They had heard it stated by several hon. Gentlemen at the other side, that the great bulk of the tithes was paid by the owners of the land, who were Protestants. From the owners of the land the clergy could and ought to recover the full amount due to them; but did any one believe, that if Parliament left to the clergy the full power which they now possessed, they could recover the arrears from the occupying tenants? No; past experience taught them the impossibility of such a thing. For this sacrifice of those arrears Government was willing to give them compensation by the remission of 940,000 l., while they would have in future to look for their payments to a new rent-charge upon the landlord. The first equivalent for the sacrifice was, in point of fact, the better security of the property created by the statute, and while the sacrifice was transitory the benefit was durable and permanent. He said, further, that there were cases in which, if the House acted with rigour, the clergy ought to be made to pay the whole amount of the advance, and get the money due to them from those who owed it. It was for the benefit of the clergy themselves, and the peace of Ireland, that the claims against the occupying tenant should not be pressed. There was a modification of his plan to which he saw no objection; he proposed the

95
remission of 640,000 l., if the clergy consented to abandon the amount, not of the whole tithes, but of those due from the occupying tenant. The modification to which he alluded was, to allow the recovery of the quinquennial instalments under the Million Act, so far as they were due, from the owners of the first state of inheritance; and this, not for the benefit of the state, but as a further consideration to the clergy for the sacrifice of their arrears.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that this discussion related to arrears due to the Irish clergy, which might be considered under different heads. First, as to the arrears which were covered by the advance of 640,000 l.; next as to the arrears which had occurred subsequently, and for which no provision had yet been made by Parliament. Singular as it might seem, he was disposed to give his support to the proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He had no hesitation in saying, that as far as the proposition referred to the 640,000 l., he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He conceived it to be utterly impossible to exact from the clergy of Ireland that 640,000 l.; because exacting it from them would give them a corresponding right to recover the arrears. He, fo the sake of peace, and to avert the ill consequences that might arise from an attempt to recover the arrears, was prepared to say, that any attempt now to recover these arrears would be fraught with injustice. They ought on that point to relieve the occupying tenants and the clergy: there could be no question about it. The clergy of Ireland saw successive Governments bring in bills for the remission of the 640,000 l., and the occupying tenants were placed under the impression that it would be remitted. Could it, then, be possible, after a delay of three or four years, to say to the clergy that they must proceed for the arrears? It would be absolutely impossible. An immense majority of that House thought that it was absolutely necessary for the treasurer to remit the claim of 640,000 l., and also to deprive the clergy of recovering the amount of arrears covered by the 640,000 l. He must also say, that where the clergy had recovered the amount of the arrears, they ought to repay the amount they had obtained. He was prepared, then, to defend this course, not merely as a favour to the clergy, but as one of justice to the
96
occupying tenants of Ireland. Whenever, then, the question was brought forward, he should be prepared to vote with the hon. and learned Gentleman for an absolute remission of the 640,000 l. They then came to other arrears, which were not covered by the advance of 640,000 l., and the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was to waive the 640,000 l., if the Irish clergy abandoned all claims on the occupying tenants, not only as to the arrears covered by the 640,000 l., but also all arrears that had occurred since. He thought the proposition a manifestly unjust one, and he for one would never give his consent to it. The Irish Tithe Bills brought in, in 1835 and 1836, by Governments of opposite political opinions agreed in this, that they remitted the 640,000 l., and deprived the clergy of the right to recover the arrears, and they made a provision as to the arrears which had subsequently occurred by applying to them the remainder of the million. Both bills agreed in giving 640,000 l. for the former arrears, and 307,000 l. for the arrears which had occurred in the intervening time. What was the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why, that, upon the remission of the 640,000 l., the whole of the arrears covered by that advance, as well as the whole of the arrears for the intervening period, should be remitted by the Irish clergy. What pretence was there for making a proposal that the whole burden should fall upon the clergy of Ireland? They had not been the cause of the failure of the bills proposed, for whomsoever the blame rested, they were not to blame. He was not about to censure the course which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had so manfully taken, a course which he thought the best that could be taken, looking at the difficulties with which this great question was surrounded in Ireland. He believed really and conscientiously that they had taken the best course for the general interest of the country and the peace of Ireland. But the clergy had not been the party to obstruct the settlement of this question, and why should they bear the whole penalty of the delay that had taken place? This would be a manifest injustice. It would be just that the clergyman who had received a part of the 640,000 l. in lieu of his tithes should remit the arrears to the amount received, but to expect the clergyman who never received part of the advance to give

97
up his arrears was gross injustice. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted, that, if his proposal were adopted there might be acts of inequality and injustice; but he thought, that the Legislature ought to take care not to commit crying acts of individual injustice. It was perfectly just to say, that with respect to those who had received part of the 640,000 l. they should not repay that advance, nor yet recover the whole of the arrears; but those parties who had never received any pecuniary advance, who had been forbearing, who had not pressed hard upon the tithe-payer, and who had not yet recovered their tithes, to say to them, "You owe nothing to the treasury, and the tithe-payer owes you a great deal; you shall remit the whole of your arrears, but we shall not give you a farthing for the remission," was manifest injustice. It was impossible, that the House of Commons could sanction such a proposition. This 640,000 l. had not been spread equally over the whole of the clergy of Ireland. The benefit of the 640,000 l. was confined to a certain particular class. They might ask those parties to remit their arrears; but there was no pretence for saying, that those who had never received anything, and to whom a great deal was due, should not be paid their debts, because others had been paid already. Again, they offered, in 1835, the sum of 307,000 l. to cover the arrears, and now not only were they going to take back that, but they were going to punish the parties who had not taken it. It was impossible for Parliament, which protected the right of all classes, to take a course which would involve the committal of such gross individual acts of injustice. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his ingenious way of conciliating the clergy of Ireland to the adoption of his plan, said, that they would not be making a great sacrifice, that they could not get much of the arrears that remained due, for that the moment they passed this bill, which transferred the obligation from the occupier to the landlord, they would throw such discredit on the old mode, that the occupying tenant would not pay the arrears. Why, would not this be a very good reason for indemnifying the parties? Would it not be a good reason for saying, that the motives of state necessity compelled them to pass a measure which in-
98
volved existing claims, which deprived the parties of the means of recovering, and which, therefore, they must make good? But to compel a person, by the strong arm of power, to remit a debt that was due to him, involved a principle of such shameful injustice that he thought it impossible to consent to it. Those men, in the eye of the law, had a positive claim for the debts due to them, and they had a right to enforce that claim; but to step in by the aid of an Act of Parliament, and to throw such discredit on the old system, as to make it impossible to recover these claims, without, at the same time, making any compensation, was so monstrous, that he was sure, that nothing but the being accustomed to the injustice of the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition could have reconciled him to the enormity of the second. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, the clergy should consent to remit all these arrears, because they would have a better security for the payment of the rent-charge. What had the clergy given up the twenty-five per cent. for? Surely it was the hope, that they had a tolerably valid security for the payment by the landlord of the sums due to them. Why should the clergy be called upon, by the remission of an existing debt, to fortify their security for the payment of the seventy-five per cent? With respect to the course proposed to be taken for the remission of the 640,000 l., if he thought that the remission of that sum, or of double that sum, would secure peace to Ireland, would confirm the rights of the Irish clergy, would prevent agitation, and facilitate the regular payment of tithes, he was quite sure, that the British people were prepared to make any reasonable sacrifice for bringing about the cessation of agitation, the acquiescence in just demands, and the wholesome operation of the laws. But the language of the right hon. Gentleman made him fear future concession. The right hon. Gentleman complained now of tithe agitation, and of those parties who encouraged that agitation, but did not place themselves in the front of the danger. He must say, that after the example of those whose influence in Ireland was very great, and who had withheld their tithes for five or six years, professedly on religious principles, it was not to be expected that the mere readiness to pay off arrears would calm that agitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman

99
opposite (Mr. Sheil) had so refused the payment of his tithes, and he must ask, if Gentlemen of his station and influence refused payment, what effect would such refusal produce on the ignorant? It was very well to throw the blame on the occupying tenants, and to complain of their meeting in large assemblies; but when they saw the hon. and learned Gentleman promoted to a civil office, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government must bear some share of the blame of tithe agitation. With respect to the question of thirty and twenty-five per cent., the hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that it was a miserable question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Now, he thought, that a great principle was involved in it. He thought, that they had no right to make a greater pecuniary remission to the landlord than he was fairly entitled to. He knew it was impossible to follow out this principle fully, and that some individuals must be benefitted to a greater extent than they ought, and that others must fall short. But the reason why he required, that the remission should not exceed twenty-five per cent. was, that he thought twenty-five per cent. a full indemnity for the burthen that was placed on the landlord. He did not think, that the landlord had a right to expect a greater remission than was offered, as he thought the indemnity corresponded with the burthen. They were throwing upon the landlord the payment of tithe, and they were making him a liberal allowance on that account. There were many who thought the existing allowance of fifteen per cent. sufficient. He, however, thought, that as they were about to place, by a law, an obligation on the landlord to which by law he was not subject, the indemnity ought to be liberal. He was, therefore, willing to consent to the allowance of twenty-five per cent., but he could not consent to give thirty per cent., because he thought, that that would be an unjust bonus, and he thought, also, that it was too much, and that it, therefore, involved the question of the appropriation of church property to secular purposes, and the very worst of secular purposes, the benefit of the landlords of Ireland. He, therefore, would certainly not consent to any such reduction of the payment due on account of tithe, as it was one which would manifestly be for the peculiar benefit of Irish landlords, and one which the
100
justice of the case did not require. It was on these grounds, and because it did not involve the principle of appropriation, that he consented that the reduction should be twenty-five per cent. But, although he was ready to consent to the reduction of twenty-five per ecnt. at the present period, he must remind the Houte and the noble Lord, that he was not to be bound, on any future occasion, by this admission. He was perfectly ready now, against the wishes of many of the Irish clergy, to consent to the reduction of twenty-five per cent., but he was not bound to consent to that reduction hereafter in case the proposal was now rejected. He said nothing about the future: all he meant to say was, that his offer of reduction extended merely to the present period, and that offer was made in the hope of peace and of procuring a final settlement of this question. With respect to the important question of the existing arrears, he must say, that with his view of the injustice of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was impossible for him to consent to it. The effect of that proposal would be, to inflict a penalty on those who had obeyed the law. If they meant to administer equal justice, they ought to return the money that had been paid to those who paid it; but it was not only contrary to justice, but an invasion of justice, to make no repayment to the man that had obeyed the law, and to remit to him who had disobeyed the law to the whole amount of his obligations. At the same time he admitted, that if they allowed difficulties of this kind to interpose insuperable obstacles, they would never effect a settlement of the tithe question. He must contend, for the sake of the peace of Ireland and the just rights of the clergy, that in any arrangement for the remission of the arrears due to the Irish clergy, independent of those covered by the 640,000 l., it was not the clergy of Ireland, but the public, who ought to bear the chief part of the expense. Whether they should abandon all the arrears he was not prepared to say. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed, that the clergy should abandon all claims to existing arrears upon receiving seventy-five per cent. upon them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would guarantee seventy-five per cent. upon the existing arrears due to the clergy, he would venture on behalf of the clergy to accept the proposal; and if the hon. and learned

101
Member for Dublin was empowered to make that proposal, and had the means of performing it, he should feel very much disposed to agree to it. But he could not consent to impose on the clergy the whole of the pecuniary penalty on account of those arrears. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) proposed, that part should be borne by the landlords. With the utmost respect for the opinions of his noble Friend, he doubted the justice of throwing upon the landlord part of the payment due on account of arrears. As far as the gentlemen of Ireland were concerned, upon whom this burden was thrown, he would not remit one shilling. He would recommend, that they should be all brought before the Court of Exchequer and compelled to pay. He was perfectly convinced that the Irish landlords, who had felt the inconvenience of encouraging agitation to resist a due legal demand would not give much trouble, if the clergy civilly enforced their demand. And as to remitting one shilling, nothing, in his opinion, could be more fatal. They had, therefore, to deal only with the occupying tenant. If the Treasury would advance to the clergy, out of the public funds, seventy-five per cent. upon the amount of their arrears and if they would be content to recover fifty per cent. from the tithe payer, he would consent to such an arrangement. The only evil attending it appeared to him to be the necessity of recovering it from the occupying tenants. But upon the whole he decidedly objected to making the clergy solely responsible for the amount of the arrears. He doubted the justice of imposing any part of the liability upon the landlords. And if he were sure that the bonus of twenty-five per cent. would insure the peaceable settlement of this question, he doubted whether it would not be the best course to meet the difficulties of the case.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had, in the course of his speech, adverted to him in rather a pointed manner. He should not be provoked in consequence of this, more than to suggest to the right hon. Baronet himself, that perhaps some appointments had been made, when he was in power, of Gentlemen as distinguished for the vehemence of their partisanship, at least, as he was, not perhaps upon the question of the Church, but upon others quite as exciting in Ireland. But he would not, by pursuing this subject, interfere with the just and whole-
102
some spirit that appeared to prevail. It appeared to him to be agreed upon by all sides, in the first place, that the sum advanced to the clergy should be remitted to them, and that, to the extent of that remission, a remission by the clergy should be granted. The next point for consideration was, whether the surplus of the sum which had been originally granted for the pacification of Ireland, should be applied to the purpose for which it had been originally intended? The right hon. Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge), proposed, in 1835, that the surplus should be appropriated to the payment of all arrears, and when the Whigs came into office they adopted the proposition, not of remitting what had been advanced, but of giving up the surplus of the million, amounting to 307,000 l. to the settlement of arrears. Thus were the Whigs and Conservatives agreed upon these two most important points, namely, the remission of the money that had been advanced and the further grant of 307,000 l. He could not conceive why the Whig Government should recede from that point. No name had been suggested; not a single individual connected with the Government had ventured to state any reason for the difference in the course taken in 1835, and that proposed to be taken now. He thought he had made out a case, founded on the conduct of the Whig and Conservative Governments, for the grant of the remainder of the million; but as to the liquidation of the arrears that had accrued beyond this, he was not insensible to the difficulty of inducing English Members to agree to a further grant. He thought, that when they were applying this balance to the liquidation of arrears, they ought to distinguish between the various classes of arrears. He was of opinion, that the landlord who had received his rent, and with it the tithe, ought to be allowed no remission, not a single farthing. Supposing he let his land at 40 s. the acre, and that 3s. were to be paid to the parson, and he received the 40 s., only 37 s. of it belonged to him, and he was bound to pay the balance to the clergyman. He thought this was but common justice, and he was not liable to the imputation which the right hon. Baronet had insinuated against him without the slightest foundation, namely, that he had refused to pay his tithes. He had been unable to recover his tithe, as was the case with other pro-

103
prietors greater than himself, and in support of this he might refer to the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who was a landlord in Tipperary, and who had made considerable abatements to his tenants. Every body knew, that there was not a better landlord than the noble Lord. He would not be so unjust as to withhold his testimony to the high merit of the noble Lord on that point. The noble Lord had stated, that he had made an abatement to his tenants, and that he had fixed the rent with reference to tithes, at a certain sum; and that he had great difficulty in enforcing payment. But others had not the same means of enforcing payment as the noble Lord, because the noble Lord gave a beneficial interest to his tenants, who were also tenants at will. He had, therefore, the power of removing them, and of course he had the power of obtaining the balance due to him for tithe, whilst others had not that power. But what was the condition of other landlords? A noble Earl in another place (Earl Roden), had given a description of the condition of a Protestant gentleman, one of the olden time, with an income nominally of 5,000 l. a-year, who, however, never got more than 700 l. a-year for his support. The Earl of Roden had declared, that many men of this class would be crushed by the operation of the poor-law. If the poor-law would crush such men, how much more would the compelling them to pay tithes which they had not obtained, crush them? Suppose land to be let at 20 s. the acre, and supposing, and he spoke from experience, that the tithe was 3s., the tenant paid 17 s. to the landlord, but refused to pay the tithes, and the landlord, who had to pay the 3s. to the clergyman, would in fact receive only 14 s. the acre for his land. This was a statement of facts, and every Gentleman who belonged to that part of Ireland (Tipperary) could corroborate this statement. There were three classes of persons whom the House ought to consider. There was the landlord, who received his tithes; there was the proprietor of the fee-simple in possession of the fee-simple. Let them pay their tithes; it was but fair, because they received it; but the landlords who, in point of law were liable, who de jure were liable, but who de facto had not received their tithes, were entitled to the indulgence of the House. Let them remember
104
the state of the south of Ireland; let them recollect the meetings that had taken place. He thought he had made out a case for the landlords of Ireland which that House ought to take into account. He was throwing overboard those who had got their tithes—he was throwing aside those who had got possession of the land; but he thought the House ought to take into account those landlords who were liable for tithes, and who had not received one farthing of them. It might be said, let those landlords sue their tenants, and compel them to pay. But he would ask, would not the landlords find it hard to recover these tithes which the state found it so impracticable to obtain with the aid of the police, the military, and all the machinery which the Government could bring to bear upon the recusants? Had not the Government said, that they found it almost impossible to recover the arrears of the million, and if they could not, how could the landlords recover them, surrounded as they were by an excited and hostile peasantry? It was untrue—he begged pardon for using so strong a phrase—it was a mistake to say, that he had not paid his tithes. He had paid a large portion on the simple application of the clergyman to him, and he had in his possession a letter from a clergyman in which he returned him (Mr. Sheil) his thanks for asking him for his account in order that he might discharge it. He was, in fact, willing to pay every farthing of tithes incurred by himself, but he objected to be made responsible for those of his tenants who refused to pay him. But enough about himself—enough of individual cases. What he wished to impress upon the House was this—if they were to have the balance of the million applied to the extinction of the arrears, let them not confine it to the occupying tenant, but grant a portion of it to the landlords who were in the predicament to which he had alluded.
Mr. Humesaid, that in his opinion the people of England were about to be defrauded of a large sum in order to support an Establishment which ought to have been reduced long ago, but, at the same time, Ireland and England were in such a situation that every friend of peace must desire to see an end put to agitation. Did the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, mean to say, that the sacrifice of 307,000 l. would restore peace to Ire-

105
land? He begged to remind the House of what had passed a few days ago. His opinion was, that for a while the money might put down agitation, but in a short time agitation would arise again. In his opinion, the interests of England were about to be betrayed. He saw no reason why they should remit arrears of tithe to the amount of 640,000 l., with the additional sum of 307,000 l., unless upon the conditions which were pointed out on the Ministerial side of the House, when they succeeded in 1835 in ousting the Government. Let the Church be reduced, let the reforms that were then pointed out be adopted, and let the surplus arising, after the purposes of the Church should have been provided for, be applied to the repayment of the million, and he should be willing to consent to it, but beyond that he did not think, that the House of Commons ought to go, and he doubted much whether the people of England would sanction the giving up of a million of money to the landlords of Ireland. The Church of Ireland was rotten at the core—it was an incubus, which ought not and could not maintain its existence in spite of the feelings of the people. He could promise the right, hon. Baronet opposite, that all his expectations of peace would be disappointed unless he agreed to the appropriation clause and the abolition of sinecures in the Church. Until this was done he would never agree to give one shilling of public money to the clergy of Ireland.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that there was not a more laborious and conscientious body of men than the clergy of Ireland. He denied, also, that they were overpaid; their incomes did not average more than 250 l. a year. He took the liberty of saying a few words in explanation of what appeared to him to be the meaning of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in reference to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. In touching upon this point he must frankly bear testimony to the gentlemanly deportment which invariably distinguished the part which the hon. and learned Gentleman took in their discussions. The hon. and learned Gentleman never allowed his political feelings to carry him out of the strict line of straightforward and gentlemanly dealing. As the observation struck him, however, the right hon. Baronet had not objected to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, on au-
106
count of his being a partisan; but had complained of her Majesty's government that they had promoted parties who had been engaged not only in the violation of the law themselves, but in encouraging others to violate it. The hon. and learned Member fell under this description, for he surely could not forget the speeches which he had made in Tipperary and elsewhere invoking resistance to the claims of the Church, and calling for its entire abolition. It had been declared by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin that Ireland never was in such a state of imminent danger as at the present moment—that she was like a charged volcano ready to burst forth at any moment. And was this the state to which Ireland was reduced in spite of all the kind and healing measures, all the popular proceedings, of the new Government of that country? He feared, indeed, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin spoke truly, when he said, that Ireland was in a bad state. But why was it so? It was because the Government had not taken the proper and obvious means to enforce obedience and respect to the law; on the contrary, they had not only winked at repeated violations of it, but had actually from time to time promoted the very men who had been guilty of them. He knew of two parties who had been foremost in resisting the law in the matter of tithes, and who had subsequently been promoted to offices in the Exchequer Court. He could assure the House, that in consequence of such proceedings as these it was a received opinion in Ireland that the Government of the country was merging into the hands of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that at his bidding the magistracy was cleared out, and the police made use of, not as the legitimate means of protecting the peace of the country, but as a ready source of patronage in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Lord John Russellsaid, the first proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was, that some arrangement should be made respecting the arrears due upon the advance made on account of the tithe properties, in order to their total discharge. Another question had since then been started respecting the portion of the million which had been actually advanced to the tithe-owners, and not repaid, Now, upon this subject he

107
must say, that, considering the time which had elapsed since the advances had been made, and that these advances were made on account of tithes due as far back as the year 1831, he did not think, that it would be either reasonable or expedient to insist in future upon the payment of the instalments. To do so would not only embarrass the clergy but inflict a hardship upon the occupiers. The hon. Member had made a proposition to which so much opposition had been shown, that he (Lord J. Russell) thought it better to go back to the proposition which had been made by Government, and introduce a clause for the total remission of the instalments due, whether from the occupiers or from those who held for the tithe owners. But the question was very different with regard to the arrears since incurred. He quite concurred in the opinion, that if by the advance of a small sum of money, it was likely they would put a satisfactory termination to this very harassing question, it might be well to pay the money. But the question even then became one of amount. On this point, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, seemed to consider, that the remainder of the million advanced in 1835, would not be sufficient; that is, if they were now to give up the remainder of the million, and forgive the arrears due on account of the 640,000 l. already paid, the present difficulties of the case would not be met. Nor had he yet heard from any hon. Member, any definite sum proposed which was sufficient for the object in view. The only statement which he recollected to have heard made tending to this point, was by the hon. Member for Tipperary, who stated the arrears due upon tithes to be about two millions sterling. Under these circumstances, and with no better information on the subject, he owned, that on being called upon for an advance of money, he did not feel disposed to acquiesce in it. Supposing, that the arrears due were two millions, then, if only 75 per cent. were paid, a million and a-half of money would be required. But even supposing they were to make such an advance of public money, would it, in the opinion of the House, lead to a final settlement of the question respecting the Church of Ireland? On the contrary, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin asserted, that the question now was, and he was supported in this view by the reso-
108
lutions passed at the public meetings held in Ireland—whether the Church of Ireland should remain in existence at all, or whether its revenues should not be appropriated to other and far different purposes. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman called for a sum of money in order to procure a settlement of this question, he, at the same time, told them, that it would not lead to a settlement at all; but, on the contrary, that the money would be given to those who had already violated the law, and were determined still to violate it. If, under these circumstances, the House were to acquiesce in such a grant, they would not have the consolation that they were making such a sacrifice with a likelihood of ensuring the future peace of the country. He came now to a third question for consideration, namely, whether such a grant would tend to the future good working of the present bill. In this point of view, as well as in the two which he had just stated, he did not consider it expedient to adopt this proposition. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had stated, with great appearance of reason, that considerable hardship was suffered by landlords who became subject to payments on account of tithes, which they were unable to recover from their tenants. But that was exactly the hardship which would still be liable to occur under the bill which they now proposed to pass; and he believed, that if the proposed advance were agreed to, the landlord would have to pay the 75 per cent. under this clause, which he could not, for some considerable time, be able to recover from his tenant. But he thought, that the landlord should look to his tenant for the future for the reimbursement of the rent-charge which he was called upon to pay. Some amicable arrangement might eventually be expected between landlords and tenants which would prevent the former from being losers in the end. But if the House were to say, wherever payment has not been made, we will advance a further sum in order to meet it, this would be a direct inducement to landlords to say, "We will not harass our tenants for the payments, because their not paying them will be a sufficient ground for us to make out a case of hardship which will ensure us the payment of any sums required for the purpose." On all these grounds, he thought, that it would not be advisable to make any further advance from the state

109
towards the settlement of this question. At the same time, however, he thought it would be hard to call on the landlords for the payment of arrears already due. He should, therefore, advise the entire remission of the 640,000 l. already advanced; but should oppose the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Mr. Lucashad never heard a discussion with more pleasure, and he had no doubt that the debate of the three last hours would do more to the settlement of the Irish tithe question than all parties had been able to effect in the last four years. He hoped there was very little difference between the two parties composing the House on this question; at least, it appeared to him clear, that no hon. Gentleman desired to recur to the clergyman for the collection of the money advanced to him. His belief was, they would not be able to recur to that petty warfare between the clergy and the occupier. It would be utterly impossible for any government to carry out any bill with such a blot in it as a proposition for recurring to the occupiers of the soil for the recovery of tithes. If a recurrence were had to the occupiers of Ireland, the great difficulty would be with respect to a final adjustment of this measure. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire had said, that it was the duty of the State, for the purpose of procuring peace by an adjustment of this question, to make some concession; that the clergy should, on their part, make some sacrifice, and that a sacrifice should also be made by the landlords. In this opinion he fully concurred, and as far as he was acquainted with the clergy and landlords of Ireland, he was sure they would be satisfied with any reasonable arrangement which held out a prospect of a successful and satisfactory adjustment of the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, had not, in the observations which he had addressed to the House, stated any definite plan. As a sacrifice had been mentioned, he would venture to assert, that there would be no sacrifice—there would be no absolute loss incurred. It was merely a loan, and the thing was, to take care that there should be sufficient security for its repayment. The question of difficulty was not so much as to whether the amount should be moderate or otherwise, but as to the chance of recovering, and whether it was necessary,
110
under the present Bill, to recur to the occupiers of the land. Surely, if the rent-charge was a security for the clergy, it would be equally so for the Government. One observation had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, which had not been characterised by his usual sagacity, namely, that the collection of rent had been benefited by the non-payment of the tithe. This was not the case; for though there had been an improved payment of rent, it arose out of the improved condition of the country and the increased communication between England and Ireland.
Sir R. Peel: The importance of the subject is my only excuse for trespassing again on the indulgence of the House. I do not despair, that some settlement of this question, consistent with justice, may be arrived at; and I beg to submit to the consideration of the Committee, a proposal offered with that view, and the main grounds of which I shall now state. In the first place, as you can do nothing without a commission, let one be appointed. It is impossible, unless you mean to act blindly, that you should proceed in this case without intrusting to some such body the necessary powers for carrying the plan, which I mean to submit, into operation. Do not guarantee to pay the amount of the arrears, but place at the disposal of this commission 307,000 l., I should rather say half a million. Ascertain, then, the total amount of the arrears of the occupying tenants, and determine what proportion the defined sum which you place at the disposal of the commission, bears to the whole amount of the arrears. Supposing the sum fixed upon for disposal by the commission to be 307,000 l., and the whole amount of arrears to be 640,000 l., of course you can only meet fifty per cent. of what is now due. Then introduce an optional principle into the plan—offer to purchase the arrears by a tender of fifty per cent, the Government standing in the position of the tithe-owner in respect to the arrears. Give the parties two months, or a certain definite period, to decide. In my opinion, a great number will be found ready to sink their right to arrears in consideration of the immediate payment of the sum which you offer. The State will then be in possession of the existing right of the tithe-owner to the arrears. You will thus be enabled to look at the particular cir-

111
cumstances of each place, and to see where it is right to enforce the law, and where it would be more expedient to avoid its enforcement. Let you, the State, be the party to enforce to the utmost the claim of the tithe-owner, and to make such arrangements as that you can say to the landlord—"There are 100 l. of arrears due to me by your tenants; let a portion of this be paid, and we shall remit the remainder." This plan would do no injustice to the clergyman, because he is to remain in possession of his remedy for the recovery of his tithe, in case he refuses the offer made him by the commission. I venture to say in nine cases out of ten he will accept your offer. In the few cases in which he shall decline, there remains the objection, that the tithe arrears are to be recovered by the clergyman from the occupying tenant; but how infinitely smaller will that proportion be than when you leave the clergyman altogether to the enforcement of his own rights, without any interference on the part of the Government. By this course you introduce an optional principle; you place yourselves in the position of the clergyman; where the circumstances of the opposition given by the occupying tenant are such, that you do not think it right to enforce the claim to arrears, you can abstain from doing so; but where, on the contrary, the tenant is solvent and refractory, and you seek to make a public example of enforcing the law, then you have the means of compelling payment. But, above all, do not bring into collision the clergy and the occupying tenants. Do not levy for arrears extending over an indefinite period. Some allowance should be made for bad debts and other circumstances, and, therefore, I think you should limit the arrears to those which have occurred within two years. See what an advance we have made by this preliminary discussion. All have agreed, that the sum of 640,000 l. must be remitted, and I cannot help thinking, that if we address ourselves with earnestness to the remainder of the question, we shall be enabled to devise some plan by which the offer of a defined sum may be combined with an optional principle as to the enforcement of claims for arrears.
Mr. O'Connellthought there was a great deal of truth in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and that his
112
proposal might form an admirable basis for arrangement. When on a former occasion, the million was advanced, it was found, that 640,000 l. sufficed; which proved, that the arrears had been greatly exaggerated, and he believed, that to be the case now. He entertained a sincere hope, that the 307,000 l. would be enough to defray them; and he was happy to see the feeling which seemed to pervade the House for an amicable settlement of the question; with the exception, indeed, of a little anger on the part of the learned Sergeant, the Member for Bandon (Mr. Sergeant Jackson). In cases where the landlord had received tithes from the tenantry and not paid to the clergy, undoubtedly, punishment and not encouragement, should follow. But he believed such cases to be very rare. He had never heard of one. It had been rightly said of him (Mr. O'Connell) that he did not expect this measure would settle the question of tithes as regarded time to come. He should have acted with great injustice insincerity, and criminality if he had said any such thing, for he did not feel it. He had no objection, however, to give the measure every chance of success; but though, for his own part, he had no hope of it, he would aid them in the trial. The hon. Member for Bandon had alluded to him, and said, that the police force were under his control. So far from that being the case he had not made a single nomination to that force in any instance. With regard to the spread of Ribbonism in Ireland, it was completely strangled. It did exist to a considerable extent in the vicinity of Dublin, but had been suppressed more by the exertions of the new police force than anything else. He now came again to the spirit in which this discussion had taken place, and he hoped, that enough had been done to induce the Government to pause and consider whether they might not adopt some plan for getting rid of the arrears, for if they attempted to enforce them they would do anything but conciliate. He trusted they would consider the proposals thrown out on both sides. It might be a sacrifice to be made by England, but it was an arrangement which would tend to a salutary result, and he trusted the House would consider it fully in committee.
Lord Stanleybegged to say a word with respect to the amount to be required. He understood his right hon. Friend did

113
not intend to enter into the arrangement any portion of the tithe composition at present leviable from the landlord. He differed, however, from the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary in thinking, that there were no circumstances, under which the landlords of Ireland were entitled to any indulgence. Because in no case could they have become liable for the tithe composition without entering into a new arrangement with their tenants. The landlord let the land tithe free to the tenant, and the hon. and learned Gentleman complained, that landlords were not able to make a corresponding increase on their rents. He could not consider very deeply the case of persons who had charged more for their land than their tenants were able to pay. He meant to apply himself merely to the arrears of the last two years. Now how was it possible, that the amount of these arrears could come near what was stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny? Why, the amount of the tithes altogether was not above 500,000 l., and it was notorious, that considerably above 100,000 l. of that sum was payable by the landlords. In his opinion 307,000 l. would be a very large amount; but it was clear, that the amount paid even by the occupying tenants was 50 or 75 per cent. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would see the propriety of not pressing his instructions to a division.
Mr. O'Connellhad much pleasure in agreeing to the suggestions of the noble Lord.
The Chancelor of the Exchequerhoped the House would treat the matter as a grant of public money. One thing he would object to was, the Government undertaking to levy the tithes from the occupying tenant. To that proposition he had very great objections. He thought it was also worthy of consideration whether the House in its generosity would relieve the landlords from that liability which they were under, having partaken of the loan. The question, though it appeared to have the concurrence of both sides of the House, was well worthy of grave deliberation. As to the 640,000 l., it should be recollected, that there was a portion of it for which not the occupier of land, but the owners of the tithes were liable.
Colonel Percevalwas happy that an
114
arrangement was made likely to be entered into, and would throw no obstacle in the way. He would, however, reserve to himself the right of hereafter giving deplorable proof in contradiction of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House to the distracted state of Ireland.
Lord J. Russellagreed in the proposition made by the right hon. Baronet, but the matter required to be gravely considered. He would give the subject his best consideration, and hoped to be able to propose something to the House which would prove satisfactory. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, with respect to the loss which would accrue to the revenue, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would in consideration thereof, do his best in any future debates which might take place on the question of tithes to render the proposed adjustment a satisfactory one.
Mr. O'Connellwithdrew his motion.
The House went into a committee pro forma, and resumed. Committee to sit again.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
Mr. W. E. Gladstonerose to call the attention of the House to a petition from the inhabitants of Albany, in the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, presented by him on the 15th of June last. That settlement had been founded as a frontier post, for the protection of our colony against occasional predatory incursions of the Caffre tribes, previously bordering on the inlands of our ancient settlements. The tract of country inhabited by these advanced colonists had received additions from time to time and was denominated the ceded territory. It was peopled by British subjects of an honest and industrious character, who conveyed thither their skill and capital during the Government of Lord Charles Somerset, and they remained there on the faith of receiving protection and support from the British Government. The colonists complained that faith had not been kept with them, and made various representations of the losses they sustained from being immediately in contact with a barbarous enemy. These representations had been neglected by the Government at home, and the interests of the colonists had been sacrificed, so much so that the ceded territory had been entirely given up

115
to the Caffres, who now mingled with the farmers, to the great prejudice and injury of the quiet and peaceable subjects of Great Britain. Feuds and contests were of frequent occurrence, sometimes attended by bloodshed and consequences of the most lamentable character. The feeling of insecurity thus generated among the colonists caused many of them, and particularly the Dutch boors, to emigrate. The resources of the colony were thus left without employment, and great part of the land remained uncultivated. Agricultural produce had greatly risen in price, and, as regarded the great staple of corn and meal, to the extent of 300 per cent. Fatal collisions with the natives constantly occurred, and in 1837 from this cause the colonists sustained a loss of twenty-two of their own number, besides 384 horses and 2,800 head of cattle. The Dutch boors, disheartened by their misfortunes, withdrew from the colony into the desert, and placed themselves beyond the pale of society. Such was the precarious and unsafe position of the eastern portion of our South African territories, the evils attending which it was the bounden duty of Parliament to remove. He should, therefore, move an address to her Majesty praying her Majesty to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate on the spot the past and present state of the relations of our colonists on the eastern part of the Cape of Good Hope with the Caffre tribes, together with the best means of preventing a recurrence of the recent emigration of the population beyond the frontier.
Sir George Greysaid, the case before them had already been sufficiently gone into by means of the inquiry instituted, and the documents submitted in consequence of the inquiry to the consideration of the House. It was a lamentable fact that the state of this part of the colony could hardly be worse than it notoriously had been for some years past, owing in a great degree to the aggression of British subjects upon the aboriginal inhabitants, and their endeavours to extend their territory in this quarter for selfish and interested purposes. The pretext for these enlargements of territory from year to year had been, the presumed necessity of increasing the security and safety of the colonists, by placing an intermediate territory between them and the Caffre tribes. The result was aggression on the part of the colonists often causeless and unpro-
116
voked, and, on the part of the aborigines, irruption and massacre. Bloodshed had been the feature of this attempt at acquiring that which the aggressors had no right to, and it was not till within the last two years that measures could be taken by the colonial government there, with a chance of success, to put a stop to this sanguinary contest. Having said thus much, he might also confess he could not see, that any advantage could be derived from instituting a fresh inquiry into the causes of these transactions, so disgraceful to the British name, and prejudicial to British interests. A full investigation had already taken place, the report was before the House, and the colonial government had taken steps which encouraged Lord Glenelg to hope, that there must be a speedy end put to a state of things so much to be regretted. Where, then, was the necessity for the Government to incur heavy expense by consenting to a fresh commission of inquiry? For his part, he must express the most perfect confidence that no measure in the colony would be left untried to carry into effect the recommendation of the colonial government for establishing a system of broad policy in this colony which might prevent a recurrence of the evils which had taken place by a departure from such a line of policy hitherto. General Napier had been sent out to this portion of our territories, with full instructions and ample powers to restore the affairs of the colony to a wholesome condition. He trusted he had said enough to convince the House this was not an occasion upon which the British Parliament could be induced to sanction, under any pretext, the application of persons who had placed themselves in trouble and peril by means of their aggressions. The charge against the Government, that it had surrendered the track called the ceded territory to the Caffres, was a charge which, though true, redounded to the credit of the colonial government, which had insisted upon the relinquishment of a territory acquired by arms and unauthorised hostilities. The prompt cession of the ceded territory was calculated to show that, whatever had been the conduct of individuals, its subjects, the Government of Great Britain would be just when appealed to, and respect the rights of property, fully conscious that by so doing it must inspire a confidence as to its future conduct in the minds of the

117
brave though barbarous people who had been encroached upon; and also that the cession must add to the security and inviolability of the property which had been fairly acquired by the colonists at this part of our settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. He must, on the grounds he had stated, oppose the motion.
The House divided. The numbers were—Ayes 32: Noes 41; Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Bagge, W.

Knight, H. G.

Barrington, Viscount

Lascelles, hon. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lefroy, right hon T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Litton, E.

Bolling, W.

Mathew, G. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Darby, G.

Packington, J. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Palmer, R.

Dungannon, Lord

Palmer, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Powerscourt, Ld. Vis.

Egerton, Lord F.

Richards, R.

Ellis, J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Estcourt, T.

Thompson, Alderman

Fitzroy, H.

Wood, T.

Gibson, T.

Grimsditch, T.

TELLERS

Hughes, W. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

James, Sir W. C.

Praed, W. N.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Parker, J.

Alston, R.

Pease, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Pechell, Captain

Blackett, C.

Phillips, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Rice, E. R

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Salwey, Colonel

Campbell, Sir G.

Scholefield, J.

Crawley, S.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Duke, Sir J.

Slaney, R. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, B.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Style, Sir C.

Grey, Sir C.

Somerville, Sir W.

Hawes, B.

Tollemache, F.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Turner, W.

Howard, P. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Hurt, F.

Williams, W.

Lushington, C.

Wood, Sir M.

Lynch, A. H.

TELLERS.

Paget, F.

Grey, Sir G.

Palmerston, Lord

Stewart, R.

SALE OF BEER.
Lord F. Egertonrose to call the attention of the House to the state of the law affecting the Sale of Beer. Various petitions had been presented on the subject; especially one from upwards of 6,000 inhabitants of Manchester and Salford, among whom were nearly fifty clergymen, thirty-five of whom were
118
members of the Established Church, the churchwardens, overseers, &c., complaining of the evils which had been the result of the new law respecting the sale of beer, many remedies had been proposed for those evils; that which, after much consideration, he was disposed to recommend was, to expunge the clause which provided for the consumption of beer on the premises; and he was quite sure, that, even if there were a fuller attendance of Members, he should have a general concurrence of opinion in favour of that proposition. It was thought by some, that that part of the act had worked better in large towns, where there was a compact population more immediately under the inspection of the police, than in rural and thinly-peopled districts. He confessed, that, from the information which he had obtained upon the subject, he was not of that opinion. Of the enormous evils of the present system he had abundant proof in representations from Huddersfield, York, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Leeds, Rotherham, &c. He had received, among others, a letter from Mr. J. F. Forster, chairman at the quarter sessions at Salford, a gentleman remarkable for the liberality of his character and the capacity of his understanding, who expressed himself strongly opposed to the measure, from the experience of its pernicious consequences he had had as a magistrate. This gentleman stated, that he had been not unfavourable to the experiment at first, from a wish to supply the labouring classes with a wholesome and refreshing beverage at a cheap rate, and to extend to them every advantage which their station permitted; but he was now quite satisfied that the introduction of beer shops had been productive of consequences bad in every respect among the working classes, destructive of their habits of foresight and economy, subversive of moral feeling, and ruinous, in many instances, to their families. He was quite aware, from long experience, how difficult it was to predicate the consequences of any measure introduced into Parliament; but, on looking back to the debate on the introduction of the Beer Bill, he must say, that it appeared to him that the results of the measure had been more correctly anticipated by its opponents than was usual on such occasions. It had been maintained, that the consumption of spirits would be materially diminished by the new bill. It

119
appeared, however, that no bill had ever been more productive of drunkenness and immorality: Under these circumstances, however late in the session, he was induced to bring the subject under the consideration of the House; partly with a view to prepare the way for some change in the law which, in his opinion, was inevitable; and, as far as he was concerned, with a view to repeal that part of it which related to the drinking of beer upon the premises. He had not the slightest intention to do anything calculated to distress the present Government. The existing law had, indeed, been introduced under the Government of those individuals in whose political opinions he concurred; although the duties of the office which he had at that time the honour to hold, prevented him from paying the attention to the subject which its importance demanded. In justice to his constituents and to others, who, on the faith of the Act of Parliament, had entered into the beer trade, and whose interest he was anxious to protect, he thought it his duty to take the earliest parliamentary opportunity of warning them that it was not probable the law would exist long. All these objects conjoined would, he hoped, be a sufficient justification to the House of the motion he was about to make. He repeated, that he had received innumerable representations of the evils which had resulted from the multiplicity of those receptacles of every kind of vice and depravity, the beer-shops. Without interfering more than was necessary with the enjoyment of the poorer classes, it was the duty of Parliament to protect them from such evils as these. He regretted, that the subject had not fallen into the hands of one more practically acquainted with the facts of the case than he was: but he would now move, that there be laid before the House copies of certain passages in the presentments of the grand juries of England and Wales, bearing reference to the state of the law affecting the sale of beer, in the years 1836, 1837, and 1838.
Mr. Ayshford Sandfordseconded the motion. He was one of those who, at the time of the introduction of the new law, anticipated the evils that would flow from it. It had been introduced in consequence of the grievances to which the licensing system had given rise. Now, although he was hostile to the existing law, he by no means wished to re-introduce the licensing
120
system to which that law had put an end. One of the great evils of the existing system was, the creation of small beer-houses of the lowest description, kept by men without capital, and who obtained credit from the large brewers for three-fourths of their stock. As one means of obviating the evil it might be advisable to provide that no man should sell beer who was not the brewer of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequergave full credit to the noble Lord for the motive which had induced him to come forward with the present motion, but, at the same time, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to confess, that he was not yet convinced by any facts or any arguments which had been advanced, that an invasion of the principle of the law, as it now stood, would lead to such an improvement in the morals of the people as the noble Lord and those who thought with him supposed. He had always been of opinion that the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, which destroyed the old monopoly and opened the trade in beer, was one of the wisest and most prudent acts of the Legislature that he had ever in his time seen introduced into Parliament. He believed, that the benefit conceded to the public by that measure was much greater than any loss that might have resulted in a financial point of view. He believed, too, that the relief which it afforded to a great trade from vexatious interpositions of the Excise was another very great benefit. With respect to the increase of crime, which had been so much relied on, he could not at all admit that increase to be a consequence of the Beer Act. Nor had he any more faith in the allegations which were made of a greatly increased consumption of spirituous liquors. Where were the proofs of it? Gin-shops in London were not on the increase, but quite the reverse. What would be the effect of any alteration of the present law that should put an end to the sale of beer in those houses? Would it not be to bring on again the old monopoly, and all the evils of the licensing system? He did not mean to say, that the existing law was incapable of improvement, but he wished most earnestly to deprecate any return to the old system? Therefore, though he had no objection to this return, and though he was aware that no proceedings were to be taken upon the motion

121
during this Session, yet, differing as he did from the noble Lord as to the facts which he had stated, as well as from the arguments which he had deduced from those facts, he felt it his duty to implore the House and the public to consider well the inconvenience and evil which must result from a change of the law as it stood; to discuss dispassionately both sides of this question; to compare objection with objection; and to determine at length to legislate only upon general principles, in case, as generally happened, facts were found to agree with those general principles, which they ought to look to on this very important question; and having done this, then let them proceed to apply police regulations, not to one class only of these houses, but to all indifferently.
Mr. Pakingtonexpressed his gratitude to the noble Lord for having brought this subject forward. It was almost impossible to over-rate the seriously prejudicial effect which this measure had had upon the morals of the people.
Mr. Humecould regard the object with which such motions as the present were brought forward only as meddling interferences with the comforts of the poor. He did not understand why the poor man should not be allowed to drink his pot of beer where and when he chose, and where he could get it best and cheapest, whether within the doors of a beer shop or in the street. It was melancholy to see those who were in possession of the highest luxuries so anxious to deprive the poor of every little comfort. In his opinion they did not look high enough for the evils of which they complained. He attributed much of the crime to the want of education. Ignorance was the root of the evil. The people were brought up like brute beasts. What education was given to them? There were a few charities, but the people had a right to be educated. They had as much right to education as as they had to a provision for the sustenance of the body. He begged the hon. Gentlemen opposite to inform him what education was afforded to three-fourths of the agriculturists? The noble Lord said he had received information from some one in London of the demoralization caused by the Beer Bill. Would the noble Lord state who the party was? He (Mr. Hume) knew that the licensed victuallers had been very busy in getting up an opposi-
122
tion to the beer shops, and perhaps the noble Lord had had some communication with them. According to the returns on the table of the House, it appeared, that within a certain period during which 514 licensed victuallers had been charged by the police with offences, only 240 keepers of beer shops had been so charged. He was prepared to show, that the allegation that the morals of the people were injured by the beer-shops was quite unfounded. While they heard so much of the demoralization of the poor, no mention was made of the misconduct of other classes. Who were the parties who disgraced themselves by gross misconduct about the period of the coronation? Were they not gentlemen and noblemen? He deprecated the disposition which exhibited itself year after year to meddle with the indulgences of the poor. Nothing had for a long while pleased him more, than the declaration of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if they were driven to put down the beer shops, he should consider it necessary to take into their serious consideration the propriety of establishing a free licensing system, giving every man the power of taking out a licence, subject only to certain police regulations. It would give him very great pleasure to see such a principle acted upon. He should move to-morrow fo returns which would show a very different result from that anticipated by the noble Lord. Inquiry could not fail to show how completely unfounded were the representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this subject. He thought some good would result from the present discussion; it would go far to counteract any effect that might have been produced by the extraordinary declaration of a noble and learned Lord in another place, that a sentence of condemnation had gone forth against the beer-shops. He should oppose, to the utmost of his power, any attempts that might be made by new legislation to interfere with the comforts of the poor.
Viscount Dungannonsaid, that in his neighbourhood it was found, that most of the crime that was committed was concocted in the beer shops. He trusted the return moved for, would make out such a case as to induce her Majesty's Ministers to take the matter up. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might look with jealousy to these complaints, because of the quarter from which they came, because they proceeded

123
from the magistrates, and from the clergy; but the families of the labourers, and farmers, and others, were amongst the complainants. So strong was his impression as to the effect of the beer shops, that he had strictly forbidden any man to set up such an establishment on his estate.
Mr. Warburtonsaw no doubt, looking at the source from which the invitation to petition came, there would next Session be, as the noble Lord had said there should be, a very large number of petitions sent to Parliament against the beer shops. Ever since the act passed authorising these establishments, they had been exceedingly unpopular with the magistrates and the clergy. He thought if they had a committee to inquire respecting the conduct of the beer shops, they ought to have a committee of the labouring classess to inquire into the effect of the houses of entertainment generally. No doubt their report would be, that at clubs and such places there was much drinking of champagne and other wines, that people spent time there which they had much better spend elsewhere, that there was not a little gambling, &c. He did not deny the necessity of police regulations, but let them apply equally. The last committee appointed recommended certain regulations respecting the closing of the beer shops, but that committee said, those regulations ought also to be enforced against the licensed victualling houses. The report of the committee had remained a dead letter. So much for the impartiality which a certain party was disposed to deal out.
Mr. Darbysaid, there was scarcely a respectable labourer in the country that did not set his face against the beer-shops. He denied, that the new beer-shop system was either a comfort or an advantage to the poor. On the contrary, his belief was that it tended only to demoralize the lower classes, and he, for one, felt much obliged to the noble Lord for having brought the subject forward. When they found that, instead of doing good, it only produced evil, he thought the best thing they could do would be to get rid of it altogether as a nuisance, which ought to be discontinued as speedily as possible.
Mr. Haweswas perfectly willing to admit, that the motive which actuated the noble Lord was a good one; that the only object which the noble Lord had in view was the amelioration of both the
124
moral and physical condition of the people. The whole case, however, as it stood at present, rested on mere allegation that crime had increased since the new beer act had come into operation. Now this was a matter which ought not to depend on individual opinion, but upon facts; and he was prepared to show from authentic documents that, so far from having increased, crime—he meant that species of crime which was said to result from the beer-shops—had materially diminished within the last three years, especially in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, where not only the population, but wealth had increased, and the inducement to crime also. No doubt they had in these counties a better description of police than formerly, and likewise a more prompt and speedy gaol delivery; but as a commission had issued to inquire into the state of the rural police he thought they ought to wait until the report of that commission was presented to the House, before they took any step in this important matter. No doubt that report would be laid on the table of the House early next session, and then it would be time enough for them to determine as to the course they ought to pursue. The hon. Member read a calculation which had been officially made as to the state of crime during the last three or four years, and from this document it appeared that although forgery and some other crimes had increased within that period, there had been a very considerable diminution of those crimes which were said to be engendered in beer-shops. On this evidence he did not hesitate to say, that they ought to arrive at any conclusion rather than that of requiring the repeal of the act under which the beer-shops had been established. He was well aware that there were persons who sought its repeal from mercenary motives, because it deprived them of advantages which they enjoyed under the old licensing system; but at all events the present complaint came with rather a bad grace from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who resisted every effort that was made to have the people properly educated. He did not look to the repeal of the new Beer-law Act, or any other measure of the kind, for the moral improvement of the people; but he looked for it in the diffusion of knowledge, and that extension of the suffrage which would oblige the upper classes to identify their own interests with the welfare of

125
the poorer classes of the community. He thought that before the noble Lord came forward with any measure on the subject he was bound to show, that he had made out his case, and that, in point of fact, the crime which he attributed to the beer-shops had resulted from them.
Mr. Slaneysaid, it was his misfortune very often to disagree with the opinions on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Lambeth denied, that there had been any increase of crime, but in this statement the hon. Gentleman was clearly mistaken. Crime had increased fearfully throughout the country, and it was, therefore, the duty of that House to institute inquiry as to the cause, and how the evil could be best remedied. He admitted, however, that the cure for the evil would not be obtained by a return to monopoly in the article of beer. It was to be remembered, that beer-houses were very different in towns from what they were in the country. In London, for instance, they heard the effect of beer-shops was by means of competition to reduce the price of beer to a moderate sum, while, in the country, beer-shops were established in obscure places, and were on that ground very objectionable. It was his opinion that they ought to require a criterion of some property before a beer-shop could be established. It was his opinion, that there ought to be some improvement in the mode of granting licences to beer-shops. It was plain that the increase of beer-shops had not prevented an increase in the consumption of spirits. Within twenty years the consumption of spirits had risen from 9,000,000 of gallons to that of 27,000,000 gallons. He attributed a great deal of the consumption of spirits to the negligence on the part of the police. He thought the police were on this point scandalously negligent in their duty, for any hon. Gentleman going home at two o'clock in the morning could see, that the spirit-shops were open at that hour.
Mr. M. Phillipsadmitted, that there were just grounds of complaint against the new beer-shop system, and it was his intention next session to move for a committee of inquiry on the whole subject. He was prejudiced in favour of neither one party nor the other, and therefore when the facts were really ascertained he should be prepared to concur in any measure that the House might deem expedient to remedy the existing evil.
Lord Ingestriesaid, that the beer-shops in his part of the country had been productive of the worst possible consequences. They were the resort of the ill-disposed, and crimes of all kinds were concocted in them. So far from being hostile to the education of the people he had always done all in his power to promote that object; but, as he could not see what connection there was between education and the beer-shops, he must press upon the House the necessity of adopting some step, and that speedily, for getting rid of the evil, which throwing open the sale of beer indiscriminately had given rise to.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that if there were no licensed victuallers he was sure there would be no complaint against beer-shops. All they were doing was this, making the beer-shops bad, by giving them a bad character. What they ought to do was to encourage men of the best character to enter into competition in this business. His opinion was, that the people in his country were much better conducted than they were in this; and yet in his country he could produce to them a village in which every other house was a public-house, and where he was quite sure the people were more sober than they were at Crockford's, or at any club-house or public-house in London.
Mr. Villierssaid, the noble Lord, the member for South Staffordshire had said, that a large portion of his constituents, and some of them must also be his (Mr. Villiers's),had given it as their opinion that every crime and every vice committed in that part of the country, was to be attributable to the beer-houses. Now, he must say, he had not received any information of that kind. He was disposed to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester, (Mr. M. Phillips), that no steps should be taken this year, that the inquiry should be postponed until the next, and by that time the House could have petitions or facts upon which to proceed. No allegations had been made in this debate on which the House could place credit—nothing had been brought forward but hearsay evidence. He for one, denied, that the Beer Act had done any mischief. What was the case the very year before the bill passed? Why, the southern counties of England were all but in a state of insurrection, neither life nor property was safe, and that occurred the very year before selling beer to be

127
consumed on the premises in these houses were allowed. He thought the measure had been productive of good and not of evil; but when the Legislature had neglected to educate the people, and had done everything to demoralise them, was it to be expected, when a restraint was removed, that at first some excess was not to be expected? The act ought to have a fair trial, and if it had been proved, as it had, that crime had diminished since its passing, why was the subject now brought forward? The Beer Act had, at least, had one good effect, it had diminished the evils arising out of the licensing system; but if the act were repealed, would not the old evils again arise? Was there not on the part of magistrates, and those who made them, a desire to invest them again with the power and influence which they had formerly so improperly enjoyed?
Sir J. Guestsaid, that in his part of the country he knew the new beer-shop system was much condemned, and that an alteration of it was loudly called for, not only by the better classes, but by a great portion of the poor. In one village, that he could mention, there were at least one hundred beer-shops, and their existence had led to every species of disorder and immorality.
Mr. Brothertonfully concurred that the subject ought to be inquired into, as exposing men to temptation was not the best mode of checking evil. There could be no doubt that the new beer-shops had led to intemperance—that intemperance led to poverty—and that poverty led to crime. He must say, that the noble Lord was entitled to the thanks of the country for the attention which he had bestowed on this important subject. He would not undertake to point out what the remedy was that they ought to apply, but still it was his opinion that, as evil existed, it should be removed with as little loss of time as possible. He had no wish to do injustice to those who had invested their property in this trade, but he, at the same time, thought that any system which occasioned intemperance on the part of the labouring poor, ought to be put an end to at all risks. He was an advocate for free trade, but where the particular article produced demoralization, he fully concurred in the propriety of imposing restrictions. It was well known that many of the beer-shops were kept by disreputable persons—that they were the resort of the ill-disposed, and that
128
no police could by possibility keep them in proper check. This was his opinion, and therefore he should support any proposition for inquiry, with a view of ascertaining the real facts, in order that they might see what course it was expedient to take.
Mr. Aglionbywas afraid that the country would think the feelings of that House was in favour of monopoly, and against the wishes of the public at large. He did not think, that they had any evidence before them which would justify a committee of inquiry; but still he was obliged to the noble Lord for moving for returns which under any view of the case would be valuable, inasmuch as they would show whether the evils complained of existed or not. In large towns, where there was a good police, throwing open the trade in beer was attended with no danger what ever, and he doubted whether any was to be apprehended in the remote or rural districts. He thought, that it was a great advantage to the poor to be able to obtain good and wholesome beer at a cheap rate, and therefore, although he agreed that some attention should be paid to the character of the parties keeping beer-shops, he hoped that Government would not deprive the poor of this advantage.
Mr. Parrottsaid, that so far from the magistrates of his part of the country finding fault with the New Beer Act, their opinion was, that it had been productive of very great benefit to the poor. For the magistrates of his part of the country he could say, that they had no wish to return back to the old licensing system, but, he was at the same time aware, that there were parties who were anxious to have the present law repealed. Instead of paying 4d. or 5d. a pot for beer, it was a great benefit to the labouring poor to be able to obtain it for 1½d. or 2d., and, therefore, even if there were some disadvantages in the present system, the advantages greatly preponderated. The only effect which restrictions could have, would be to cause a considerable defalcation in the revenue, and reduce the price of barley; and his opinion was, that it was to the interest of the country at large that there should be a free trade in both cider and beer. While, however, he supported free trade, he was prepared to support any motion for a better system of police.
Mr. Hindleywas not favourable to the beer-shop system, because it threw temp-

129
tation in the way of the young which led to demoralization. He thought, however, that the evils complained of might be remedied by an improved police. He was opposed to the old licensing system, and certainly had no wish to return to monopoly. He agreed, however, that the subject ought to be investigated by a Committee of that House.
Returns ordered.

PORTUGUESE AUXILIARY LEGION.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that the motion with which he meant to conclude was one to which he did not think, that the noble Lord (Palmerston) would object. It was for a copy of a letter, signed by Sir John Milley Doyle, and other officers of the auxiliary legion, complaining of the commission which had been appointed to investigate their claims. This body of men were induced to go out to Portugal, not with the direct encouragement of the Government, nor as in the case of Spain, by the repeal of an order in council; but it was notorious, that the expedition took place with the knowledge of the Government, and without any discountenance on their part. The service which they had rendered to the cause of Donna Maria was never disputed, the establishment of the present government of Portugal being mainly owing to their defence of Oporto, and their gallant exploits in other parts of Portugal. Their reward had been the greatest suffering and distress. For four years their claims had been kept in abeyance; commission after commission had been appointed, but with no satisfactory result to those ill-used persons. Even the present commission, which was of a more respectable character than those formerly appointed, must decide in a manner unfavourable to the claimants, if they wished their decision to be final; for, otherwise, the government of Portugal declared their intention of referring the question to another tribunal. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of a letter to which he had adverted.
Viscount Palmerstonwas perfectly ready to state his concurrence in the opinion that this body of men had rendered very important service, and were entitled to the liberal consideration of the Portuguese government, because it was unquestionable that, if they had not defended Oporto, n all probability the result of the siege would have turned out differently from
130
what it had done. So far as our Government was concerned, though they took no part in encouraging these persons to go out, he was perfectly ready to admit, that their going out promoted objects which the Government approved of, and, so far from throwing any censure on their conduct, they had entitled themselves to the support and attention of Government. Their claims had been left standing for a considerable time; but, for the last two years, the government of Portugal had been in such a state of uncertainty and periodical change, that the irregularity in not disposing of these demands was not so wonderful as it might be considered if the circumstances were different. He could assure his noble Friend, that the British Government had not been indifferent to those claims, and that our Minister at Lisbon had, from time to time, been instructed to afford every assistance, and had frequently been in communication on their behalf with the Portuguese government. He believed he might say, that, without his (our Minister's) interference, the commission now in force would not have been established. The present commission was appointed in December last. The Portuguese who belonged to it were unobjectionable, and it also comprised General Stubbs, an officer whose high character was a guarantee that his influence would be used for the proper consideration of these claims. He could not say, that he had any recent accounts of their proceedings. At the same time he could undertake to say, that they had not made the progress in the investigation which the claimants had a right to expect; and he was aware that the question pending before it was, whether a certain contract, on the observance of which the claimants insisted, was binding or not. He could assure his noble Friend, that he should not fail to pursue the matter, and that whatever influence the Government possessed, should be put in force to bring about a just settlement of these claims, and as early a settlement as might be consistent with the circumstances of the Portuguese government.
Motion agreed to.

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Sir Robert Batesondid not wish, at so late an hour, to enter into a full discussion of this subject, but, in moving for the return of which he had

131
given notice, he must say, that he thought there had been a strong disposition of late years, on the part of the Irish Government, to run down the unpaid magistrates of the country, and to establish stipendiary and paid magistrates in their place. Hitherto the magistrates had been selected from amongst the resident gentry, and he wished to know why those powers should now be taken out of their hands. He complained that, in many parts of the north of Ireland, stipendiary magistrates had been introduced where there was no occasion for them, and that, in several places, tumult and constant broils had been the consequence. The conduct of the Irish Government had, in this respect, been marked by great partiality, as was also the course they had adopted in putting down and oppressing the Protestants in that part of the kingdom to which he had before referred. Towards the Protestants and Orangemen of Ireland, the Government had acted in a most irritating and insulting manner; but he hoped, that those persons would soon show their enemies that they were not the lawless set they were described to be. He complained also of the partiality which had been shown in the last revision of the magistracy, and of the lord-lieutenants of counties not having been properly consulted. It was true, that they had been consulted, but it had been done so hastily as not to allow them time to give a proper opinion. Now the act, which was called the Lord-lieutenants' Act, had been extended to Ireland by Earl Grey, for the express purpose of the lord-lieutenants being enabled to recommend to the Lord Chancellor, persons whom they considered fit to be appointed magistrates; but that act had, in many instances, been unattended to. He did not attribute this to the noble Marquess who was now at the head of the Irish Government, but he had thought that it had been occasioned by a power greater even than that of the Lord-lieutenant. That, however, had been denied, and he must, therefore, consider it to have been produced by the Jesuits, who were not only numerous in Ireland, but also in England. The hon. Member moved for a return of all the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, specifying their names, salaries, and emoluments, the date of their appointment, their residence, and the districts under their charge, and for what counties they hold commissions of peace.
Viscount Morpethwould not offer the slightest opposition to the motion of the hon. Member. There was nothing in the system of the Government of Ireland which required concealment, and he had, therefore, no objection to produce the accounts which had been moved for. He would just explain that, as to the revision of the magistrates having been made hastily, it had entirely arisen from the necessity of the commissions being issued by a certain day, and that with respect to consulting the Lord-lieutenant, he held, that the right of appointing persons to the magistracy rested exclusively with the Lord Chancellor.
Motion agreed to.

OUDE.
Mr. Winthrop Praed, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice for papers respecting the Government of Oude, wished to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite two questions connected with it. It was, he believed, an acknowledged fact, that on the death of the late King of Oude, the British resident, at Lucknow, had interfered with an armed force to place the third son of the deceased King on the throne; and that that interference had caused the loss of a thousand lives. The questions which he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet were, first, whether the steps which had been taken by the British resident at Lucknow, or by the East-India Company, with respect to the succession to the throne of Oude, had any connection with the payment of the debts due by the government of Oude to the Company; and, secondly, whether the despatches which had been sent to Lord William Bentinck, authorising him to take possession of the territory of Oude, had any connection with the steps which had been taken with respect to the succession to the throne of Oude? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a number of papers connected with the succession of the government of Oude.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he had no objection to give the best answers that he could, to both the hon. Gentleman's questions; and he hoped, that those answers would prove satisfactory. To the production of the papers, also, with some slight alterations, he had no objection; and when they were produced, the hon. Gentleman and the House would be as well able as he was, to form a competent opinion of the conduct, which had been

133
pursued on the occasion, by the East-India Company and their agents. As far as he had hitherto been able to look at the returns, he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind, that the president at Lucknow, and the Governor-general had come to a correct conclusion on the question; and that the person who was now on the throne of Oude, was actually the legitimate successor to it. As to the bloodshed which had attended the transaction, it had been greatly exaggerated, the number of lives lost having been only 35 instead of a thousand. To the first question which had been put to him by the hon. Gentleman, his answer was, that there had been no stipulation, and, as far as he knew, that there had been no intention in taking the steps relative to the succession, to make any arrangement with respect to the pecuniary claims of the Company to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. To the hon Gentleman's other question his answer was, that in placing on the throne of Oude the individual who now sat there, there had been no stipulation, nor, as far as he knew, any intention to take that step for the sake of giving the East-India Company a greater right than they already possessed by treaty for the assumption of the territory of Oude. He would add, that so far was the course which had been pursued with respect to the succession, from adding to the chance (if it was a desirable object, which he did not believe it was) of enabling the Company to take possession of the territory of Oude—such was the character of the reigning Prince, that there was little probability, that he would afford us any pretext for assuming possession of the territory. Subject to some slight omissions and modifications, he had no objection to the hon. Gentleman's motions; and he could only say, that if, when the papers in question were laid on the table, they should appear to be incomplete, he would readily furnish any supplementary documents, that might be deemed necessary, being perfectly persuaded, that in the whole of the transaction in question, the East-India Company, both at home and abroad, had behaved with singular moderation, and had done nothing inconsistent with the high character which they had hitherto maintained.
Returns ordered.