HL Deb 28 August 1833 vol 20 cc895-6
The Earl of Wicklow

presented a petition from the rev. Mr. Hincks against the Irish Tithe Bill. He was not aware till now, that that Bill had been passed. It was passed at the Morning Sittings.

The Duke of Wellington

had been equally taken, by surprise by the passing of this Bill at the twelve o'clock sitting. He was the more surprised, as he found that a clause which he had introduced in Committee had been this day struck out on the Motion of the noble Viscount opposite. He complained of this mode of proceeding, and protested against it. The proceedings of that House seemed to be in confusion, and he trusted that more regularity might be observed for the future.

Viscount Melbourne

regretted this misunderstanding, for it was no more. He thought, that every noble Lord was aware that the Bill would be passed at the early sitting. To do so was necessary, for the House of Commons had a right to expect that they should have some time to consider the Amendments that had been made in their Lordships' House. He had not been aware, that the noble Duke had intended to persevere with the clause.

The Duke of Wellington

had not had the slightest intention to give up the clause; and what he said on the subject now was, that the House ought to have had notice of this intention to pass the Bill at the early Sitting.

The Earl of Wicklow

said, he must take the liberty of declaring, that this was a most unwarrantable proceeding on the part of his Majesty's Ministers. Were their Lordships' proceedings in Committee to be treated with contempt, and Amendments which had been agreed to in Committee to be afterwards surreptitiously taken out of a Bill? It was a degree of contempt really not to be tolerated. Now, that he was upon his legs, he wished to ask whether, if any of the persons to whom, under the Irish Tithe Bill, the loan was to be made, should not wish to avail themselves of that loan, but should, as he believed many of them desired, have recourse to their former legal remedies, to recover their property, the Government would continue to afford them that aid in collecting tithes which had been given before the order of the month of June last?

Viscount Melbourne

said, that it was not for him to state what would be the conduct of the Government in circumstances which had not yet happened. It would determine what to do when those circumstances did occur. The assistance given by the army and police before June last was, because the tithes had then become a Government revenue. They were not so now, and matters reverted to their former state. It was not the policy of any Government to employ military in the first instance to enforce the payment of a legal claim; but if legal proceedings were resorted to, and legal process was openly resisted by force, it might become the duty of a Government to see that that legal process was obeyed.

Conversation dropped.