Sitting of 6 June 1823

RECIPROCITY OF DUTIES.
The House having, on the motion of Mr. Huskisson, resolved itself into a committee on the Reciprocity of Duties,
Mr. Huskissonsaid it now devolved upon him to state shortly the nature of the alteration which he was about to propose in the commercial policy of the country. Although that alteration was in itself most important, and an entire departure from the principles which had hitherto governed our foreign commerce, yet his plan was so clear, and the benefit to be derived from it so obvious, that he trusted he should, in a few words, shew the committee the propriety of adopting it. Honourable members were aware that it had for a long time, indeed from the passing of the Navigation act, been our policy to impose upon cargoes, brought in foreign vessels, higher duties than those imported in British bottoms, and also in many instances to allow smaller drawbacks upon articles exported in foreign, than upon those exported in British ships. Now, whatever might be thought of the policy of such a measure, it was all very well so long as the nations with which we traded acquiesced in it. But when once the attention of those countries was called to it, it was not likely that such an inequality could last much longer. Accordingly it was found that the greatest commercial nation in the world, after Great Britain, and our great rival in trade—he meant the United States of America—finding the pressure of this tax, immediately commenced the retaliatory, system, by imposing duties upon all articles imported into that country by
796
British ships. The consequence of this was, that great embarrassment and inconvenience arose in the commerce between the two countries. So much so, that in cases where the increased duties countervailed the freight, it became necessary to have two sets of ships employed;, that was, to have British ships bring home American produce, and American ships taking our produce to that country; each being of course obliged to leave its own port in ballast. We however, in order to get rid of this inconvenience, were obliged to place American vessels on the same footing as English with respect to duties; and they, acting upon the system of reciprocity, did the same with respect to our ships. Portugal, finding the success which attended the course adopted by the Americans, soon obliged us to place her on the same footing. In a short time the pressure of this unequal duty began to be felt by other powers also, and steps were taken to adopt the retaliatory system. In July 1821, the United Netherlands passed a law, allowing a premium of 10 per cent. upon all articles imported in Dutch vessels. This was, in point of fact, though not directly, imposing a duty of 10 per cent. upon the cargoes of all other vessels. He was warranted in stating, that the government of the Netherlands, in adopting this regulation, were actuated by a sense of the disadvantage under which the commercial regulations of this country placed them; and that they did so, rather as a warning to us to change our policy, than a wish to establish it as a permanent measure; for he found that, though the law was passed in 1821, it was not to be acted upon until the beginning of 1823. Since that period it had been in operation, and had been strongly felt in the trade of this country with that power. But this was not the only power which had so acted. Prussia had also raised the dues on our vessels, and had intimated, in a manner not to be mistaken, that she would more fully adopt the retaliatory system, if we continued our present policy.—In such a state of things, it was quite obvious, that we must adopt one of two courses—either we must commence a commercial conflict through the instrumentality of protecting duties and prohibitions (a measure of impolicy which, he believed, no man would now venture to propose) or else we must admit other Powers to a perfect equality

797
and reciprocity of shipping duties. The latter, he thought, was the course they were bound to adopt. Its effect, he was persuaded, would lead to an increase of the commercial advantages of the country; while, at the same time, it would have a tendency to promote and establish a better political feeling and confidence among the maritime powers, and it would abate the sources of commercial jealousy. It was high time, in the improved state of the civilization of the world, to establish more liberal principles; and show, that commerce was not the end, but the means of diffusing comfort and enjoyment among the nations embarked in its pursuit. Those who had the largest trade must necessarily derive the greatest advantage from a better international regulation. He had no doubt that when England abandoned her old principle, the United Netherlands, and the other powers who were prepared to retaliate, would mutually concur in the new arrangement. He was prepared to hear from the hon. member near him (Mr. Robertson) that the proposed alteration would be prejudicial to the British shipping interest. In such an observation he could not concur; for he thought, on the contrary, that the shipping interest of this country had nothing to apprehend from that of other nations. The committee would recollect, that when the alteration in the navigation laws was projected, similar unfavourable anticipations were made by part of the shipping interest; but these anticipations proved in the result entirely unfounded. It was quite time to get rid of this retaliatory principle, which, if carried to the extreme of which it was susceptible, must injure every species of trade. One sort of shipping would be carrying the trade of one country, and then returning without an equivalent advantage, to make way for the countervailing regulations of another power, or else to return in ballast. What would the country think of the establishment of a waggon which should convey goods to Birmingham, and afterwards to return empty? The consumer would, he thought, be little satisfied with such a mode of regulating the conveyance of his merchandise. The consequence would be, that there must necessarily be two sets of waggons to do that work which was now performed by one, and that too at a considerable increase of price on the raw material. We were not able to carry on a
798
system of restriction, labouring, as we had been for some time, under many and unavoidable difficulties. Our trade and commerce, it was true, continued to revive rapidly; but they required that we should adopt every measure by which either could be fostered and improved. What he meant to propose was, that the duties and drawbacks should be imposed and allowed upon all goods equally, whether imported or exported in British or foreign vessels; giving the king in council a power to declare that such regulations should extend to all countries inclined to act upon a system of reciprocity, but reserving to the same authority the power of continuing the present restrictions with respect to those powers who should decline to do so. Some jealousy might perhaps be entertained, at vesting in the king in council such a power as that of continuing or removing a tax; but it should be considered, that here was no power of imposing a tax. All that the Crown could do in such a case, would be to continue a restriction where another power declined to act upon a system of reciprocity, or to impose a duty upon vessels belonging to another power, in retaliation for a similar duty imposed by that power. He knew that it intended the king of Prussia to abate his retaliation when England relaxed her regulations. Indeed he had the best authority, that of the Prussian minister in this country, for knowing that such was the intention. That minister had stated, in his note, the principle of his Prussian majesty to be, an admission, "that reciprocal commercial restrictions were reciprocal nuisances, prejudicial to all nations having reciprocal interests, and particularly to those engaged in extensive commerce: and that the policy of Prussia was, to substitute, in the place of reciprocal prohibitions, reciprocal facilities."—The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving:

1. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that his majesty be authorized, by order in council, to declare that the importation or exportation of merchandise in foreign vessels may take place upon payment of the like duties, and with the like drawbacks, bounties, and allowances, as are payable or granted upon similar merchandise when imported or exported in British vessels from or to countries in which no other duties are charged, or drawbacks, bounties, and allowances,

799
granted on the importation or exportation of merchandise in British vessels, than are charged or granted on such merchandise when imported or exported in vessels of such countries.

2. "That his majesty may be authorized by order in council, to direct the levying and charging of additional duties of customs, or the withholding of any drawbacks, bounties, or allowances, upon merchandise imported or exported into or from the united kingdom, in vessels belonging to any country in which higher duties shall have been levied, or smaller drawbacks, bounties, or allowances, granted upon merchandise when imported into or exported from such country in British vessels, than are levied or granted upon similar merchandise when imported or exported in vessels of such country."

Mr. Ellicesaid, that agreeing as he did with every thing which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, it was not his intention to enter into the details of the proposed measure. He rose solely for the purpose of repeating a request which he had made last year. He hoped that while the right hon. gentleman was taking off these restrictions, he would take care so to reduce the duties upon the materials used in ship-building, that the British might be enabled to compete with the foreign ship-owner. Take the article of hemp for instance. A duty of 9l. or 10 l. per ton was perhaps not much when hemp was 96 l. but now that hemp had fallen to 30 l., or 40 l. per ton, the duty was the same. He did not mean to say that the shipping of other countries were exempted from this duty, but only that care should be taken to keep the ship owners of this country on an equal footing with those of other countries, He thought also that returns ought to be made to the House of the manner in which this power was exercised by the king in council, and—
Mr. Huskisson.—That forms a part of my measure.
Mr. Ellice—Then I have nothing more to say.
Mr. Sykessaid, that when he considered; that this bill would go to the root of the naval system of Great Britain, and that under the law as it now stood, that navy had flourished and become great, he could not help recommending the utmost caution, before the proposed alteration was adopted. He hoped that, under the impression of such a feeling, it was not too much to ask the
800
right hon. gentleman to permit his bill to stand over until the next session, and to have it in the interim printed and circulated among the shipping interests, otherwise those interested would have no opportunity of being heard respecting their property. He also strongly recommended that government should attend to what had fallen from the hon. member for Coventry respecting a reduction of the taxes affecting the shipping interests, and also relax the excise system relating to contraband goods, to which he had adverted on a former night. There was another subject, which he hoped the committee on foreign trade would sift to the bottom: he meant the abominable charges upon British shipping in the shape of consulate duties; which, singularly enough, always decreased as the consul was situated near Great Britain, and increased according to the distance from the mother country.
Mr. Wallacemerely rose to express his general concurrence in the resolutions of his right hon. friend. He did not mean to deny, that the system of discriminating duties which this country had adopted had been of advantage, as long as foreign powers were disposed to submit to it; but now, when every country was desirous of affording protection to its own commerce, it was impossible that such a system could continue without producing retaliation. He was perfectly convinced that a system of reciprocity between this and other countries would be found to be the most advantageous that could be pursued. It would not change his opinion of the propriety of his right hon. friend's proposition, to find that it was opposed by the shipping interest; for, in the course of his official experience, he had found, that on every occasion when the ship-owners had come forward to oppose a public measure originating with the government, they were universally in the wrong. With respect to what had been said about the necessity of delay, he must observe, that if the measure was desirable at all, the sooner it was adopted the better. If the ship-owners were hostile to the proposed bill, parliament, be had no doubt, would soon be made acquainted with their sentiments; for he had always found them very ready to state their objections to any measure which had been proposed by him. He believed that the fears which had been expressed of the injury likely to result to the mercantile interest from carrying into effect the views of his right hon. friend

801
were perfectly groundless. The shipping of Great Britain was perfectly able to compete with that of any other country.
Mr. Robertsonopposed the resolutions, on the ground that, if carried into effect, they would increase the distresses under which the shipping interest at present laboured. He would prove, from documents in his hand, that the shipping interest was not in so flourishing a state as had been represented. In the period from 1821 to 1823, there had been a falling off in ship-building to the extent of 161 ships, and 122,000 tons. In the same period, there had also been a decrease in our navigation, to the amount of 732 ships, 129,000 tons, and 8,000 seamen. Such had been the consequence of the system recommended by political economists. The end of that system would be, to drive the trade of Great Britain into the hands of foreign countries. This was the only country in Europe which was abandoning the system of protecting duties. A few years ago, when America obtained some concessions from us, she wished to obtain similar concessions from France; but the French government would not yield a jot, and imposed a light duty on importations from America, who, in her turn, did the same with respect to France. The views entertained by the president of the Board of Trade might be favourable to the mercantile interests, but they were certainly prejudicial to ship-owners and builders.
Sir J. Coffinsaid, that the hon. member who had just sat down, seemed to entertain serious alarms for nothing at all.
Mr. Ricardosaid, that the country was much indebted to his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) for the enlightened views he had taken, and the measures he had brought forward, to improve the commerce of the country. Parliament had, at length, begun to find out, that restrictions on commerce were restrictions, not on other countries, but on ourselves. It certainly was a question of policy whether England should take off the duties without receiving reciprocal advantage from foreign powers; but, if foreign powers recognised the same liberal principle, there could be no doubt that the advantage to England would be double the advantage which any other country could derive from the regulation. An hon. member had said, that it would be to his personal advantage to second the principles laid down, but that personal benefits ought to be sacrificed for the good of the navy. Now,
802
with respect to the navy, he had no apprehension whatever. The state of that navy, the facility for building ships, the superiority of this country in that branch of art, the great capital and enterprise of the people, were so many securities, that the navy would not fall into decay. He hoped soon to see Canada deprived of the preference which she enjoyed in the timber trade, and placed, in that respect, upon the same footing as Norway and Sweden.
Mr. T. Wilsonrose, not to oppose the resolutions, but to express a hope that if the bill to be introduced should be found to operate injuriously to the shipping interests, government would repeal the duties which affected ship-building.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he knew it as a fact, that the duties between France and the United States of America were reciprocal. All the British ship-owners complained of labouring under great disadvantage, and the loud complaints of that body were certainly deserving of attention. It was stated, that five-sixths of the carrying trade between Great Britain and America was carried on in American ships. Now, it was not too much for the ship-owners to expect, that all the disadvantages which the British government could remedy would be removed. He was of opinion that the duty on timber imported from the Baltic ought to be reduced; and with that exemption he would support the principle of the bill. The inconvenience under which the ship-owners laboured from the present system were striking. It was the duty of this country to act upon liberal principles, and to give way in some instances, in order to preserve the commercial interests of Europe, and of this country in particular.
The resolutions were agreed to.

IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Dominick Brownestrongly objected to the bill, the provisions of which, he contended, were calculated rather to irritate than conciliate the people of Ireland. He thought it would be better not to press the bill now, but take time to consider the subject; and with that impression on his mind, he must oppose the Speaker's quitting the chair. He should, instead of the House now going into a committee, propose, that the further proceedings on this bill be postponed to this day six

803
months. He had two great objections to the measure in its present shape. The first was to the mode of constituting the vestry, and imposing the tithe. By the bill as it now stood, a majority of the payers of tithe would be taxed without being represented in the vestry. This was one objection which he had to the present measure. The second was, the power given to arbitrators, or assessors, to raise any living one-third of its present value at their discretion. He would rather the tithe system should continue in its present state, than have it thus regulated at the expense of the rights and properties of individuals.
Mr. Dennis Brownesaid, he did not wish to revive angry recollections, but he would say, that the former policy of England towards Ireland was fraught with injustice and oppression. Ireland had a flourishing woollen manufacture, a branch of trade which, if encouraged, would have gone on progressively advancing, and would of itself have been a source of national prosperity. Yet king William promised his parliament to put down that trade; and his majesty kept his word. The Irish woollen manufacture was destroyed, and a fatal blow was thereby given to the prosperity of Ireland. The growth of tobacco was also prevented; and Ireland was prevented from disposing of her wool to any country but England, and to England only at her own price. The hon. gentleman went on to explain the motives which induced the Irish parliament to take away the agistment tithe. The regulations on this head were most objectionable in principle, and would prove most burthen-some in operation. He strongly objected to the power being given to the arbitrators, to advance the claims of clergy at their own discretion. The bill was so objectionable, that he should oppose its proceeding any further at present. He thought the measure should rest where it was till the next session, and that a parliamentary commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the several parishes in Ireland, and to report their observations to the House.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, he was one of those who felt that some of the provisions of the bill were highly objectionable; still he was most anxious that the measure should go to a committee. The bill contained principles to which he never could agree; and if it were not amended, it would be his painful duty to oppose it. The mea-
804
sure, countenanced as it was by every description of persons in Ireland, the rich as well as the poor, had given rise to strong expectations. The duty, therefore, of that House was, to give it every possible consideration. Should they be obliged ultimately to reject it, they would then have the consolation of feeling, that they had done their duty.
Sir J. Newportwas of the same opinion. He thought if they now stopped the bill, it would have an ungracious appearance. They had not yet reached the clauses which were the most objectionable. He was of opinion they should go through the committee, and render the bill as efficient as possible; and after it came out of the committee, every gentleman would be at full liberty to reject or support it as he thought proper.
Mr. W. Bankesdisapproved of the bill as it now stood; but, in deference to the Irish gentlemen, he would not oppose its going into a committee.
Mr. Wetherellrepeated his objections to the measure. If it was at all events to be rejected, he thought it was immaterial at what stage the rejection took place. He should therefore oppose going into the committee.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, it was scarcely possible that a measure of such magnitude and importance, involving so many opposite interests, and exciting so many apprehensions, should not be liable to some objections. If the hon. and learned gentleman thought the bill incapable of amendment, the most parliamentary course would be, to suffer it to go through the committee with all its defects, with the avowed intention of opposing it when it should come out of the committee; but it would be most unusual and unfair to strangle the measure in its present stage. If the bill were thrown out in the present stage, the disquietude out of which it had originated would necessarily be increased, and its rejection would not merely be the loss of a good, but a great practical misfortune.
Colonel Barrydid not think the measure could be rendered acceptable by any modification. If the compulsory clause were abandoned, he should have no objection to the measure, being rendered as unobjectionable as it was capable of being rendered; but, if that clause were persevered in, he should resist going into the committee; for he was satisfied that the measure, so far from having a conciliatory

805
effect, would extend disquietude to every part of Ireland.
Mr. Peelsaid, that his right hon. friend's objection to the compulsory clause was not a valid reason against going into the committee, because he would have a full opportunity of discussing that clause, and stating all his objections to it, in the committee. For his own part, if the compulsory clause were omitted, he would lend his aid in endeavouring to make the bill as perfect as it was capable of being made; but he would not consent to any principle of compulsion, unless the full rights of the church were secured.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldnet only objected to the compulsory clause, but thought the principle of the bill so objectionable, that even if that clause were withdrawn, he should still feel it his duty to oppose it. He would consent to go into the committee, with the declaration that his objections to the measure were not only unabated but increased, and with the anticipation that he should be ultimately compelled to vote against the whole bill.
The House having resolved itself into the Committee,
Mr. Goulburncalled the attention of the committee to an amendment which he thought founded in justice. The object of it was, that where tithes had been paid or agreed for, and the sum so paid or agreed for was not adequate to the just claim of the clergyman, it should be in the power of the commissioners to add to their award a sum not exceeding one-third of the amount of the tithes.
Mr. Calcraftthought it would be sufficient to give the commissioners a power to add one-fifth.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldthought the mode of appointing commissioners so vicious, that he should not consent to give them any discretionary power. The effect of this amendment would enable the commissioners to give the clergyman a compensation for tithes which no one had ever thought of demanding.
Colonel Barrysaid, it would remove some of his objections to the bill, if an appeal, were given from the decision of the commissioners, to, the lord-lieutenant in council.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he-should oppose any such amendment, because he thought an attempt to reach such a nicety in legislating upon this subject would have the effect of making the bill inoperative. In some parishes there were 2,000 persons
806
paying tithes, most of them low and ignorant' men. Now, how could they conduct an appeal? Besides, the lord-lieutenant and council were hot accustomed to hear and determine appeals, and were not always sitting. If this amendment were adopted, there would be an appeal in every case where there was a difference between the clergyman and his parishioners, which would add greatly to the expenses of the parties.
Mr. Goulburn'samendment was agreed to.
Upon the clause giving to the umpire the power to fix the amount of composition to be paid by any parish,
Mr. S. Ricecontended, that the rule by which the rate of composition was fixed, should be the amount received by the clergyman on the average of the last three-years. He alluded to the resolutions adopted at a meeting of the noblemen and land proprietors of Ireland, held some time ago at the Thatched-house tavern, and contended that the basis of those resolutions was the same as that on which he now wished to have the present mode of valuing tithes in Ireland established. It should be recollected that the cleryman would gain a considerable advantage by having his present precarious income made certain.
Mr. Goulburnprotested against the course which the hon. member proposed to adopt. When he proposed to take the last year's receipts as a standard, did he recollect what was the present state of man parts of Ireland? the difficulty there had been in collecting any tithe at all, and how unnaturally the incomes of the clergy had, in many instances, been reduced? He denied that the resolutions adopted at the Thatched-house tavern would bear the construction put upon them by the hon. gentleman. Those resolutions stated, that, for the tranquillity of Ireland, it was desirable that, for the present pre carious income of the clergy, a certain equivalent should be given them of the full value of their tithe. Now, a full equivalent must mean something equal to what they were entitled to under the law: it never could be meant that the precarious income of the last year or two was to be taken as the standard of full equivalent.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that the object of those who agreed to the resolutions which had been adverted to, was, to give to the clergy a certain, instead of a precarious

807
income, and that in such a manner as not to set the clergyman and his parishioners in opposition to each other. When the right hon. gentleman talked of the reduced incomes and deprivations of the clergy, he should not forget the deprivations which the landlords had suffered, and the reductions of rents which they had been obliged to submit to. The proposition of his hon. friend only related to compensation to the clergyman, and not to future composition, which was to be fixed on the average of the last seven years, and would give to the clergy an income far above the standard of the present price of corn.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldthought the clergy would obtain a great advantage by getting security for their incomes on the land of Ireland, instead of precarious payment as at present, from an insolvent peasantry.
Mr. Dawsonobjected to the proposition. Did the House know what at present was the state of the South of Ireland, and of the clergy in that part of the kingdom? He had that day received a letter from an individual In that quarter, upon whose statements he could rely: and, amongst other instances, the writer stated, that the clergyman of a parish valued at 800 l. a year, was now in a state of great distress, having 7,000 l. due to him for tithes. In another parish, valued at 1,200 l. a year, the clergyman was in the same situation, and was now deliberating whether he should or should not throw up the living. The writer of the letter himself, who was the incumbent of a living estimated at 1,400 l. a year, had, in the last year, received no more than 160 l., and had several thousand pounds due to him for arrears. Under this state of things would it be just, to estimate the amount of compensation upon the receipts of last year?
Mr. S. Ricehad never contended that the value of the living was to be estimated upon thereceipt of last year; but in speaking of compensation to a man for what he had never had, he contended they were not called on to give a compensation for what it was not likely the clergyman would ever recover. He would give as much in the case of the 7,000 l. arrears mentioned by the right hon. gentleman as the 7,000 l. was fairly worth.
Mr. Peelcondemned this mode of valuing compensation, as cruel and unjust to the clergyman.
Mr. Grey Bennetsaid, that a three years' average out of the last seven years might
808
be so selected, as to give a much higher price of corn than we could look to have kept up in future. If the landlords of Ireland could be brought to agree to such a contract, he had only to wish them joy of their bargain.
Mr. Ricardothought the composition should be regulated every three years, and that such regulation should be fixed on the average price of corn for the last three years.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the clause for regulating the mode of the award by the commissioners,
Colonel Barryproposed, that a right of appeal should be allowed to persons who paid 5l. in tithes, if dissatisfied with the award, to the lord lieutenant in council.
Mr. Wetherellfelt objections to placing these new powers in the commissioners, and was still more opposed to giving so large a power to the appellant jurisdiction with which the lord lieutenant, with his council, was to be intrusted. He considered that those powers were at variance with all the existing laws for the regulation of church property.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, that examples of arming the Irish government with a similar power might be found. The lord lieutenant and his council were the court of appeal for cases in which salvage, which had been awarded by the parish officers for useful service in rescuing from ship wreck, should be called in question. They had the same power in the case of minister's money and in several others. He thought the appeal was necessary to pre vent the corruption or misconduct of the commissioners of award.
The clause was agreed to. The next clause proposed was that, which has been termed the compulsory clause. The object of it was, in cases where the vestry and the minister differed as to the appointment of an umpire, to empower the lord lieutenant to appoint a commissioner to make a composition, according to the quantity and value of the land in the parish.
Colonel Barryobjected to this clause, because it would convey to men who were not likely to be well qualified, the power of judging in all questions of tithe many of which involved nice and subtile points of law.
Mr. S. Ricestrongly objected to this clause, which went to give the clergy their, extreme rights, and greatly to extend their present incomes. In eases where

809
the clergy were to pay, this question of extreme right was never heard of; but where they were to receive, it was never forgotten. If they were to be paid their extreme right, it was the duty of the House to call on them to do all which the tithe was granted for. He especially alluded to their duties as regarded the education of the poor. It had been the intention of the present lord Maryborough, had he remained in office, td have proposed the imposing a duty of 2½ per cent, on the incomes of the clergy, to raise a fund to be applied to educating the poor. He would take the sense of the House upon this clause of the bill, and hoped that not a single Irish member would be found to vote for giving this extreme right to the clergy.
Mr. Humewished to know if it was intended to introduce a clause into the bill, declaring that no clergyman should be entitled to composition who did not reside on the living?
Mr. Goulburnreplied, that he had no such intention at present. The bill was already sufficiently incumbered with provisions, and there were besides other reasons which rendered it inexpedient to add regulations upon a subject which could not be said properly to belong to it. Nobody could be more anxious than he was to enforce the residence of the clergy of Ireland. During the short time he had been in that country, his efforts had been directed to promote so desirable an object; and although he would not pledge himself to take any particular steps at present, he was convinced that some such measure was necessary to secure the permanent improvement and amelioration of the people.
Mr. W. Bankessaid, he must object to this clause, which went to constitute the lord lieutenant in council a court of equity.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldobjected to the clause, which, in two-thirds of Ireland, would give to the clergy a payment of tithe never contemplated. The bill, in its present state, would endanger the very existence of the Established church, and, instead of a measure of conciliation, be one of irritation.
Mr. Welherellopposed the clause, because it would compel the government to take in some cases a bad title, and yet give to the clergyman a larger tithe than he would otherwise have had.
Mr. C. Grantthought great credit was due to the government, for having origin-
810
ated this measure, which would go far to alleviate one of the greatest evils which Ireland was afflicted. He objected, however, to that part of the compulsory; clause, which would give the commissioner the power to enforce the full legel tithes.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, there were two questions before the committee; namely whether they should adopt the amendment, or resist the clause altogether. To adopt the amendment would be dangerous, as it would be to adopt a principle which might be applied to other species of property. It would be better to leave out the clause altogether.
Mr. Abercromby, though he was a friend to Catholic emancipation, was no' friend to Catholic ascendancy. If this clause should pass, he agreed that the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland was not worth five years' purchase. He objected to it, but approved of the bill. He hoped some arrangement might be come to, which should send it forth as a relief to the clergy in Ireland.
Mr. Peelwas desirous that the compulsory clause should be committed altogether. If he were asked, whether he wished for a commission to estimate and to give to the clergy the full value of their dormant rights, he replied at once, that he wished for no such thing. But he was opposed to the compulsory clause upon principle.
The Committee divided: For the Amendment, 39. Against it, 84. The clause was then agreed to, and the House resumed.