Sitting of 10 July 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Committed:—Linen Manufactures (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. JAMES E. GORDON, from Brailsford, for the Abolition of Slavery, the Discontinuance of the Grant to Maynooth College, and for the better observance of the Sabbath Day.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
Mr. James E. Gordonpresented a Petition from Glasgow against the grant to the College of Maynooth.
Upon the Motion that it be printed,
Mr. O'Connellopposed the printing of the petition, from its containing the word idolatry. He thought that the language

215
of polemics should not be introduced into Parliament, for if such were the case, terms enough of abuse would be found on both sides. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Johnston), and the gallant Officer near him (Captain Gordon) seemed exceedingly anxious to convert himself and others to their doctrine, but he begged to assure them, that the use of abusive language would never effect such an object. For his own part, he frequently treated such conduct with silence. But he could not permit a petition, from some place or the other in the wilds of Scotland, when ancient feuds and bad feelings were called into account, to be printed; it might lay on the Table. He would say, too, for his Catholic brethren, that they would rather perish at the stake than submit to idolatry. He had never presented a petition containing the word heretic.
Mr. Dundasconfessed he entertained the same opinion as the petitioners. If any petitions did come from the wilds of Scotland, they were always couched in respectful language; and if the petition was not printed by order of the House, it would be at the cost of the petitioners.
Mr. Sheilobserved, that this petition contained phrases equally objectionable with those contained in a former petition presented by the hon. Member. It talked of Catholics being red with the blood of the saints.
Mr. James E. Gordoncontended, that no language was made use of that was not to be found in the standard works of the Protestant Church.
Question negatived.

CONDUCT OF COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, the Petition which he had to present deserved the attention of the House, and particularly of those Gentlemen who took an interest in the administration of the affairs of their respective counties. Though it stated the grievances of one county only, yet it could not be indifferent to the representatives of other counties. It was voted at a general meeting, presided over and signed by the Sheriff. Its general purport was, a complaint against the system of management pursued by the Magistrates of Cheshire in the business of that county. The grounds of complaint were many; and, as they could not possibly be interesting in their details to the House, he should merely read the heads of each from the
216
petition, and then offer a few remarks upon two of them. The first complaint was, the arbitrary and oppressive manner in which the Cheshire Constabulary Act was carried into execution. Secondly, the extravagant expenditure of the public money. Cheshire had a source of revenue peculiar to itself in the profits of the river Weaver, which added above 16,000 l. annually to the county rate. The expenses of the county were, however, double those of Essex or Derby, and much greater than those of any other county of an equal population. Thirdly, the denial of justice to those rate-payers who appealed for redress to the Quarter Sessions, the Magistrates shutting themselves up in a private room, and thence issuing their decrees. Fourthly, the additional fees extracted by these extra police-officers beyond those that the Act permits. Fifthly, the voting away a large sum of the public money for barracks at Stayley Bridge, unnecessarily, and uncalled-for, in which transaction a gentleman who lived in Lancashire, and came only to qualify for the county of Chester, took a prominent part. Sixthly, the extravagant expense of the gaols. Seventhly, the petitioners complained, that money was thrown away in building a lunatic asylum, much larger than the state of the lunatics of the county required. Eighthly, the large salaries paid to the Gaolers. Ninthly, too large an allowance to the Clerk of the Peace. Tenthly, the not dividing the Court of Quarter Sessions into two separate Courts, according to Act of Parliament. Various other kinds of complaint were, however, stated, with the particulars of which he would not trouble the House; but they summed them up by saying, that these burthens were placed upon them by Magistrates who had, some of them, no property in the county, and who could not have any sympathy or fellow-feeling with the petitioners. These were the allegations contained in this petition. It was his wish not to state his opinion on many of them: there were two topics, however, upon which he must make a few observations. Gentlemen were, perhaps, not aware that there existed in Chester a constabulary or police Act peculiar to that city. This had not, however, any reference to the ancient palatine jurisdiction of that county, for at the very moment (now three years ago) that pains were taken to rid Cheshire of that cumbrous jurisdiction which separated

217
it from the rest of the country, that very moment was chosen by the Magistrates of that county, backed as they were and supported by the Government, to introduce this Act, which was totally at variance with the common law of the country, and contained regulations differing from those of any other county in the kingdom. He was then a Member of this House, and both here and in the Committee he had in vain remonstrated against its introduction. He was told by a right hon. Baronet, then Secretary of State, that it was necessary as an experiment for the rest of the country. Why Chester should be thus selected for an experiment he never could understand. Had any necessity existed, they must have submitted even to the severest laws—to an Insurrection Act. But no such cause was pretended. The experiment then was made; they were cajoled, and what was the consequence?—This petition, voted unanimously at a county meeting, deprecating the continuance of this law; and another, which lay beside him, signed by 1,400 rate-payers in his own hundred. This was the fruit of the partial and experimental legislation. He did not mean to assert that this law was of no use. It would be absurd to say that 100 constables dispersed over the county would not be as useful as the village constable in suppressing riot, and in detecting crime. This was not denied, that, in some places, it had acted favourably to the public peace. It was very convenient. But who paid for it? That was the question. He objected not to the principle of the Act, but to the arbitrary exercise of the powers given by it. He complained not of the Magistrates, but of this law, which gave them powers which they might exercise without reference to the wants of those whom they wished to protect, or to the numbers and character of the population whom they desired to control. Not to take up the time of the House, he would give one instance. The north-eastern part of Cheshire was composed of manufactories. If crime or insubordination was to be expected in any part, it would be in that dense population. Now, in the hundred of Macclesfield, the Magistrates had discreetly used the powers given them, and had appointed eight constables under the Act, which number was considered ample and sufficient. In the hundred of Nantwich, on the contrary, which contained 100,000 inhabitants less than the
218
Macclesfield hundred, the Magistrates appointed twenty. This number, it was true, had been since diminished; but the people, still dissatisfied, appealed against the decision of their Magistrates to the Quarter Sessions. Their petitions were presented in open court; yet the Magistrates retired to their private room, and refused the justice which was sought at their hands, without assigning any reason whatever for their decision. If he had not another object in view, to which he should presently advert, he should certainly have moved to repeal or to amend this Act; but, finding that his Majesty's Ministers meant to bring in a bill for the regulation of the general police of the kingdom, he would take the liberty of asking his hon. friend, the Under-Secretary of State, now in his place, whether, in the ensuing Session, if he brought in such a measure, he would have any objection to include Cheshire in the general Act, and thus virtually to repeal their local Act. He had yet to say a few words upon a subject of more general interest—the mode of doing the business at the Quarter Sessions. It was known that the power of Magistrates was very much increased, by recent Acts, in levying rates and taxes upon the people. This could not, perhaps, be avoided; but, at least, it was some consolation to the people, who were so heavily burthened, and that against the principles of the Constitution, to know the grounds which induced the Magistrates to lay these taxes upon them. This could not be done unless by open discussion, as in this House. He hoped Gentlemen would take this into their serious consideration, and that some one would introduce a general measure to effect this object. The requests of the petitioners were fair, constitutional, and reasonable. They wanted no privileges; they desired only to be put upon the same footing, and under the same law, as the rest of their fellow-countrymen.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, the petition was rather that of Mr. Edward Davies Davenport than of the county of Chester; and, after giving considerable attention to the subject, he must say, that the magistrates, he thought, had only done their duty. Instead of the county rates having been quadrupled in twenty years, there had, in fact, been only a slight increase. There had been a necessity, unfortunately, to enlarge the county gaol, and to build a new lunatic asylum; but the necessity for

219
those two expenses, ordered, as they were, by the law, the Magistrates were obliged to incur; and he was surprised to hear his hon. friend complain of the latter, as he had always understood that the building had his sanction. He would not oppose the receipt of the petition; but he thought it proper to say these few words in vindication of the Magistrates.
Mr. Lambthought a further vindication of these gentlemen quite unnecessary. He could not say when a general police bill would be introduced, but when it was, it would, of course, embrace all the districts of the country.
Mr. Warburtonwas quite satisfied that many of the complaints against the Magistrates were well founded; and, as they were of a most serious nature, he thought they demanded an investigation.
Mr. Pagetsaid, it was well known that the Magistrates had, at present, uncontrolled power over the county expenditure; and, considering the amount raised and expended, it was high time that they should be subjected to some check.
Mr. John Woodsaid, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the Court of Magistrates was open to the public, and the accounts were annually passed. It was high time, however, that a law should be introduced, to make the practice uniform.
Mr. Wilbrahamwould only say, that the petition was in no other sense Mr. Davenport's than he moved and prepared it; but it had the hearty concurrence of the public meeting called to take the matter into consideration.
Petition to be printed.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. Spencerose to move for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the practice of the Court of Chancery. He observed that the promised bill of the Lord Chancellor would apply to some part of the proceedings in that Court, but not to that part to which he now wished to direct the attention of the House. The object of his Bill was, to prevent expense and delay in the administration of the estate of a deceased testator or intestate. At present, if a creditor of a deceased's estate claimed payment of his demand, he had to file a bill, at a considerable expense, and to that bill an answer was put in, also at a great expense, and both bill and answer were drawn up in a common form, and required no skill to prepare them; but their enormous
220
length rendered them very costly. It was the object of this Bill to propose, that, instead of this process of bill and answer, as now adopted, where it was sought to administer the estate of a testator or an intestate, there should be employed a short form, comprising but a few lines, and which should in substance amount to a citation of the opposite party before the Court. This citation should state, that the party at whose suit it was issued was a creditor on the estate of the testator or intestate who had died indebted to him, that the defendant was the executor or administrator of the deceased party, and should call on him to show cause why the estate of the deceased should not be administered in payment of his debts; or if the suit was brought by a residuary legatee, why, after payment of the debts and legacies, the residue should not be applied in the manner stated in the will itself. Unless the defendant could show some real cause why this should not be done, he should not be allowed to put in any answer at all, and the estate should then be administered in the same manner as it would be now, after the Master's report and the other proceedings. This would enable a party to interpose to prevent waste on the part of an executor; would compel him instantly, after he had satisfied the debts and legacies, to pay the balance into Court for the benefit of the residuary legatee; and, in a summary manner, would enable an executor or administrator to restrain creditors from proceeding at law, without the expense of that course which was now unnecessary to be adopted to secure the same end. In this manner the expenses of proceedings at law, and the expenses incurred in preventing those proceedings would both be saved, and suits, which now sometimes swallowed up the profits of an estate, would be prevented. There would, besides, be this advantage attending this Bill; it would enable the legatee or the executor at once to obtain, by a short mode of proceeding, the opinion of the Court on the construction of the will, without compelling the Court to take on itself the administration of the estate; and this would be highly advantageous, when all that was wanted was the opinion of the Court, in order to enable an executor or administrator to administer the estate. Connected with the bill which the Lord Chancellor was himself to bring in, a creditor or an executor

221
would be enabled to conduct a suit at one-third of the expense which was now necessarily incurred. In short, it would save all the expense prior to going into the Master's office. On referring back, it would be found, that the abuses of the Court of Chancery had been complained of, from the time of Elizabeth down to the present day; and though Commissions had been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into those abuses, no effectual remedy had as yet been devised. He begged to move for leave to bring in a bill to diminish the expense and delay of proceedings in the High Court of Chancery in certain cases.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that he should reserve what he had to say for the future stages of the Bill, as they would afford a fitter opportunity for discussion. He must, however, take the liberty of expressing his regret that this Bill had been delayed to the very last moment; more especially as the present Ministers, when in opposition, had pledged themselves to a Reform in the Court of Chancery, and yet, after accepting office, had allowed two whole years to elapse without making any progress in redeeming that pledge.
Mr. Spencehad pledged himself to the House, that after last Christmas he would introduce a Bill to regulate the Master's Office; and that bill was actually prepared, and would have been brought in; but that, after being submitted to the Lord Chancellor, it was thought that it would be better to bring in a more general bill, for correcting the abuses in all the offices; and when it was considered how many offices there were, he trusted that the House would agree with him, that from Christmas to the present time was not too long a period for the preparation of such a measure.
Leave given.

FORGERIES ON THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Hume, in moving for Returns of the number of Forgeries that had been committed on the Bank, for the transfer of Stock, since the year 1800, adverted to a petition which had been intrusted to him by the creditors of Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy, and Co., complaining of the conduct of the Bank of England. He considered that this was a question in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more concerned than any other man in the country, because it was his duty to
222
take care that those persons who placed their property in the public funds, did not suffer any loss by the negligence of the agents of the Government. The present was exactly a case which bore upon this principle; and he, therefore, thought that it was one which ought to be settled by the noble Lord in his official capacity, and not by the Bank of England, who were parties interested in the results. The complaint that he had to make against the Bank was, that it had allowed Fauntleroy, by means of forged powers of attorney, to obtain possession of stock; and when the rightful owners applied for the transfer the Bank refused to allow it, and had succeeded in preventing it. This he held to be an act of gross injustice; and he called upon the House to interfere on that ground. The petitioners were the creditors of Marsh, Fauntleroy, and Co.; and the Bank had announced that they would not pay the interest, nor allow any transfer of the stock, unless the creditors, in the first instance, endeavoured to rank themselves for part payment out of the bankrupts' estate. The creditors, in reply to this, alleged that the Bank had no right to force them to establish their claim; and he was instructed by this petition to state, that three decisions in Courts of Law went to prove that the money which Fauntleroy had thus fraudulently received, had never been put into the common banking stock of the house of which he was one of the partners; from which it clearly appeared, that these persons had no claim upon the assets of this banking concern. Since the detection of the forgeries, it had been discovered that for seventeen years this system of forgery had been carried on by Fauntleroy, entirely owing to the neglect and inattention of the servants of the Bank. From 1807 to 1824, Fauntleroy was thus in the habit of transferring stock on forged powers, till at last nearly 300,000 l. had been transferred from the real owners. During that period, on several occasions, doubts arose, on the part of the officers appointed to inspect the powers of attorney, as to the genuineness of the signatures; and the Bank actually took security from Fauntleroy that they were true and proper signatures; after which it was content to prosecute no further inquiry. Under all these circumstances, he contended that the Bank had been to blame; and had, therefore, no right to endeavour to screen itself by forc-

223
ing those who had suffered through these forgeries, to prove on the joint estate of the bankrupts. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the following Return: "Of all Forgeries committed since the year 1800, in the signatures of Transfers of Government Stocks or Securities, in the books kept at the Bank of England, or in Powers of Attorney, for making such Transfers; together with the dates of such Transfers and Powers, the times when, and the names of the persons by whom such Forgeries were respectively committed; the particulars and amount of Stock so affected to be transferred under such Forgeries, and whether, and at what times, and by whom, the names of such Stockholders have been replaced in the Bank books, and the Dividends thereof paid, and whether with or without suit, and whether unconditionally, or upon any and what conditions imposed by the Bank of England upon the Stockholder."
Sir Edward Sugden, having been retained as counsel for the creditors, would, if he were in another place, make use of the expression that he was on the same side as the hon. Gentleman, though, of course, he could not pretend to vie with him in ability, or in his knowledge of the law: nor, he trusted, should he imitate the hon. Gentleman in that confusion of facts with which he had indulged the House. But, though it would be much to the interest of his clients to receive the sanction of the House, he felt that he had a still higher duty to perform, as a Member of the Legislature, and in that capacity he begged to enter his protest against the proceeding of the hon. Gentleman. The point at issue had gone through all the Courts of Westminster Hall, and was now pending in the House of Lords, where it would be finally decided in a short time; and he, therefore, asserted, that nothing could be more improper or indecorous than for the petitioners to bring the point before the House of Commons on an exparte statement at such a juncture. Another thing which he was bound to say was, that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be acquainted with one-fortieth of the facts of the case, and had actually confounded the persons in whose name the stock was standing, with those who claimed against the estate of Marsh and Co.
Mr. Alderman Thompsontook the same view of the case as the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, and
224
thought it extremely inconvenient to bring such a matter before the House, when it was still undergoing discussion in the Courts of Law. The Bank was not fairly chargeable with negligence, for though it was true that a variance frequently took place between the hand-writing of the powers of attorney, and of the names of the parties forged upon, yet that was easily accounted for by the fact, that in many cases, transfers were effected by persons labouring under severe indisposition. He was sorry to say any thing that would in any way reflect upon any person; but it was a fact, that Messrs. Graham and Stracey, the partners of Mr. Fauntleroy, had in one instance acted upon one of those forged powers of attorney, which of itself was a proof that the forgeries were well executed. When a Motion, therefore, was made with a view to calling on the House of Commons to take the management of the public debt out of the hands of the Bank of England, on the ground of negligence in this matter, he felt bound to state the particulars of the case.
Sir Edward Sugdentrusted that the hon. Alderman would not persevere in a course that was calculated to prejudice the case pending in the Courts of Law.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, he felt all the delicacy of the situation in which he then stood, but one observation he could not help making. The Bank of England only called upon those persons, whose names had been forged, to prove against the firm of Marsh and Co., for their debts, as a condition upon which they were to have their stock replaced, in order that the Bank of England might receive the dividends to which they were entitled. Only one person had refused to avail himself of the offer, and he was interested in the bank of Marsh and Co. The Bank of England would thus have been entitled to dividends to the extent of 100,000 l., but not a shilling had been received by it as yet. As the feelings of the House appeared to be against his entering into further particulars, he would abstain, and would only say, in conclusion, that the Bank had pursued the only course which it could do in justice to the proprietors.
Sir Charles Wetherellwould take on himself to say, that the hon. member for Middlesex did not understand one fact of the whole case; at all events, he had not stated one fact correctly from the begin-

225
ning to the end of his speech. The hon. Gentleman had certainly quoted from the petition, and it might happen that he had been deceived in that way, as it sometimes happened to the most eminent counsel to be imposed on by their clients, when they had not industry or penetration enough to look through the brief for themselves; but still he would venture to say, that such egregious errors as the hon. Gentleman had committed, had never been committed by a counsel with or without a brief. The hon. Member had thought proper to attack the Bank for not paying the dividends, when the real fact was, that the Bank paid them so soon as the creditors had consented to prove against the joint estate of the bankrupts. Therefore, without meaning anything disrespectful, he must take the liberty of telling the hon. member for Middlesex, that he did not understand one particle of the brief that he had opened.
Lord Althorpsaid, he could not see how Government was at all interested in this question, or why his attention should have been particularly called to it by the hon. member for Middlesex. He thought the conduct of the Bank was quite fair. The Directors only said to the stockholders whose stock had been forged upon, "If we pay you your stock, you must enable us to prove against Marsh and Co., so that we may receive the dividends." Surely the public creditor had nothing to do with an arrangement like this, than which nothing could be more fair.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, it was always objectionable to bring questions of private rights before the House, but more particularly so when, as in the present case, they were brought there under false pretences. The only person whose claim had not been satisfied by the Bank of England was Sir Edward Stracey, and he would not have his stock replaced on the condition annexed. If the hon. Member should present the petition which had been alluded to, he should oppose its reception.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, that although the stock had not been replaced, yet no arrears of dividends were allowed to accrue upon it, for they were paid regularly every half year to the holders of the stock. The Bank had done every thing to suit the convenience of the stockholders, and had, in fact, done every thing except actually replacing the stock which had been sold out under the forged powers of attorney.
Mr. Humehad stated the facts as they were brought under his notice, and he did not believe that he was in error in any one statement that he had made to the House.
Motion agreed to.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Customs' Duties Bill.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonmoved, that a sum of 803 l. should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, to purchase the port charges on wines imported into the County Palatine of Lancaster for the year 1833.
Mr. Humewished to know from the noble Lord, in what way the value of those charges had been ascertained, to whom the 803 l. was to be paid, and whether it might not be got rid of?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Earl of Clarendon was the present lessee, but the charges were the private property of the King, and would continue as long as the duchy of Lancaster continued.
Mr. Humesaid, it appeared to him that this was a sinecure, and he should oppose any motion which would have the effect of preventing any future Parliament from dealing with this, as he hoped ere long all other sinecures would be dealt with.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the present Motion would not have the effect contemplated by the hon. Member. The only object was, to free the port of Liverpool from this tax.
Mr. Humesaid, that the whole revenues of the duchy of Lancaster ought to be brought under the control of the House.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that the port of Liverpool ought not to be relieved from the tax at the expense of the public, unless all other ports were similarly relieved.
Mr. Humetook the same view of the case, and expressed a hope that the Motion might be postponed.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that those charges at Liverpool were different from all other port charges at other ports; and he, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would not persevere in opposing the Motion.
Resolution agreed to; as were the schedules attached to the Bill, and a Resolution to remove the bounty on hemp and spun-yarn.
The House resumed.

TITHES (IRELAND)—MINISTERIAL PLAN—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Stanleymoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Irish Tithes Bill.
Mr. Humedoubted whether there was not some misunderstanding respecting this order, as several Irish Members were not present, the hon. member for Kerry among the rest. They had arrived, too, at a stage of the Session when a matter of such serious importance ought not to be entertained. He concurred in the first measure, but could not agree to the others. With the state of feeling of the Irish Members, he thought it would be very difficult to get the Bills through during the present Session. He wished he could impress upon the right hon. Secretary the policy of dropping the Bills altogether for the present Session. The state of the business before the House, but, above all, the hostility of the Irish Members to the measure, rendered it impossible to carry it with any advantage at that late period of the Session. Knowing, as he did, the difficulty of carrying it, not only on the part of Irish Members, but of several English Gentlemen also, he entreated the right hon. Secretary to consider the propriety of abandoning it for the present. He felt that it was a most important subject, because it was impossible to dispose of the question of Church property in Ireland without implicating the Church in England. His decided opinion, therefore, was, that no plan would be attended with any advantageous results until there was a complete revision of the system of the Established Church, both in Ireland and in England. He hoped his Majesty's Government would not press the measure at present, but allow it to stand over till the country had a new Parliament. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he meant to carry the three Bills this Session, or only one Bill; bethought that one Bill would add to the existing difficulties of the Irish Government.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he had stated, upon a former occasion, that his intention was, to lay before the House a connected plan, but not to press all the Bills this Session. He agreed that it was not possible to press the entire measure this Session. He did not think it possible, in the present state of the Session, and of the public business, to pass more than one of these Bills—the first; but to the pass-
228
ing of that measure the Government felt itself distinctly pledged. The Government would not press the other measures, though they had been stated as part of a general measure; but it was considered essential to the character of the Government, and the tranquillity of the country, that the Bill for rendering the Tithe Composition Act permanent and compulsory should be passed into a law with as little delay as possible. The hon. Gentleman objected to prejudging the question; but, in fact, it was not the Bill which prejudged the question, but the resolutions moved the other night by the hon. member for Wicklow. The Bill only said, that a commutation and arrangement for a fixed mode of payment should take the place of the fluctuating impost of tithes. It proposed that, in future, the tithe should be chargeable, not upon the occupying tenant, but upon the person letting the land; and, if any person having an interest in the land should think fit to take upon himself the collection and payment of that composition, he should have an allowance made him for doing so, but the clergyman should have no claim upon him. This was merely a mode of carrying into effect, practically, throughout the whole of Ireland, a principle of commutation, and for establishing a fixed mode of payment. The question as to the future application of the revenues of the Church was left perfectly open. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were adopted, the question would be prejudged, and those resolutions would pledge the Parliament. His object was to leave the question open, but, at the same time, to get rid of a system of tithe, which all agreed in saying, might be commuted for a more equitable mode of payment. Ministers proposed that, unless the parties should agree on the terms of the composition, Commissioners should be sent down to examine into the bona fide value of the land, and fix the rate of the money payment. As to any question of the application of the money when raised, and the persons to whom it should be paid, it was as open as ever, and would be as open when this Bill had passed as at the present moment. But, unless the Government took some such step as this, it would have no fund whatever at its disposal. He would again fairly say, that Ministers did not intend now to persevere with the two last Bills. He had stated that the whole of them formed one con-

229
tinued and connected plan, and it was essential to the character of the country, and of the Government, that the first Bill should be carried through without delay, as that part of the general plan without which it was impossible to stir one step. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the objections to the introduction of the Bill would be withdrawn.
Mr. Leaderwas glad that two of the obnoxious tithe measures were abandoned for the present, particularly the measure for introducing ecclesiastical corporations into Ireland; but he regretted to hear that his Majesty's Government had determined to press the other most objectionable measure. The right hon. Gentleman took upon himself a serious responsibility in bringing forward a measure which there was great reason to apprehend would suspend the agricultural industry of Ireland. It would thereby not only reduce the population to a still lower condition of misery, but stop the transmission of 6,000,000 l. of taxes to England. The wild and visionary measure of the right hon. Gentleman would not merely extinguish tithes, but tend to the total extinction of rent, and introduce confusion and anarchy. No man could contemplate the probable future condition of Ireland without the deepest anxiety. He must assert that the first Bill—the Bill to be carried through—was also a measure of injustice. What was the right hon. Secretary doing but attempting to enforce that Composition Act, which had already failed in 800 parishes in Ireland? It was not to the principle of the Bill alone that he was opposed, but to the machinery, which would not for a moment be tolerated in England. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have consulted professional persons as to the extent of the law expenses which would be incurred under this Bill. What would be the feelings of the people of England, if an attempt were made to allow clergymen to have the power of having receivers over English estates? Such a preference to the Church above the landlords would be most unjust. He could not see what objections could be made by the right hon. Secretary to the resolutions of the hon. member for Wicklow. All that the Government required was, a certain sum of money to pay the clergy, and that could be better raised as a land tax than under this Composition Act. If the right hon. Secretary
230
could raise the half million which was necessary by a land tax, fairly spread over the country, abolishing the name and character of tithes, and thus get rid of the mischievous machinery of his Bill, why should he object, while at the same time he would give satisfaction to a whole people, who knew the horrors of having two establishments to support? One thing, however, he could tell the Government, and it was this, that the Representatives from Ireland would stand or fall by the resolutions which had been proposed as an amendment. They would stand by those resolutions, or fall with the country. They could not go back to their constituents unless they opposed such measures; and this observation did not apply alone to the southern Members, but he believed in the most Protestant parts of the north of Ireland, the Representative would be afraid to face the hustings if he had not opposed these measures.
The Earl of Belfastsaid, that he was from a northern county, and he would make it an additional claim on his constituents that he had supported this Bill, which went to afford some maintenance to the clergy of the Established Church.
Mr. John Brownesaid, that he had supported his Majesty's Government on all former occasions, because he was of opinion, that the members of it were sincerely anxious to promote the real interests of the empire at large; but he lamented that, in the present instance, they had departed from that course, and had adopted a line of proceeding by no means calculated to conciliate the Representatives or the people of Ireland. He would implore his Majesty's Government, in the name of the public safety, to pause before they determined to persevere in such a course, which was pregnant with the most dangerous consequences, not only to Ireland, but to the empire at large. He contended that an entire alteration of the Church was imperiously called for, not only in the application of the Church property, but in the state of the Church government in both countries, and that such an alteration was absolutely necessary for the satisfactory settlement of the peace of the empire. He saw no just reason why this alteration should not take place. He had given the question his best consideration, before and since he had the honour of a seat in that House, and the more he con-

231
sidered it, the more was he convinced that a great change should take place, that a different appropriation of Church property was necessary. He looked into the holy records, and he endeavoured, in vain, to find an argument in favour of the enormous wealth and appendages of that Church; on the contrary, he found that such things were condemned by those sacred records, and declared inconsistent with its duties and its objects. If he looked to Scotland he also found a powerful argument against the abuses of our own Establishment, and an incontestible proof that large possessions and immense wealth were not so necessary to the preservation of the Church as its partizans would make them believe. If he looked to Spain, and to other countries, he also found that a great reformation had taken place in the fiscal concerns of their Churches, to the advantage of the people, while the only country in Europe in which some species of ecclesiastical reform had not taken place, was in the Reformed Church of England and Ireland. There was one circumstance which was greatly calculated to strengthen the growing prejudices against the established Church of these countries—the unjust, cruel, and tyrannical conduct of the higher orders of the clergy towards the hard-working portion of that community—towards that class of men on whom all the laborious duties devolved, and who derived such wretched and beggarly remuneration for their labours. He had long observed this, and deeply did he lament the calamity. He had himself many near and dear relations in the Church, who had repeatedly told him that they disliked the existing state of things, and that they only required a moderate remuneration, such as would afford them a decent subsistence. He believed that there were a great many clergymen who would willingly give up the tithes, and accept half the amount in this way. This, he repeated, was not a time to bring forward a question of this kind; the House was not then in a situation to discuss it, and it should certainly be postponed until the next Session. He had not taken part in former discussions on the subject of tithes, because he conceived that it was not the time; he preferred waiting for the report of the Committee, before he pronounced any opinion on the subject. He had read the report, and he declared it to be his conviction, that the right hon. Gentleman's measures,
232
instead of being calculated to establish peace in Ireland, would only tend to disorganize all that yet remained of tranquil civil society in that country.
Mr. Mullinsthought it most unfair to proceed with the Debate in the absence of Irish Gentlemen interested in it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, in answer to some inquiries which were made of him, that this question could not be brought on to-night; in consequence of this assurance, a number of hon. members for Ireland had left the House. He, therefore, felt it his duty to move the adjournment of the Debate until Thursday.
Mr. Ruthvenseconded the Motion. It was a question of too much importance to be debated in so thin a House. For his part, he was quite prepared to go on, but he thought it would be most unfair towards other hon. Members who were absent, supposing that the question would not have been brought forward on that night.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the Motion just made by the hon. Member quite surprised him. The question now under discussion had stood in the Orders of the Day, and it was generally understood that it would be brought on if the business of the House was so disposed of as to allow of that being done. He was, certainly, ready to admit, that it had been doubtful whether the other business for the evening could be so disposed of as to allow of this question being discussed this evening, and if he had last night been asked whether he thought it probable that the Irish tithe question could have been entered on this evening, he should, no doubt, have answered that he thought it improbable that the other business would be got through in time; but, he should have added, that could that other business be disposed of, the question would, undoubtedly, be brought on. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in moving an adjournment of the debate at the present moment. In the early part of the evening there had been but a small number of Members present, and at that time the question might have been brought on; but the Government purposely introduced other business, of a less important nature, in order to enable hon. Members to come down. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he thought there was no reasonable ground for the Motion, and he should oppose it.
Sir John Brydgeswould also oppose the adjournment. With respect to the question itself, he begged leave most positively to deny the assertion made by some hon. Members, that the higher classes of the clergy in Ireland were indifferent to the wants of the lower classes of the people there. The question now before them was one of great importance, and, for the comfort of all the parties whom it concerned, it ought to be brought to a conclusion at once.
Mr. Henry Lambertwas opposed to an adjournment; at the same time, he felt himself bound to say, that most unfair means had been resorted to on the part of some one (he would not say whom) to get Irish Members to leave the House. He had himself been applied to four or five times, and assured that the Debate would not be brought on. He, however, refused to leave his place, unless a declaration was made in the House by the right hon. Gentleman, that the question would not be brought on that night. He thought it the duty of Irish Members to attend, because he remembered, most distinctly, the statement of the right hon. Secretary, that he should bring the Bill on if there was an opportunity; and, as he (Mr. Lambert) was opposed to all sort of trickery, by whomsoever practised, he should oppose the adjournment.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman should have pursued the same course, with regard to this Bill, as had been adopted in reference to the Party Processions Bill; upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had agreed not to bring it on after eleven o'clock; why, then, should he be so solicitous in pressing this discussion in the absence of so many Irish Members who were anxious to express their opinion on the subject of this measure? But the Irish Members were not the only persons who were absent tonight; there were other Gentlemen who also took an interest in this question, and he did not see them in their places. Where, he would ask, was the right hon. member for Tamworth? Where was the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been the framer of a legislative enactment on the question of tithes? Where were these Gentlemen? It was pretty evident that there existed a strong impression (he would not say from what cause), amongst many hon. Members, that this question would not have been brought
234
on to-night. It had been said, that there would be ample opportunity for discussion in the future stages of the Bill. He admitted this, but, at the same time, he must say, that they were fully justified in taking every advantage to defeat a measure which threatened the safety of their country. If it could be shown to him that this Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would feed the clergy, or procure any immediate advantage, he would not oppose it; but the contrary was the case. He admitted the disastrous state of Ireland—but would the present Bill remedy the evil? They should, therefore, beware how they introduced legislative enactments, which, while they tended in no degree to remove the mischief, most assuredly would have the effect of exasperating the people, and increasing the very disorders which they were intended to restrain.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the argument of the hon. and learned Member went as much to putting off the question for this year as to putting it off for the day. It was true that the Government had entered into the contract referred to about the Processions' Bill; but that Bill had been read a first time, ordered to be printed, and read a second time, without opposition; and then it was, not wishing to pledge the House without giving a fair opportunity for discussion, that he made the contract now referred to. The case with the present Bill was quite different. He had not been allowed to introduce it without opposition, nor to read it a first time, although, in all other instances, such a permission was conceded to a Government. An adjournment had been unexpectedly moved in a further stage of the Bill—it had been again postponed on another night, on account of the lateness of the hour; and now another adjournment was moved, and it seemed to him that every species of delay was resorted to in order to prevent, and not to obtain, a fair discussion of the Bill.
Mr. Maurice O'Connelldefended what had been done to delay the progress of this Bill, and declared, that this unreformed Parliament had no right to pass a Bill of this kind for Ireland. It was only fitting that such a measure should be produced before a reformed Parliament. Let the right hon. Gentleman pass what measures he pleased, they would only be a dead letter.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought, that, to

235
use a familiar expression, the, hon. Member had let the cat out of the bag. What was the effect of his declaration? That that House had no authority to legislate with respect to the Irish Tithe Bill; that with respect to that, they were self-condemned. He had been no party to that self-condemnation, and should, therefore, deny the consequence now attempted to be deduced from it, and he hoped that the proposition would be received as it deserved—with the marked contempt and indignation of that House. Though the Reform Bill was passed, the Members could not allow it to be asserted, that the House was officially and legally extinct.
Lord John Russellagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that that House ought not thus to be overborne by propositions of this kind; and, at the same time, he wished to remind the hon. member for Clare of the necessary consequence of admitting the proposition, which was, that not only was that House unfit to legislate with regard to the Irish Tithe Bill, but with regard to all other Bills that affected Ireland; and, consequently, it was unfit to pass the Irish Reform Bill itself. The circumstances already mentioned by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, and the advice to go away, of which an hon. Member had spoken, showed a settled disposition, in some hon. Members, to get rid of the question by other means than those of fair discussion.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellexplained. He had not meant to say that that House was unfit to legislate on Irish questions; he only intended to state, that with respect to this Bill, his constituents thought that it ought not to be legislated on by an unreformed House of Commons.
Mr. Humeadmitted, that the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for Ireland) had stated, he would bring on this question on this evening, if the state of the business of the House enabled him to do so; but, he considered it would be very impolitic for the Ministers to persist in passing a Bill, which they admitted to be only part of the measure proposed by them. It would be much wiser, instead of postponing the consideration of part to the next Session, to postpone the whole.
Mr. Mullinshad no wish to impede public business, and would not press his Amendment.
Amendment negatived, and Debate re-
236
sumed; the question before the House being Mr. James Grattan's Amendment on Mr. Stanley's Motion, for leave to bring in a bill for a compulsory commutation of tithes in Ireland.
Mr. Henry Lambertsaid, he was never struck with so much dismay as when the right hon. Secretary declared the determination of the Government to carry the first of these Bills during the present Session. It would create the greatest agitation in Ireland, and render the ultimate settlement of the tithe question infinitely more difficult. The measure would be most objectionable to the landlords of Ireland. The Bill made the composition compulsory, but it never could be carried into effect. The landlords would not be degraded into tithe proctors. For his own part, he could not, he would not pay tithes; they might take his goods if they thought proper—he would submit to the law, but he never would pay tithes. It had been the fashion to speak of the oppressive conduct of Irish landlords; he was aware of no instances of such conduct in his neighbourhood, but he was prepared to prove many cases of oppression in the exaction of tithes. He implored his Majesty's Government not to pass this Bill. He warned them of the opposition which it would most assuredly meet with. He did not often intrude himself on the House, but he felt it his duty to oppose it, not out of mere opposition to his Majesty's Government—to whose measures, generally speaking, he wished success—but because he could not but feel that it was fraught with additional evils to Ireland, and never could be carried into execution.
Sir Robert Peelfelt it his duty to state his opinion upon this most important question. There were two courses, one or other of which the House must determine to follow. It must either adopt the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), which did not require that they should then determine upon the details of any measure—which did not even of necessity involve the appointment of a receiver—which merely, in conformity with the Report of the Committee, asked leave to submit a legislative measure for the deliberative consideration of the House. The other course proposed that they should agree to certain Resolutions, the effect of the adoption of which would be, to postpone all consideration of the question for an indefinite period. He was

237
bound to declare his opinion, that the latter course was unjust and impolitic, and therefore he should give it his most decided opposition. He repeated, that the latter proposition was unjust; and, if he required any authority to support that assertion, he would take the Resolutions themselves, to the adoption of which he was called upon to give his consent. The second Resolution stated, "that in coming to the previous resolution, we recognize the rights of persons having vested interests, and we declare that it is the duty of Parliament to provide for those persons a just compensation." Well, then, before he agreed to that Resolution, he required to know from those who proposed it, what was the mode in which they expected that Parliament would fulfil the admitted duty of providing for the sufferers a just compensation? Was it not notorious that there were persons of the highest respectability, both from character and station, possessed of as valid, as legal, as equitable a claim to property as any man in the country possessed, who were deprived of that property by what he had heard described in that House as a moral combination? What! was that a moral combination which robbed persons of property to which they had as good a claim as any landed proprietor of the country had to his land? The Resolution proposed, admitted their right to just compensation. By whom was that compensation to be provided? Not, surely, by the Treasury? [Mr. James Grattan; No.] Not by the Treasury. He presumed also that it would be admitted at once, that the people of England, who obeyed the laws, and paid tithes larger in amount than those which were paid in Ireland—that they, who were not exclusively members of the Established Church, many of them being persons who dissented from that Church, but who still fulfilled the obligations of morality, obeyed the decisions of the law, and rendered unto others that which was their due; it surely would not, could not, be contended, that the English people were the parties who could be fairly or justly called upon to make up this deficiency. Every Gentleman appeared to admit the justice of that proposition. By whom, then, was this just compensation to be made? He presumed that the next admission would naturally be, that it must come from the landed proprietors of Ireland, who were to benefit
238
by the remission of tithe. But, if this were so, and if, at the same time, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, insubordination was marching through the land with giant-strides—if, according to his own declaration, he himself would refuse to pay tithes—voluntarily to pay tithes—if, as he stated, there was an array of physical strength directed against the payment of tithe; if these things were true, could they believe that, if they postponed this question for six months, without any expression of opinion on the part of Parliament, when, according to the admissions of hon. Members, the claim to tithe would have been practically extinguished, if not by open violation of the law, at least by that which was tantamount to it—could they believe that, six months hence, the "just compensation" would be easily recovered from the parties from whom it was admitted to be due? If there were a claim on the part of individuals, now possessing property, to receive an equivalent for the loss of it; and if it were the duty of Parliament to provide that equivalent, was it not its duty to do so without delay? Why devolve that duly on a succeeding Parliament? Why should not the same hands which inflicted the injury grant the reparation? In the terms of this Resolution itself, therefore, he found sufficient reason for establishing some principle of legislation, which, whatever might be its other deficiencies, should, at least, mark the sense of Parliament, that it was the bounden duty of the people of Ireland to obey the laws, to respect the rights of property, and to continue to afford that support for the Established Church to which the Church had an unquestionable legal claim. The whole of the proposition made by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was, that he should be allowed to bring in a bill, making that composition which had been voluntarily entered into by both parties—the tithe-receiver and the tithe-payer—in two-thirds of the parishes of Ireland, compulsory in other parts of Ireland, and permanent in all. And with what view? Why, for the purpose of laying the foundation of that very commutation of tithe which, he in-ferred from the admission of the hon. Gentleman, was indispensable to the peace of Ireland. It was impossible, by the declaration of hon. Gentlemen themselves, to derive the equivalent admitted to be due from the land of Ireland on the

239
extinction of tithe, without some such compulsory measure as this. It was offered as a preliminary measure. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Grattan) admitted, that it was right that there should be this charge upon the land. But that was a very barren admission, unless he informed the House how it was to be obtained from the land. He could scarcely thank the hon. Member for that admission; nothing was gained by it. It was easy to say that vested interests ought to be protected—that it was not right that the Treasury should provide compensation out of public money—and that it was quite fair to levy the equivalent for tithe upon the land of Ireland. Nothing was more easy than to come down with abstract resolutions, admitting the justice of certain undeniable propositions, but failing to show how any one of them was to be practically enforced. Why, it appeared that the same Gentlemen who were foremost to admit the just liability of the land, objected to that of the landlord. Then what was the alternative? Why, distress upon the tenants. If the charge was to be upon the land, show us at least in what manner it is to be made. Here is an existing charge upon the land—a charge confirmed by repeated Acts of Parliament; that charge was resisted—passive resistance was brought to bear against it; the remedy was against the occupying tenant, through the medium of a distress upon his goods. What other remedy could the hon. Gentleman give, if the landlord was not to be responsible? And if it was still to be distress on the goods of the occupying tenant, how should they be in a better condition hereafter? The hon. Gentleman said, that tithe was not a tax upon the land, that it was not a legal charge upon the land. He could not see the least force in that observation. The hon. Gentleman said, that the clergyman was not entitled to take tithe from the land, but that he must wait until the produce was separated from the land. Why, if he had a legal right to one-tenth of that produce, was it, or was it not, a virtual charge to that amount upon the land? In case the tenant refused or neglected to pay his rent to his landlord, what was his landlord's remedy? An ejectment and a distress. What was the nature of a distress? Not a seizure or confiscation of the land, which already belonged to the landlord; the remedy was against the produce of
240
the land. But what said the hon. Gentleman to all that portion of the land of Ireland in which voluntary compositions had been entered into? The hon. Gentleman objected to the law proposed to be introduced, because tithe was at present levied, not upon the land, but upon the produce. But in two-thirds of the parishes of Ireland, in consequence of voluntary arrangements, to which the tithe-payers were parties, the composition in lieu of tithe was made chargeable upon the land. It had been made a charge upon the land, because the parties subject to tithe preferred it rather than that the clergyman, exacting his strict right, should have the power of taking the full amount of tithe in kind. The distinction drawn by the hon. Gentleman, in point of fact, amounted to nothing. The fact was, that there existed a legal right, which was opposed, either by an array of physical strength, by actual combination against the law, or by that evasion which was backed by physical strength, and depended upon physical strength alone to give it support to defeat the law. But let no landlord, let no proprietor of property of any kind in Ireland, trust to the security of his property five minutes after such a combination shall have been successful, after it shall have been able to defeat the Legislature. The hon. Gentleman argued as if, in point of fact, no violation of the law had taken place—as if the combined plan entered into by those who were dissatisfied with what they termed an unjust impost, was a legitimate means of escaping from a just debt. Now, if that position were correct, he would ask both English landlords and Irish landlords—for he wished not to separate them; and he had had too long a connexion with Ireland to entertain a desire to say a harsh word with respect to any of its landed proprietors—he would ask the landlords, whether the same instrument of evasion, of practical defeat of the law, might not be again applied, for other purposes, and to other objects? Why, two years hence, if this feeling and these opinions should prevail, why might not some man of authority start up and advise, that absentee property should be the subject of another and a similar combination? Might he not say, and say with equal semblance of truth, "I pay my rent upon the supposition that I have the advantage of the residence of my landlord; I, however,

241
receive no such advantage; he takes the money over to England—and I, therefore, consider myself absolved from my obligation to pay the rent?" He could assure the House, that they had better decide this matter in time—better put a stop to such proceedings before it was too late to arrest their progress; for the same argument now used against Church property might be directed with equal force against all other property. Might not the tenantry of Ireland say, at some future period, if these combinations were not arrested:—"The clergyman was resident; he did fulfil some duties, although his Roman Catholic parishioners dissented from him as to religion; yet, as we have succeeded, with the consent—at least with the tacit connivance—of the Legislature, which closed its eyes to the gigantic march of insubordination—which had not the courage to look the question in the face—as we have succeeded with respect to tithe property, let us try the same experiment upon other dues, and apply the same principles to rent?" Was it not in human nature that there should be such reasoning as this in regard to other burthens? On these grounds, then, and looking, at the same time, with the most anxious apprehension to the state of Ireland, he was convinced that they could not by possibility gain anything by abandoning the claims of justice. He did not see how it could be a conciliatory measure—at least, he could not reconcile such conciliation with common justice—to tell those who had a right to protection, that they were to be left, not only without a present, but without a future, chance of that protection, by abandoning this question in the present Session of Parliament. It appeared to him that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was in conformity with justice. It might be met by an array of physical strength, but he hoped that a British Government, and a British Parliament, would be prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of supporting it. He would not detract, on the present occasion, from any little support which it was in his power to give the Government, by dwelling upon any minor points upon which, with respect to this Bill, he might differ from them. To the substance of the Bill he was a party. In that part of the Report, also, which stated that the Committee did not overlook the great importance of the question; that, on the con-
242
trary, they thought it one which involved, in many cases, a more adequate remuneration for the resident clergy—the abolition of the sinecures of the Church—and a more general appointment of resident Protestant ministers throughout the country; in that part of the Report he agreed—those opinions he was ready to maintain. He was perfectly willing to consider, fairly and deliberately, every proposition for the redress of just grievances, knowing, as he did, the just force of many of the objections which had been made to the present tithe system. When the House evinced the disposition to redress every well-founded grievance, it stood on high ground, and had a right to require the people of Ireland to obey the law, and to respect the rights of property. The measure which the right hon. Gentleman proposed, was not merely one marking the sense of Parliament as to the necessity of an observance of those rights, but it was absolutely necessary as a preliminary towards the remedy of many evils. It was a preliminary step, necessary to be taken previous to making that commutation for which almost every Gentleman professed himself a zealous advocate. By postponing this measure, therefore, they would postpone, at the same time, the introduction of that which was admitted to be so desirable. On these grounds he felt himself bound to give his support to the Government; and he could not conclude without expressing his regret at the opposition which the measure had received from the landlords of Ireland. He regretted it with all sincerity, not only on account of the violation of the rights of other parties, but because he believed that their opposition, if it succeeded, would be ultimately fatal to their own rights, and tend to their own spoliation. He should support, cordially and firmly, the proposition of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, for leave to bring in this Bill.
Mr. Wysewas happy to hear the right hon. Baronet, in the beginning of his speech, desire the House to stand upon the moral right of the question. The Representatives of the people of Ireland did stand upon the moral right, and did not go one jot beyond it. He thanked the right hon. Baronet for having grappled with the subject, being the first, among the number who had spoken on that side of the House, to advert to the resolutions proposed by his hon. friend, the member for Wicklow; but he was sorry to per-

243
ceive throughout the whole of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, a considerable degree of misconception of some of the most important provisions of the Bill. The first thing the members for Ireland looked for was, a remedy for the present state of distraction and misery into which that country was plunged—the first thing which they called for was, a remedial measure, and the first ground of their opposition to this measure was, that it was merely coercive, without having any remedy whatever attached to it; and they felt convinced that, if such a measure were applied to England, its effect on the popular mind would be, to produce one cry of execration throughout the land against it. Now, he asked the right hon. Baronet—he asked the English and the Irish Members of the House—was any one of the Bills which the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had proposed, truly and bona fide a remedial measure? The first point stated in the resolutions with respect to tithes was, not that the name, and the name alone, should be taken away, but they called for the total extinction and abolition of tithes. They used the words contained in the first Report of the Tithe Committee, and, he hoped, used them in the same sense. They called for the absolute extinction of tithes. In this, perhaps, they differed from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who might wish to give a quibbling and doubtful meaning to the words. He, however, and his party, gave to them their true and legitimate sense. So did the people of Ireland. When they spoke of abolition, they meant the abolition of the thing itself, not of the mere name. They required a total change in the system. They knew well that the assertion of such a principle would be instantly opposed—that many objections would be made to it—that they should instantly be charged with destroying vested rights, with pulling down the sanctuaries of the Church, with laying prostrate all the religious institutions of the country, and exposing them to spoliation of every description. They were aware they should be attacked with a charge of waging war against the Protestant religion—with spoliating property, and plundering legitimate rights. They had expressly guarded themselves, however, against the last charge, because they stated openly and fairly in their resolutions, that they recognised the rights of parties hav-
244
ing vested interests. With reference to any charge of wishing to destroy the rights of the Church, common sense told them that they must have an Established Church, and an established religion, unless they would relapse into a state of brutal ignorance and unenlightened barbarism. These were not their principles; such never had been, and never would be, the principles of the party with which he had the honour to act. Having said thus much, he now came to by far the most important point of consideration, to which he would beg to direct the peculiar attention of the House, because he thought it afforded a direct answer to the objection of the right hon. Baronet. His objection was, that, if this measure were not taken into consideration, there would be no security for vested rights. In this point, the resolutionists had been far more specific than the right hon. Baronet seemed disposed to give them credit for being; if they had not, he would certainly admit, that that would have been an objection of the first magnitude. With reference to the resolutions which had been proposed by the hon. member for Wicklow, at this period of the Session, it was most important that the House should not shrink from expressing its opinions, and from boldly stating to the country on what principle they proceeded. He was well aware that they could not now enter into all the various details of this question; but there was nothing to prevent their taking that course which, instead of being a singular one, would be the usual course to pursue. By expressly declaring their opinions, in this last hour of their political existence, they might do much. If they did so—and there was nothing to prevent their adopting such a course—they should clearly evince the intention of the law—the rest they might leave to future Parliaments; taking such a step as this would alone tend to satisfy and tranquillize the country, and by those resolutions they would stand or fall. He did not make this statement merely from his own opinion on the subject, but he had founded it on the evidence which had been taken before the Committee. Doctor Doyle had stated specifically on the subject of tithes, that simple legislation would, in his opinion, be sufficient to produce this effect. They had not said, that the Treasury should provide the necessary composition; but they did say that it could be made through the Treasury.

245
Was it a matter of greater difficulty than the establishment of the land tax? This was a preliminary measure on which to found a land tax. The Composition Act, which this Bill was, in fact, intended to follow up, had completely failed in its operation; it had not only failed to produce good results, but it had, positively, been productive of evil where good existed before. This assertion would be corroborated by the very best authority. The Protestant Archbishop of Dublin stated, that one of the great evils of the Composition Act was, that, under its operation, the most unfair advantage was taken, sometimes by the servants, and sometimes by the landlords; and he stated also, that either the peculiar legislation of this House, or political circumstances, had led to conclusions which must terminate in a thorough review of the whole subject. The Composition Act should, therefore, be revised; and would it not be just as easy to pass it by and to legislate anew? Let the estates in Ireland be surveyed by parliamentary Commissioners, and the whole value of the landed property, including that of the absentees, be ascertained, and then a sum of money allowed to be paid into the Treasury—the future application thereof to be directed and controlled by Parliament. The right hon. Baronet had touched upon the true state of the case. The House was debating in the nineteenth century on a question of the greatest importance; they could not legislate by reverting to ancient documents, and the usage and custom of by-gone times; they must look to the state of the country; they must direct their attention to the circumstances in which the people were placed. They stood in a position in which they could not adopt precedents—in which they had to create precedents for posterity; they must make up their minds to abolish the present system of combination in Ireland by such legislation as should effect that object most sincerely. He felt, in common with the right hon. Baronet, that it was a combination much to be deplored, and much to be feared, not only as regarded its present results, but with reference also to those results that it would hereafter produce. It cast before them shadows of the most fearful import; it was pregnant with importance to all the occupiers of soil, and owners of rent in Ireland. Years ago, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were united by a strong but in-
246
visible bond: these men, year after year, presented petitions to this House, when they were trampled under foot; and now, it was impossible to legislate without taking away the causes of the present state of feeling in that country. Their rights were acknowledged, these principles admitted, by acceding to Catholic emancipation. Catholic emancipation was in Ireland what Reform was in England. In the first ebullition of popular feeling, it might perhaps be conceived, that this was a mere Roman Catholic combination against the Protestant religion; but government had now reached that crisis, that, if it advanced one single step beyond it, it would find it impossible alike to retrace its steps, or to proceed. If to-day a cry was raised against tithe, to-morrow there would be a cry for the Repeal of the Union, and every candidate that stood upon the hustings in Ireland would be required, and called upon, to support these views. Those who would stop the torrent of popular feeling in Ireland by coercive legislation, would find behind them men stronger than themselves, who would hurl them down the precipice, to the brink of which they so rashly ventured. It became every one sitting in that House to call upon the Government to recollect the precipice on which this country now stood. They were legislating for Ireland; but they ought to act as they would for England; for, unless proper measures were taken, the same combinations—the same resistance to the payment of tithes would be acted here, and they would have the same battle to fight again. The time was approaching; there was but one instant to deliberate; if neglected, the opportunity was gone, and the next would be too late.
Lord Althorpsaid, he could not but view this question in the same light as that in which it had been considered by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as being one of the very greatest importance. Yet he did not concur with the hon. Gentleman in the line of argument which he had adopted with reference to it. The hon. Gentleman said, that this was no time to go back to precedents, but that they ought to pursue a new course under the circumstances of the case? But what sort of course were they to adopt? Were they to empower the people of Ireland to set the law at utter defiance, and to carry any measure which they might think fit to advocate? There could be no doubt that this

247
was the very last precedent they ought to establish. With respect to the resolutions which had been proposed, they undoubtedly professed to respect existing rights, but they stated vaguely, without mentioning any precise mode, that it was fitting that Church property generally should be applied to purposes of religion and charity only; but they did not directly point out what it was intended to do, and, indeed, they did not touch upon any part of the question in such a manner as to enable the House to enter into the consideration of the subject. Leaving the question in such a state as this would be worse than doing nothing at all. On the other hand, what was it Ministers proposed to do? They proposed to carry a measure, which should make such an arrangement with respect to the property of the Church of Ireland, as, for the future, to prevent the occurrence of those scenes which every Gentleman must deeply lament. They might differ in opinion as to what those arrangements should be, as to the mode of carrying them into effect; but all must agree, that it was absolutely necessary some arrangement should be made to settle the question. The hon. Gentleman said, what was so easy as to appoint Commissioners to ascertain the value of the land, and of the tithe payable out of it? Yet a length of time must interpose, and an acreable value on the whole of Ireland must be made. If that was the mode by which they were to proceed to settle this question, it would almost indefinitely postpone any arrangement. But what would be the effect of such an arrangement if it were adopted? If a fair equivalent in land was to be given for the tithe, it would be taking away one-tenth of the land of Ireland. He could conceive no measure less likely to settle the question, than entering upon such a calculation. The hon. Gentleman said, "Consider what you will do for England." He (Lord Althorp) was perfectly satisfied that, in those parts of the country where the question of tithes had been lately agitated—particularly in the western counties—nothing would be more gratifying to the tithe-payers than that the amount of tithes should be for ever settled upon the principle of a corn-rent. It had been asked, whether such a measure as this would be endured by the people of England? He assured the gentlemen of Ireland that nothing would be more gratifying to the
248
landlords throughout England, than such an arrangement being made on the subject as would permit of their letting the land tithe-free. It had been said by the hon. member for Wexford, "You begin by a coercive measure, and end by a compulsory one." But did that hon. Gentleman mean to say, that taking tithes in kind was better than having a composition? It was quite impossible he should say this. It was true, the proposed measure was compulsory, but it was, at the same time, undoubtedly beneficial to every parish in Ireland, because, if it be more beneficial to have a money payment than to pay tithe in kind, then this must be a beneficial measure. But the benefit was certainly greater to the tenantry than the landlords. The effect of this measure would be, to remove the immediate burthen from the tenants, and to impose it more directly on the landlords; but he was quite satisfied, that if the landlords looked at their real interests, nothing could be more beneficial to them than to relieve their tenantry from the collection of tithes. He had heard it argued—and it was an argument which had extremely surprised him—that this measure was, in fact, doing away with the law relating to agistment. He never understood that the getting rid of that law was considered an objectionable measure. If ever there was a law which reflected disgrace, on the Legislature, it was that law. English Gentlemen could hardly be aware of what that law was. It was simply this:—persons of large property in Ireland obtained this law, by which all the pasturage land was relieved from the payment of tithe; and the whole burthen was thrown upon the arable land, which was mostly occupied by the poorer tenantry. The Composition Act, however, spread the whole amount of the tithe over the whole parish, whether the land be pasture or arable. If this was not a benefit to the people, he knew not what could be. If this law had the effect of spreading tithe over all the parish, certainly, so far from that being an objection to it, it was one of its great merits. A great many complaints had been urged against that part of the measure which related to the appointment of a receiver; but, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, this was hardly a question to be discussed on the first introduction of the measure, being more a matter of detail, to be considered hereafter. But how was this arrangement so extremely

249
objectionable as Gentlemen had stated it to be? If it was right that these payments should be based upon land, that the payments should be made by the persons holding the lands, surely it was right that means should be given to recover those payments when withheld. These receivers were only to be appointed after all other means of obtaining payment had failed. In point of fact, it placed the case simply in the light of a mortgage. Cases had been stated in order to show the great difficulties in which gentlemen would be placed whose rents were not regularly paid. But the same difficulty happened to every man whose estate was in mortgage, and the interest on which was to be defrayed out of the rents of his estate, when those rents were unpaid. A person might have an estate nominally of 8,000 l. a year, but, owing to the encumbrances on it, he had only 600 l. a year to spend for his own support; what would happen, then, it was said, if the tithe of that estate were to amount to 600 l. a-year? He would have to pay it all to the clergyman. But, in the first place, the estate being under lease, it would be a matter of choice with him whether he would take the payment of the tithe upon himself; if he did, then he would have the power to recover the 600 l. from his tenantry; and, allowing for the charge of recovering being imposed on the clergy, he would pay 510 l. only; therefore, instead of being injured, he would be benefited to the amount of 90 l. a year. Some Gentlemen said, that the landlord could not recover the tithe at all from his tenants. But he would be able to recover his tithe and rent together, just as easily as it was now recovered by taking the tithe separately or in kind. In his opinion, therefore, the case supposed ought not to be put as one of extreme hardship on the landlords. But the hon. member for Wexford said, the landlords of Ireland would not be made tithe-proctors. He (Lord Althorp) was not aware of the feelings of others, but if he had land, and could let it tithe-free, by paying the tithe to the clergyman, he should be most happy to become, and his tenantry would also be most happy that he should become, a tithe-proctor. For, after all, how was this done? Look to the effect of offering land to the tenant tithe-free. The tenant considered the advantage of not having the tithe-proctor coming on his land. There was the advantage of not having the
250
charge increased in proportion to the increased value of his land, and the improved state of his crops. He was at liberty to invest his capital and his skill in the improvement of his farm, without having that capital and skill taxed by the additional demand of the tithe-proctor. These were advantages for which but a very inadequate recompense was given, by a small additional sum paid to the landlord in the shape of rent. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would pass the measure, which was absolutely necessary before the question of tithe could be settled. It was absolutely necessary to consider, what was to be the tithe, and how it was to be collected, before considering what was to be done with it. When this measure was determined, it would be much easier to ascertain the second question—namely, what was to be done with the tithe so collected, or the composition so raised; and on that ground alone he should strongly advocate the measure. But, besides that, it was absolutely necessary that Parliament should not separate without having declared its decided opinion upon this question; and that Parliament should not allow a combination, such as now existed, to overcome the law, without at least declaring, that they were determined to stand by the law, and do what was just for those persons who were now the sufferers by that combination.
Mr. Henry Grattanwould support the amendment of his hon. relative, the member for Wicklow, because he believed that the measure of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would overturn the laws relating to private property, and cause the most disastrous consequences in Ireland.
Mr. O'Ferrallthought that the measure would only spread combination, and make it more virulent. It would fail, because it was founded on the measures which had already been tried and failed. It would continue to make the occupying tenant pay, and would not lessen one of the evils suffered under the present system. He protested, upon the part of the landlords of Ireland, that they had no wish to throw the burthen off their own shoulders, or appropriate tithes to themselves. On the contrary, if they could, by taxing themselves, relieve their tenantry, they would gladly do that. A charge which had been preferred against them by certain persons, who professed to be the

251
supporters of the Church, was, that the landlords wished to take advantage of a public commotion to get rid of this tax. He denied this assertion. The amendment proposed by his hon. friend, the member for Wicklow, showed the falsehood of the allegation. The landlords admitted tithes to be public property, but the country demanded a different appropriation of the revenue derived from them. He must deprecate the line of argument adopted by the supporters of this Bill. There was, he was afraid, too much of fanatical cant mixed up with it. They talked about vested rights, and put Church property upon the same level with private property. He recognised the right of the present incumbents to a decent provision during their lives, but he denied that tithes or Church property should be regarded in the same light as private property.
Mr. Jephsonthought the plan proposed by his Majesty's Government, one of the most extraordinary propositions he had ever heard of. They found that the Composition Act had completely failed in Ireland; that the opposition prevailed to a greater extent in those parishes where it had been adopted; and yet the remedy which they proposed was to extend this Act all over Ireland. When the Government formed the determination to make new legislative enactments with regard to Church property, they should, before they passed laws for the levying of the tax, decide and define the precise objects for which this tax should be appropriated. It would not be contended, that the Irish Church establishment should be allowed to go on in the old way, with all its abuses on its head. If, therefore, Government thought proper to make any alteration, why not first direct their attention to this most important of all considerations? If they wished to make their law palatable to the people, they should commence by lopping off all sinecures, and improving the condition of the working clergy. If this were properly carried into execution, there would be a very considerable fund, which might be applied to the support of the clergy of other religions. The proposed measure he was convinced, would only create mischief and he was afraid it would lead to bloodshed.
Mr. Blackneyfully agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Mallow, that the Government had committed an egregious
252
blunder in introducing a measure of this description. They should have, in the first place, considered the appropriation of the fund before they proposed a law for the enforcement of the tax. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was anything but calculated to allay the ferment of the public mind. For his own part, he clearly foresaw, twelve months ago, what had taken place since, and it was now more than six months since he stated it to be his opinion, that it would be impossible in future to collect tithes in Ireland. He knew this through the best possible sources of information, and every thing which he foretold had come to pass, and all the enactments of the right hon. Secretary would never restore the system which was now completely exploded. The refusal to place any Catholics on the Tithe Committee had induced all the people of Ireland, more strenuously than before, to stand up against tithes; this, together with the line of conduct which had been pursued by the dignitaries of the Established Church in another place, had made the opposition to tithes general throughout Ireland. The whole plan, then, was a farce, for it would be perfectly impossible, even with a large military force, to collect the tithes in Ireland.
Mr. Callaghanthought the question was so important as to require a further adjournment. He accordingly moved, that the debate be adjourned to next day.
Sir John Brydgesopposed the Motion. It was not yet time to leave off business.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he was exceedingly unwilling to adjourn the Debate, but he should not oppose the Motion, if there remained many Members desirous of expressing their opinion on the subject.
Debate again adjourned.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of CARNARVON, from Sir Harcourt Lees, for Protection to Church and State.—By Lord KING, from Hamilton, for an alteration in the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill; and from five Places in Ireland for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Cess.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE—SECOND DAY.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Reform (Scotland) Bill.
House in Committee.
On the question that the Committee should agree to the clause for regulating the order of proceedings at elections for counties,
The Earl of Rosslynthought it advisable that the election for the county of Mid-Lothian should not take place in the city of Edinburgh. The chance of riot at a period of excitement like that of an election, was much greater in a large and populous town than in a small place. For this reason, perhaps, the elections for the county of Middlesex took place at Brentford. Upon the same principle, he would suggest that Dalkeith should be substituted for Edinburgh, as the polling-place for the county of Mid-Lothian. The probability of tumults and disorders in Edinburgh would be much increased, if the elections for the county and the city should happen to be going on at the same time.
The Earl of Roseberysaw no reason for adopting the suggestion of the noble Earl. Edinburgh was the most central spot in the county; the residence of the Sheriff, and the place for transacting all the county business. The noble Earl was apprehensive that tumults might arise if the elections for the county and the city should be carried on at the same time. But that would be the Sheriff's fault. It was not likely that the Sheriff would appoint the two elections to take place at the same period. He saw no reason to depart from the rule which had been followed in similar cases.
The Duke of Buccleugh, living within a hundred yards of Dalkeith, would, for his own convenience, prefer that the election should not take place there. At the same time, he was bound to admit that there was great weight in the objection his noble friend had urged against holding the election at Edinburgh.
Clause agreed to; as well as several others, with verbal amendments.
On the clause relating to the writ for the election of a member for Orkney and Shetland,
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the union of those two places, for the purpose of returning one Member, had excited great surprise amongst those acquainted with the places. These two clusters of islands are divided from each other by eighty miles of stormy sea. There was no regular communication by post between them; but when a person in Orkney wrote a letter to a person in Shetland, he sent it to Edinburgh, where it remained until some trading vessel carried it to its place of destination. Under these circumstances, it appeared to be impossible that the Sheriff of Orkney could execute the duties imposed upon him by this Bill, unless a Government steam-vessel were placed at his disposal during the time of the election. In November and December, all communication between the islands was stopped. He hoped that his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would propose such amendments as would render it possible for the Sheriff of Orkney to perform the duties imposed upon him by this Bill.
The Lord Chancellordid not think his noble friend had sufficiently considered the clause. The writ to Orkney and Shetland was not returnable until fifty days after it had been issued; which appeared to him sufficient time for the purpose, allowing for all the impediments to the communication between Orkney and Shetland.
The Earl of Rosslyncould say, that within his recollection, the return of the writ for Orkney never had taken place in less than fifty-eight days.
The Lord Chancellordid not believe that there was any physical impossibility of communicating between Orkney and Shetland. The Sheriff of Orkney was not bound to send his precept to the Sheriff Substitute in Shetland by post; but, like the English Sheriff, he must communicate with his officers in the best way he could.
The Earl of Haddingtonwished to know how the Sheriff of Orkney could issue his precept to the Sheriff Substitute in Shetland, if the stormy nature of the seas would not allow of communication? and what, he would ask, was to be done if the person bearing the precept should be wrecked?
Clause agreed to. The remaining

207
clauses, with verbal amendments, were also agreed to.
The schedules were also agreed to.
On the question being put on the Dumfries district of borough,
The Earl of Selkirkbegged to make a request to their Lordships on the part of the people of Kirkcudbright, namely, that they should be removed from this district, and added to No. 14, consisting of New Galloway, Stranraer, Whithorn, and Wig-ton. The town of Kirkcudbright was more nearly connected with the district of Wig-ton, in its geographical position, than with that of Dumfries. The former was by far the smaller district of the two; that of Dumfries containing 24,051 inhabitants, and 1,623 10 l. houses, and paying assessed taxes to the amount of 27,000 l.; while the Wigton district had only 7,209 inhabitants 342 10 l. houses, and paid 525 l. assessed taxes.
The Earl of Roseberythought their Lordships ought not to disturb the arrangement of this district, by agreeing to the wish of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had been requested by the people of Kirkcudbright to make this proposition, but he had not stated whether he had been similarly applied to by any others in this district; there was, therefore, no ground whatever for making the change.
The Earl of Selkirksaid, his object was, that the two districts should be equalised, by transferring a moderately-sized town from the large to the small one.
Motion agreed to. The remainder of the Bill agreed to, and ordered to be reported.—House resumed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' CONTEMPT BILL.
The Marquess of Westmeathwished to know from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether it was his intention to press the Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt Bill through the stage appointed for this night in the Orders. If it were, he had to express his dissatisfaction with the course pursued last night, when, at a very late hour, and in his absence, the Bill was reported. He had hoped, that their Lordships would, on this occasion, have given that Bill precedence to the Scotch Reform Bill, as he had no doubt it would be opposed by other noble Lords besides himself.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his readiness to acquiesce in the postponement of the Bill alluded to, if it should be con-
208
sidered desirable by their Lordships, or convenient to any noble Lord particularly interested. [The Marquess of Westmeath: "No, no, I ask no such thing."] Well, then, if nothing was asked as concession, then the Bill would go on in the usual course, as the noble Marquess had been apprised it would, both last night and this. Last night it had been reported in the usual way; and, if the noble Marquess chose to wait, as he had been apprised it would come on, he might have opposed its going through that stage, as the noble Marquess might do, whenever he should move the House, at the proper time, that the Bill be read a third time.
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped it would be brought on as early as possible, so that the discussion should not be cushioned, and the Bill disposed of in a quiet snug way.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there was certainly no ground for the latter part of the noble Marquess's complaint as to the snug disposal of the Bill. The noble Marquess had received full notice that the Bill would be brought on last night; there could, therefore, have been no surprise practised upon him, and it was rather remarkable that the reason, as the noble Marquess now said, why he thought it would not be brought on, was precisely because a notice had been given that it would be brought on.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of this Bill being read,
The Marquess of Westmeathrose to object to the Bill. He should be glad to know whether this Bill was meant to be an ex post facto measure and, if so, whether there was any ground for it. He should be able to show, that the introduction of the Bill was a most foul and scandalous transaction. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, on a former night, endeavoured to throw dust in the eyes of their Lordships, by talking of the necessity of the Bill, from a supposed case where a party might seek to shelter himself from a contempt of any of the Ecclesiastical Courts, by means of his parliamentary privilege. The Bill was not for any such supposed object, and, with that want of memory which distinguished those who said one thing when they meant another, the noble and learned Lord had proved that the Bill was not for any general object, but was aimed personally at him (the Marquess of Westmeath), and was, as he

209
should be able to show, as ty rannousand unprecedented a transaction as could be cited in the annals of legislation in this country. [The noble Marquess then entered into a detail of the circumstances in which the contempt which he had committed had arisen, in nearly the same terms which he had formerly employed.] After the discussion, he continued in the House of Lords had terminated, Sir Edward Sugden had proposed to put an end to the litigation, on terms of mutual accommodation to both parties. He declared his willingness to accede to any reasonable terms of accommodation, and asked Sir Edward Sugden to draw them up. Sir Edward Sugden said, that his professional avocations in general prevented him from engaging in such a task, but that, in consequence of the very handsome manner in which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had behaved, he would deviate from his usual practice, and look over the terms. Dr. Lushington, on the other side, said, that he had power to consent to terms of accommodation. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) then left the House, and met Sir Edward Sugden in the Earl Marshal's room, and, anxiously wishing to get out of his troubles, agreed to the terms which Sir Edward Sugden proposed. Sir Edward Sugden then desired him to go to the library of the House of Commons, and said, that there the matter might be settled. A solicitor then brought a paper, containing the terms of accommodation, in his hands, and Sir Edward Sugden proposed that it should be carried forthwith to Dr. Lushington in the House of Commons. It was carried accordingly to Dr. Lushington; he (the Marquess of Westmeath) waited for the Doctor's answer; and that answer was, that the Doctor thought the accommodation right in substance, but not in terms. That paper he had never seen since. It had remained in Dr. Lushington's pocket until the noble and learned Lord gave judgment. The day after that judgment, a bill was brought into the House to enable his opponents to do that which the law of the land had hitherto prevented those harpies from doing. In making this statement, he felt it necessary to ask their Lordships, whether this Bill was not an ex post facto law, directly levelled against himself? On Wednesday last the noble and learned Lord had stated his anxiety that this transaction should be accommodated.
210
The other party desired to choose a man who should settle the terms To that proposition he had said 'no;' but he had offered to give them the names of nineteen gentlemen at the English Bar, and to leave them to select one of the number. The other party would then hear of no accommodation, and their answer, if not in word, at least in effect, was, that they would have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Now, should he not have been something less than a man if he had failed to bring this transaction before their Lordships? He must accuse Dr. Lushington, that learned civilian, that righteous Judge, that retrospective bill-drawer, that Reform Bill supporter, that slavery abolitionist, that sinecure hater, of having drawn up this Bill for the purpose of making it press heavily upon the individual, and that individual the humble one who was then addressing their Lordships. A time might come when the venerable Judge who now presided in the Court of Arches might retire from that Court, and if that learned civilian was elevated to his dignities, what would then be the effect of this Bill in the Court of Arches? Why, that learned civilian would have to sit there to effect that arrangement, which might, indeed, suit his fancy, but which could not be brought about in any equitable manner. He must also say, that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack had misrepresented the circumstances of his case, and always misrepresented them to his disadvantage. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the first judgment in the Ecclesiastical Courts was given against him. The reverse of this was the case. The first judgment had been in his favour, the second had been against him. The third, before the Delegates, was given against him; but the votes were as three to four, and Mr. Justice Bayley had given his opinion in his favour. He contended that the noble Lord ought to have introduced the whole, and not a part, of his system of Ecclesiastical Reform on this occasion, and that he ought not to have omitted that fact, which he had suppressed on the last night of this discussion, when he falsely enumerated the judgments given against him (the Marquess of Westmeath). The noble Lord had glossed over the whole conspiracy which had been formed against him. That conspiracy he had detected, and brought to light; all the conspirators

211
had been sent to Newgate—all save one, whom, from feelings which he could not control, he had forborne to prosecute. If the noble and learned Lord was not aware of that circumstance, he knew little of the case, and ought not to have entered upon it at all. He trusted, that he had now said enough to show how this transaction really stood. Its tyrannous nature had excited his opposition; and he was not a man to be deterred by feelings of a personal nature from coming forward to state the truth. If he were to portray the measure as it deserved to be portrayed, he might again be sent, as he had been sent already for resenting his wrongs, to the King's Bench Prison for three months; but that was a measure on which he was afraid to meditate, as it might lead to consequences which he should be sorry to see accomplished. Their Lordships would do what they pleased with this Bill, but he should give it his strenuous opposition, and should always denounce it as a tyrannous and nefarious measure.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that, after the singular and extraordinary tone of the noble Marquess's speech, he much doubted whether he ought to make any reply to it. The noble Marquess had introduced a history of his domestic transactions, and of the suits in which he had been engaged, of which he (the Lord Chancellor) had no knowledge whatever, except of that part of them in which he had been engaged as his counsel, which was a very slight and unimportant portion of them. It was perfectly immaterial whether the noble Marquess might have had some interlocutory decisions in his favour. The final decree was given against him, and that decree was confirmed on his appeal to the Court of Delegates, and subsequently in a Court of Review. The noble Marquess complained of his suppressing some parts of the transactions. How was he to know what had occurred in Doctors' Commons? Had he been Counsel in Doctors' Commons?
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, what he had stated was, that the noble and learned Lord ought to have known the whole case before he undertook to put their Lordships in possession of it; and, as the noble and learned Lord had misrepresented it, he wished to set the noble and learned Lord right.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had never undertaken to put their Lordships
212
in possession of the facts of the noble Marquess's case. But to return to the point to which he was adverting when the noble Marquess interrupted him. The noble Marquess had charged him with the wilful suppression of the truth. He put it to their Lordships, whether such an attack had ever before been made upon any of their Lordships in that House, or indeed upon any man in any public assembly. One of the grounds of the noble Marquess's attack upon him was, that he knew nothing of the particulars of the quarrel between himself and his wife.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I did not enter into that question at all.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he was not bound to know the whole history of the conspiracy, in which the noble Lord had prosecuted to conviction all the parties save one, whom his feelings prevented him from prosecuting, and that one the principal conspirator.
The Marquess of Westmeath: I said, conspiratress.
The Lord Chancellor: Conspiratress! There again. He could not help thinking, that the advice which he had given to the noble Marquess, on the last discussion of this question—not to enter into a public explanation of his domestic grievances—was the best and most judicious advice that could possibly have been tendered to him. He had no doubt but the noble Marquess entertained a serious belief that all the sentences given against him were wrong, and that he, therefore, refused to obey them; but the noble Marquess ought to recollect, that it was only in consequence of that refusal on his part that this Bill operated against him at all. It was not brought into Parliament against the noble Marquess individually, it was not levelled against him personally, but was intended to apply to the case of every Member of Parliament who might be in a similar situation. It was in the month of April last that the present defect in the law was originally discovered, and he had then said openly in Court, that, if nobody else would introduce a bill to remedy it, he would. He denied entirely that this was a retrospective Bill. As to this Bill having been prepared by the excellent and learned civilian on whom the noble Marquess, in his excitement, had made so extraordinary an attack, or by the solicitor employed under him, he (the Lord Chancellor) had said, that it might

213
have been drawn by him. It might have been so—it might not have been so. All he knew was, that the draft of the Bill which he had received, was not a draft of that solicitor, but was a draft prepared by a most learned and excellent person, in whose great experience, learning, and skill he had every reason to place the most implicit confidence. The Bill, too, was not unprecedented in its provisions, as the noble Marquess contended. Every act abrogating the privilege of Parliament, declared, that the person of the Member should be protected, though no judgment, decree, &c., obtained against his chattels should be impeded, stayed, or delayed, under his plea of privilege. He (the Lord Chancellor) would abstain from all comment on that part of the noble Marquess's speech, in which the noble Marquess almost regretted that he had not taken steps of outrage against two judicial personages; for the noble Marquess must have meant that, when he stated, that he had controlled his feelings so far as not to pursue towards them that course of action which had already procured him three months imprisonment in the King's Bench. He had no doubt but that, on cool reflection, when this excitement was over, the noble Marquess would see, that language like this was in itself an outrage on the decorum of their Lordships' proceedings. He should like to know what motive the noble Marquess supposed him to have for pressing hard upon the feelings of the noble Marquess. The only connexion which he had with the noble Marquess arose out of his having once been counsel for the noble Marquess, and of his having received some kindness and courtesy from the noble Marquess. If the noble Marquess thought that for that kindness and for that courtesy he was to abandon his public duty, the noble Marquess had entirely mistaken his character. As to the other party in this question, he had nothing but the most common and ordinary acquaintance with her. What inducement could he have to exercise his high functions unfairly in behalf of a person of whom he knew much less than he did of the noble Marquess—for whom he had never been counsel—against whom he had been counsel, and against whom, as counsel, he felt it his duty to use very strong language? He left the noble Marquess to guess and their Lordships to divine, what that inducement could be.
214
Latterly he had felt that that party was ill-used, and had, therefore, a right to redress: but no redress should that party or the other party have at his hands except by regular and legitimate proceedings. That public benefit would be derived from this Bill, he looked upon as certain. If it should fall lightly upon the noble Marquess he should be better pleased by it; but if it should fall heavily, the noble Marquess would have nobody but himself to blame for it. If the noble Marquess obeyed the orders of the Court which administered the law, he would have no reason to complain of the Act of Parliament, which, however, was necessary to show that no man in England should set himself above the law.
The Duke of Leinstersaid, he thought it would be hard if the retrospective clause were introduced in the Bill, and he should be glad if it were omitted.
The Marquess of Westmeathhoped that he had not made the House the scene of a disorderly debate. He disclaimed any such intention; but added, that a sense of duty to himself had compelled him to make the statement which he had made. Notwithstanding all the declarations of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, that this Bill was not retrospective in its operation; he called upon him to reconcile that statement, if he could, with the letter which he had addressed to him, stating that if he did not set the law at defiance there would be no need of a retrospective clause.
The Lord Chancellordenied that such was the construction of his letter, and maintained that the Bill was no more retrospective than every other law.
The Bill read a third time, and passed.