Sitting of 8 March 1832

MINUTES.
New Member sworn. THOMAS FRANCIS KENNEDY, Esq., for the Ayr District of Boroughs. Bills. Read a third time; Army and Marine; Mutiny.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Copy of a Letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty to the Navy Board, and the Answer thereto respecting the State of the Store Ledgers, and from the same to the same, with the Answer also relating to the Number of Officers and Men discharged and entered in the Dock Yards during the years 1830, and 1831. Report from Vice Admiral Sir Pulteney Malcolm, to the Admiralty respecting the Packet Establishment at Falmouth:—On the Motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, of the Population, Assessed Taxes, &c.; of certain Boroughs mentioned in the Boundary Reports:—On the Motion of Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, Account of all Monies Received and Expended, relating to Charlton's Charity (Ireland); and of the different suits instituted by the Commissioners of Charitable donations in Ireland, with all the particulars connected therewith:—On the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of the Value of Personal Property in Ireland, passing under Probate, and Letters of Administration, during the Five years, ending the 5th of January last.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HORATIO ROSS, from Persons connected with the Spinning Mills at Arbroath; from the Inhabitants of Dundee; and from the Proprietors of Flax Spinning Mills at the same place:—By Mr. WATSON, from the Inhabitants of Canterbury, in favour of the Bill to Regulate the Labour of Children employed in Factories:—By Mr. THICKNESSE, from the Owners of Spinning and Weaving Mills at Wigan:—By Mr. JOHN THOMAS HOPE, from the Flax Spinners and Manufacturers of Linen Goods, Cupar; and by Mr. MAYHEW, from the Inhabitants of Coggeshall, against the above Bill:—By Mr. LEAKE, from the Corporation and In-
1306
habitants of Poole, against the Division of Counties Bill:—By Sir JOHN BURKE, from the Guild of Plasterers, Galway, for the Repeal or Modification of the Stamp duty on the admission of Freemen to Corporations:—By Colonel DAVIES, from the Medical Society of Worcestershire, for the removal of Impediments to the Cultivation of the Science of Anatomy:—By Mr. HORATIO Ross, from the Inhabitants of Arbroath, for the Repeal of the duty on Soap:—By Mr. WELBY, from the Freeholders and Inhabitants of Grantham, against the General Registry Bill:—By Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, from the Inhabitants of the United Parishes of Skreen, Rathfigh, Ardeath, Dunsane, Killeen, Kilmission, and Ballinrobe, against the Tithe System (Ireland):—By Captain JONES, and Mr. LESTER, from the Inhabitants of Bonevar and Wimborne, against the proposed plan of Education for Ireland:—By Captain JONES, from the Magistrates of the City and County of Londonderry, Complaining of the Fees charged upon the renewal of their Commissions:—By Mr. WILKES, from the Members of the Royal Britons Friendly Society, Newport, Isle of Wight, and the Friendly Society of Operatives meeting at the Hole-in-the-Wall, Fleet-street, to amend the Act relating to Friendly Societies:—By Sir JOHN NEWPORT, from the Chamber of Commerce, Waterford, for the better Regulation of the Baking Trade in Ireland.

DUTY ON HEMP—PETITION.
Mr. Horatio Rosssaid, that he held in his hand a petition very numerously signed by merchants and shipowners of Arbroath, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. The prayer of the petition was, that the present high duty on hemp might be taken off. He was quite aware that this was a subject not very interesting to many Members of that House, but to his constituents it was one of the most vital importance; and he therefore trusted that he should be pardoned if he said a few words in support of the prayer of the petition. He felt confident that the House would agree with him in thinking that the request of the petitioners was a just and a fair one. In the first place, the population of that part of Scotland was almost entirely employed in the manufacture of goods made of hemp and flax. The exportation of these goods to foreign countries was the only export trade which they possessed, and it certainly appeared reasonable that, as they had to compete with foreigners, every indulgence ought to be granted to them, and the raw material of which they manufactured their goods brought as near as possible to the prices on the continent. The principal markets for fabrics made of hemp were St. Domingo, Spain, and North and South America; but to these markets the foreign manufacturers had the same access as our manufacturers. How, then, could it be expected that the British manufacturer could compete with the foreign, if, in addition to the expense of freight to this country, they were obliged to pay a duty of 4l. 13 s. 4d. a ton, which was as near as

1307
possible, twenty per cent on the original price, whilst the foreigners had the raw material free of all duty, without any expense of carriage, and when, in addition to these advantages, they obtained labour at much less expense? He did not mean to go the length of saying that the former Government gave any decided pledge that the duty was to be taken off this year, yet he maintained, and there were many Members in that House who could bear him out in the assertion, that there was a distinct understanding that the manufacturers were to receive this relief at the period when the bounties on the exportation of linens ceased. For eighty years past this trade had been encouraged by these bounties, varying from fifteen to twenty-five per cent, and it now formed one of the most important branches of the trade of the country. In 1825, a gradual reduction of these bounties commenced, and it was settled that they were altogether to cease on the 5th of January last. In 1825 the Scotch manufacturers petitioned that the whole duty might be taken off hemp, and their petition was to a certain extent granted, as the duty was reduced from 91. 6s. 8d. to 4l. 13 s. 4d. per ton, and on flax from 8s. 4d. to 1s. 8d. per ton; and it was then, as he before stated, distinctly understood that the remainder of this duty was to be taken off at the period the bounties ceased. These bounties had ceased, but the duty on hemp was still retained, He therefore thought that the petitioners would have some ground to complain that good faith was not kept with them, unless they obtained the relief they prayed for. Besides the great and principal advantage this country would derive from taking off this duty,—viz. being enabled to retain that trade which we had established at such an enormous expense,—important benefits would be conferred on many classes of the community. In the first place, the shipping interest would be very much benefited by being enabled to purchase their cordage at home, at comparatively low prices, instead of supplying themselves at foreign ports, or carrying out Russian cordage from the London bonded warehouses, to the manifest injury of the operatives and trades people of this country. In the second place, it would be a great boon to our manufacturers; for hemp and flax might be used in many instances for the same purposes; but as the duty on hemp was
1308
4l. 13 s. 4d., and that on flax only ls. 8d. per ton, manufacturers, of course, preferred the latter; but were it not for the enormous difference of the duty, they would make use of hemp in common with flax. The effect of this would be, to keep the price of both articles much steadier, and prevent those sudden fluctuations which of late years had proved very injurious to those engaged in the trade, in consequence of the supply of flax being frequently unequal to the demand. In the third place, in the preparation of hemp for the manufacture of those coarse articles for which it was generally applied, machinery was not in very general use; the consequence of this was, that a great deal of hand labour was given to poor people. In that part of Scotland with which he was more immediately connected, the women were employed in their cottages spinning hemp, and thousands gained a scanty but honest livelihood in this manner. Hon. Members were not, however, unused to hear complaints in England of the poor laws. He thanked God that in Scotland they were as yet very little known, but if by impolitic restrictions these poor people were deprived of the means of supporting themselves, what could they do but come upon the parish for relief? This, he maintained, would be the consequence of retaining this impolitic duty, because that particular branch of trade which gave employment to the poor was entirely supported by the bounties, and, now that they had ceased, it would be knocked on the head unless the duty was also relinquished. He conceived that the only apology which could be offered for refusing the prayer of the petitioners would be, that owing to the state of the revenue no tax could be relinquished at present; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that we had for many years past been paying between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l. annually in the shape of bounties, and as these bounties had now ceased, the revenue was a gainer to that amount. He therefore did not think that the loss of revenue could be urged against the petitioners with justice, particularly as the loss would amount to such a trifling sum. At present the gross revenue derived from the duty on hemp only, amounted to 60,000 l. or 70,000 l., but from that was to be deducted a large sum that had been annually repaid in the shape of bounties, and also on the annual consumption of hemp in the navy

1309
and ordnance departments under Government. It was also to be remembered that the present high duty would operate as a prohibition, and that for the future very little hemp would be imported. He therefore felt confident that he was within the mark when he said that this duty would not produce more than 30,000 l. or 40,000 l. a year. Was, then, this trifling sum to be put in competition with the great advantages which taking it off would confer upon a great portion of our countrymen? He sincerely trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would not only grant the prayer of the petitioners, but that they would do so immediately, as every day of delay inflicted the greatest injury upon those who were interested in this branch of trade. The hon. Member concluded by saying, that the merchants were anxiously waiting for the decision of Government on the subject; and although he was the last man who would do anything to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, yet, if they persisted in retaining this tax, he should consider it a duty which he owed his constituents to bring forward a motion upon this subject, and take the sense of the House on it.
Mr. Hallyburtonsaid, that he would not consume the time of the House, by entering at great length into the merits of the petition which had just been presented by his hon. friend the member for Montrose. The ground of the complaint made by the petitioners was, that the article of rough hemp continued to be subjected to a duty of 4l. 13 s. 4d. per ton on importation into this country. That this impost was mainly injurious to two great interests—the shipping interest, and that of the manufacture of the coarser fabrics of linens, into which hemp ought to enter, and would enter were it not shut out by the high duty; and that so far as concerned the shipping interest, the tax was at variance with those measures of relief, which had been adopted by this and former Governments, induced the ship-owners to import manufactured articles of cordage, &c. duty free, as they were entitled to do; and in so far was a direct premium on foreign industry, to the injury of our own manufacturers. Respecting the injurious operation of the tax upon the manufacture of the coarser fabrics of linen, the great seat of which was the county of Forfar, which he had the honour to represent, he would state, that hemp ought, to enter in various proportions into those fabrics,—
1310
that it was prevented from being so introduced only by the high duty on the rough article, and that the manufacture was in consequence deteriorated, and undue advantage given to Russian and German manufacturers, when competing with ours in foreign markets. In consequence of the necessity the manufacturer was under of getting rid of the coarser parts of the rough hemp, by various manipulations, (which coarser part was technically named codilla) the finer and dressed part was reduced to one-half of the original weight, and the coarser part being importable into this country free of duty, and being actually imported in large quantities, the whole tax of 4l. 13 s. 4d. was consequently borne by the half ton of dressed hemp. In other words, the manufacturer paid a duty of from 9l. to 10 l. per ton on hemp which was available for his purposes; or rather the manufacturer would pay such a sum did not the duty altogether preclude the use of the article. He begged the House to bear in mind that the relief from the tax would be highly beneficial to a numerous and industrious class of persons in the county of Forfar, he meant females, who would spin the hemp in any quantities that might be given to them, and for a small rate of wages, machinery not having been yet adopted generally for the spinning of that material. He was of opinion that the Exchequer would not suffer any loss by the taking off the hemp duty, but that the Government would remain gainers upon the whole transaction, for it must be considered in combination with the withdrawing of the linen bounties, which had been in course of reduction on a graduated scale since 1825; and a positive declaration, if not a pledge, was given by the late Government that the duty of 4l. 13 s. 4d. on rough hemp should be removed entirely on the cessation of the linen bounties on the 5th of January last. The bounties on the exportation of linens had amounted to the annual sum of little short of 300,000 l., and from that burden the Government was now relieved by the total withdrawing of the bounties. On the other hand, the duty on rough hemp imported could not for the two last years be stated at a larger sum than 65,000 l. or 70,000 l. per annum of clear gain to the Exchequer, the amount of hemp imported having gradually diminished; and therefore, taking the saving to Government, on one hand, by the cessation of the bounties, and the loss of duty

1311
on the other, the relief prayed for might be given without loss of revenue, and in furtherance of sound and acknowledged principles of taxation.
Petition to lie on the table and be printed.

SEAMEN'S CONTRIBUTION TO GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyrose in pursuance of the notice he had given, to apply for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of 20th George 2nd, c. 28, as related to the contribution of sixpence per month from the merchant-seamen towards the support of Greenwich Hospital. He was happy to say, that it would not be necessary for him to occupy much of the time of the House by troubling it with a long statement on this subject. He was perfectly aware of the difficulties under which he laboured, in endeavouring to bring forward a measure which had been objected to by such high authority as the distinguished Baronet the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, whose letter on the subject, pointing out the fallacy of the grounds on which his Motion was founded, must be in the hands of hon. Members. He trusted, it was hardly necessary for him to assure the House, in the outset, that he had not the slightest intention to do anything which would have the effect of injuring the establishment of Greenwich Hospital in any way whatever; nor had he any wish to withhold from the Hospital, those advantages which were so munificently and properly extended towards it. He was perfectly aware it had been stated, that the funds of the Hospital had not, on all occasions, been directly applied to the particular circumstances for which they were intended under the Act of Parliament, and that the strictest justice and impartiality had not, in some particular instances, been displayed in the selection of individuals on whom the benefits arising from the institution had been conferred. He would, therefore, take this, the earliest opportunity of stating, that from the best inquiries he had been enabled to make on the subject, he fully believed that there was no ground whatever for such accusations. On the contrary, he had every reason to believe that the funds were most properly applied, and that a strict course of impartiality had been pursued in the selection of the individuals who participated in those funds. But the case to which this Bill was intended to
1312
apply was one of a very simple character. It was no doubt known to the House, that soon after the establishment of the Hospital in the time of William 3rd, an Act of Parliament was passed regulating it, in which it was enacted, that sixpence a month should be taken from the pay of the mercantile seamen for the purpose of contributing towards the funds of the Hospital. The preamble of that Act stated, that for the encouragement of the service, it was fit and reasonable that seamen should be supported at the public charge, and therefore Greenwich Hospital was selected for the reception of these individuals. That Act was altered and amended by several subsequent enactments. In George 1st, the collection of the sixpences formed also a part of the Act, and it was expressly understood at that time, that the money was to be applied for the general use of the Hospital, and that the merchant-sea-men were to be entitled to participate in the advantages of the Hospital. In the 18th George 2nd, an Act was passed for the application of the rents and profits of the estates of the Earl of Derwentwater, to the support and maintenance of the Hospital, and prescribing the mode in which the profits of those estates were to be applied to that purpose. That Act contained a clause which implied that the provisions of the Act of 8th George 1st. extended only to seamen or marines in the naval service of his Majesty; for it said, "It is further enacted, that any seaman or mariner aboard any merchant vessel belonging to a subject of his Majesty shall, in consideration of his having contributed towards the support of the hospital be entitled to the benefits arising from it, if he has been wounded in the service of his Majesty." That Act, therefore clearly recognized the right of a merchant-seaman to be admitted to the hospital, on the ground of his having contributed towards its support. It was discovered, a few years after the passing of this Act, that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were rapidly decreasing, and that the applications for admission were so numerous that it was impossible to provide for the reception of the whole of the applicants. It was considered advisable, therefore, that the merchant-seamen should not be entitled any longer to the benefits of the institution; and the Act 20th George 2nd, cap. 38, in taking that benefit from them, laid down the necessity of establishing

1313
some institution for their support. The annual amount of their contribution to Greenwich at present was about 25,000 l.; and he trusted that, even in the present state of the Exchequer, taking into consideration the manner in which the interests of these poor people were affected by this enactment, the noble Lord would not find it difficult to accede to his proposition. He had a list in his hand, of the number of merchant-seamen who, together with their widows and children, received pensions. The earnings of these poor men were comparatively very small. He might be told that the deduction of 6d. a month was very small too. But it was not small to them when compared with the amount of the earnings of these individuals. A man who had been all over the world, who had been exposed to fatigues and hardships of every description, and whose constitution had been injured by exposure to the different climates, and the numerous vicissitudes attending the naval service, received in his old age, a pension of 3s. 4d. a month. For a child he was allowed 1s. 6d. a month, which, with his own 3s. 4d. would not make quite 5s. for their support, And, even with regard to these miserable pittances, the funds were at present in such a state, that, in consequence of the repeated applications for admission, the trustees were placed under the disagreeable necessity of either contracting the amount of these pensions, or refusing to allow them at all; and the poor creatures were, in consequence, placed in a state of the greatest distress. This was the case at Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and also at Liverpool; and when it was recollected that these people had themselves contributed towards the support of Greenwich Hospital, it must be admitted that it was a case of very great hardship. He knew no case analogous to this—he knew no other institution in which private funds were required to contribute to public services—and it was neither fair nor just that the seamen should be called upon to do so. It was perfectly right that people should contribute to funds which were hereafter to support themselves and their families; but, in this case, the contribution was for the support of a great public establishment, whose merits he was quite ready to admit; but it was asking too much, to require that funds for the relief of disabled seamen should be supplied from the wages of these persons, when they were not allowed
1314
to participate in the benefit of their own contributions. He trusted that the House would give him leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of these Acts as compelled merchant-seamen to contribute 6d. a month towards the support of Greenwich Hospital, and that the fund so taken away should be supplied by Government. Notwithstanding the difficulties under which the public treasury at present laboured, there was no very sufficient ground of objection to this proposition; because it appeared to be only an act of justice towards the best interests of the country. The very reason given by the distinguished individual whose letter he now held in his hand, in support of the view he took of this case, appeared to him (Sir M. Ridley) to afford the strongest arguments in favour of the proposition he was about to make. He must further observe, that these individuals were in a state of the greatest distress; and he, therefore, called upon the House, as an act of common justice and proper feeling, to acquiesce in the motion he now submitted to it. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the Act of 20th George 2nd, cap. 28, as compels the payment of 6d. per month from merchant-seamen to Greenwich Hospital.
Sir James Grahamwas aware the House was anxious to proceed to the discussion of another matter of considerable importance, and, therefore, he was unwilling to detain it on this subject. He should not, however, although he felt compelled to object to the Bill in its first stage, be under the necessity of troubling the House at any great length, because the letter, to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, embraced the greatest part of the reasons on which he was disposed to rely in resisting this proposition. In the first place, he begged to call the attention of the House to the very early period at which this particular grant was made to this institution; and he trusted the House would allow him to state, very shortly, what was the nature of the grant in question, and. the purposes to which it was applied. It appeared that the hospital was instituted in the reign of William the 3rd, for the purpose of inducing able seamen to enter the King's service. Its avowed purpose, therefore, was to encourage the interests of the King's service, and to raise it in the estimation of mariners generally, and that purpose was distinctly recognized by another Act, which granted certain

1315
privileges connected with Greenwich Hospital to merchant-seamen. It was also necessary to remind the House, that, although this custom had existed for nearly a century and a-half, in no one instance had a representation against this impost been made to the House until within a very recent period. It was, he believed, within the last four or five years, that the merchant-seamen first presented a petition to this House against it. He thought it was also right that he should state to the House, that advantages derived from Greenwich Hospital, as it was at present constituted, Were enjoyed by merchant-seamen. There were in that establishment about 2,200 seamen; and one-half of that number had been in the merchant-service before they entered into his Majesty's navy. Many of them had been engaged in that service twenty or thirty years. It was quite clear, therefore, that the prime of their lives had been dedicated to the merchant-service and not to that of the public. There were also other advantages enjoyed by merchant seamen from this institution. There was a school for 400 boys, of whom 300 were the children of petty officers or seamen in his Majesty's service, the remainder being the children of merchant-seamen. He was aware that, by a recent alteration, in consequence of the establishment being changed, certain difficulties had arisen with respect to nomination; but he had to inform the House, that by an arrangement now in contemplation, and about to be carried into effect, each fourteenth nomination would belong to the merchant-service exclusively. He must frankly state to the House his opinion that this motion, which professed to consult the interests of merchant-seamen, did not, in fact, relate to them so much as to the ship-owners; and he was quite confident that, in the present state of wages and great competition, even if the House removed this impost, no addition would be made to the wages of the men employed in the merchant-service. He had no doubt his hon. friend was perfectly aware of a letter addressed to the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, signed by Mr. Woodrooffe, on behalf of the merchant-seamen. He had in his hand a private letter, written by Mr. Woodrooffe, who signed the petition on behalf of the merchant-seamen, in which he frankly stated to the Governor of Greenwich Hospital the nature of the
1316
motives which had induced the merchant-seamen to agitate this question, from which it would appear that their complaints did not arise from the particular grievance of the impost in question, but from the reduced rate of wages which they received from their employers. This gentleman said—
"I am directed to state, that the seamen hare perused your letter which has been published, and acknowledge the justice of your observations: and, that if they had the means of continuing to make this contribution, they never would have complained of it; and they also state, that if they received the wages which were paid them at the close of the war, they would consider it nothing but just and necessary to make the contribution. They state, that they have in vain endeavoured to obtain from their employers an increase of wages; and it is in despair of settling the dispute between themselves and their employers, that they have applied for the removal of this impost of 6d., which, in no case, amounts to more than 4s. in the course of the year."
The real question for the House to consider, therefore, was, on whom ought the burden, necessary to the support of this great national establishment, to fall? He had already stated, that, from the reign of William the 3rd up to the present period, this deduction had existed; and he must now shortly state to the House that, in consequence of the very great reductions which had been made in that establishment, no further reductions could, at the present moment, possibly be made in the income of Greenwich Hospital. Within the last twenty years, a reduction had taken place in the expenditure of the institution, on an average, to the extent of 7,000 l. a-year. Within that period, also, a diminution of the income of Greenwich Hospital had taken place to the extent of 37,000 l. per annum, as he would explain to the House. In the first place, there was the sixpenny contribution paid by the King's seamen, which was abolished, that had produced 21,000 l. a-year. It might be said, that this was an unjust measure without a corresponding reduction from the contribution of merchant-seamen; the grounds upon which this contribution was abolished, however, was, for the purpose of raising the King's service in the estimation of the men, and with the view of increasing its efficiency, that was a consideration that must never be lost sight of, if they endeavoured to do away with or lessen the evils of impressment. The most

1317
rational means of avoiding the recurrence of the necessity of having recourse to that odious practice was, to raise the King's service as near to the merchant-service, in point of pay, as possible. He admitted, therefore, that this was, pro tanto, an increase of pay; but, on these grounds, he contended, that it was a very wise and reasonable provision. The second source of the diminution which had taken place in the income of Greenwich Hospital was, that there were some half-pay officers employed in that establishment who had been heretofore paid by the public; they were subsequently paid by the institution for the purpose of effecting a saving to the public. The third source of diminution arose from a measure by which the rate of freight Was diminished. The fourth reduction was one which would be consequent upon a measure which was now in progress. The matter, therefore, stood thus—the income of Greenwich Hospital had been reduced to the extent of 37,000 l.; while the expenditure, after every effort that could be made, could not be reduced to a greater extent than 7,000 l. The surplus income was at present very small; the tax in question yielded 22,000 l. a-year: it was, therefore, obvious that, unless the House was prepared to reduce the establishment itself to a very great extent, this money must either be paid by the merchant-seamen or out of the public purse. With regard to the reduction of the establishment itself, it so happened, that, from its very peculiar nature, even a large reduction in the number of men would produce but a very small saving of money. Almost all the in-pensioners of that establishment would be intitled, if they were dismissed, to large sums as out-pensioners, the greater part of them to about 12 l. a-year; while their cost as in-pensioners, for food and clothing, did not exceed 20 l. a-year per man; and, consequently, a reduction of 500 pensioners would effect a money-saving of only 4,000 l. a-year. So, also, with regard to the officers of the establishment; almost all of them were intitled to half-pay, and the difference between their half-pay and their allowance at Greenwich was so small, that any saving consequent upon their discharge would almost be counterbalanced by their half-pay. He was bound, also, to state to the House, that this was the worst possible time at which this question could be urged. The pressure on
1318
Greenwich Hospital was at present more than usually severe, because a large number of men who had been employed during the war, and who had, since its termination, been able to maintain themselves either in the merchant's or King's service, had become decrepit and in extreme distress, and the number of applications for admission was greater than at any ordinary time. There was another reason why the expenses of Greenwich Hospital were larger now than they would be a few years hence. When the prize branch was transferred to Greenwich, it was made liable to all outstanding prize claims. For the first year the demands on this ground amounted to 30,000 l.; it subsequently decreased to 10,000 l., at present it did not amount to above 8,000 l. a-year; and at the end of five years, he believed the demands would cease. There would, at the end of that time, in all probability, be a very considerable increase in the funds of the institution. There was, also, another measure now in progress, which he alluded to the other evening, with respect to a change in the land security, which would also increase the funds of the establishment. Without pledging himself as to the effect of future arrangements, he could undertake to assert, that, at the expiration of a few years, the income of the Hospital might be so much increased as to dispense with the demands on the wages of merchant-seamen. He was quite sure he spoke the feelings of the House, and the highest authorities on the subject, when he asserted, that it was a point of the utmost importance to raise the estimation of the naval service in the minds of seamen generally, and there was nothing which would contribute to that so. much as the knowledge they possessed, that, when wounded or disabled, they could, among the dangers and trials to which they were necessarily exposed, look forward to Greenwich as a certain asylum, and as a place of rest in their old age, after years of toil and danger in the service of their country. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would not consider it expedient to take from the already diminished funds of Greenwich Hospital, a source of its revenue quite unconnected with merchant-seamen, as it was really paid by the owners, who might be fairly called upon to continue it in return for the protection they received from the King's ships in time of war and

1319
occasionally in peace. On these grounds he felt it necessary to resist the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. Wrightsonconcurred in everything which had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Newcastle, and would most heartily support his Motion. He thought it a miserable economy which would refuse 20,000 l. a-year for such a purpose as this, and most unfair that such a tax should be levied upon the merchant service, whether it fell upon the seaman or the shipowner.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, he felt called upon to make one remark, in reply to the right hon. Baronet, who had asserted, that the men employed in the merchant service derived advantage from this institution, because having been brought up in that service, they had subsequently been employed in the Royal Navy. But the House must recollect, that they were not admitted on account of having been in the merchant service, but solely because they had been employed in the public service, and they would just as well have been entitled to the benefits of the institution, had they never been in any other employment at sea but the Royal Navy. The number of persons in the hospital who had been engaged in the merchant service, only showed how much the navy was indebted to that service for hands; and it was a hard case to take them from the service to which they had been brought up, and then make that a plea to reduce their wages. He would support the Motion.
Mr. Dixonthought, it would be much more just that this sum should be taken from the general funds of the country, than that it should be levied upon a particular interest.
Mr. Schonswarperfectly agreed in the propriety of keeping up the establishment of Greenwich Hospital; but he contended that the brave men who found an asylum, after years spent in the public service, and suffering from wounds and infirmities, ought to be considered as claimants upon the country. They had an undoubted right to be supported by the public at large,' instead of being partly provided for by one particular class. The merchant service never benefitted by the expenses they were called on to pay; and there would be as much justice in calling upon a farmer's servant to pay to a fund because he might afterwards possibly enlist into the army, as to charge a merchant seaman sixpence a
1320
month for the support of Greenwich Hospital. He had himself seen some particular instances of the hardships growing out of this practice, and one of them he well remembered. It was the case of a young man who had lost both his legs; and on presenting a petition to him on this subject observed, "Do you not consider mine a case of great hardship; I have been mutilated in the merchant service, and can receive no benefit from the sixpences I have contributed to the support of seamen. I do not object to paying this sum, but I do think that we ought to share in the benefit." On these grounds he felt himself called upon to support the Motion.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, that some years ago he had been disposed to give way upon this subject, as a relief to the distressed shipping interest, and not because it would be any relief to the merchant seaman. The fact was, that the monthly sixpences were paid by the shipowners, who, of late, had experienced very considerable relief, and had a right to pay this trifling charge in return for the protection they received. In time of war, their vessels were always accompanied by men of war, who, in the event of their being assailed, fought in their defence, while the private ships remained quiet; but should any person in the merchant service receive injury or wounds when engaged in action with an enemy, they were in such case as much entitled to the benefit of Greenwich Hospital, as the crews of King's ships. After what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had defended the charges on the wages of the merchant seamen on the plea of necessity only, and had stated his intention to dispense with them whenever other funds sufficient for the support of seamen wounded or disabled in the public service could be obtained, he would recommend the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Motion for the present, and trust to the increase of the income of Greenwich Hospital, as a means of entirely getting rid of the charge.
Lord William Lennoxwould not have risen, had he not the honour of representing a populous town deeply interested in this question. After the able manner in which the hon. members for Newcastle had stated the question, he would not occupy the time of the House, but merely say, that he thought it an act of injustice that the merchant seamen should be taxed

1321
for the support of an hospital that ought to be supported by the country. He should vote in support of the Motion.
Mr. Humesaid, he never heard of a man receiving a pension as a merchant seaman from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. Soldiers were not called upon to contribute towards the support of Chelsea Hospital, and he thought that sailors ought not to be taxed for the maintenance of Greenwich Hospital. No class of men were more deserving than the merchant seamen, and there were none whose interests were in a more miserable condition, or possessed fewer advocates. It appeared that one-fourth of the number of children admitted into Greenwich Hospital School were intended to be taken from those whose parents were attached to the merchant service. He very much doubted the propriety of that institution. He was inclined to think that the children were chiefly selected from persons resident on the spot, or in London, and that the system of favouritism was at work in procuring their entrance. The yearly aggregate of the monthly tax levied on the merchant seamen on behalf of the hospital was no trifling matter. In 1831, the amount deducted from their wages in this way was 24,000 l.—an important sum at any time, but especially important in the present distressed state of the shipping interest. Why should the merchants of the country, by whom the taxes was in reality paid—why, he asked, must they be forced to pay 24,000 l. a-year for the purpose of keeping up a great national establishment? Even poor as the nation was, and depressed as was the state of our financial resources, the burthen should not be imposed upon a particular class of the community. Nor, though the tax was paid by the ship-owners, would it be easy to persuade the sailors that it was not paid by themselves. For his own part, he did not object to the institution, but he wished that it were supported, like all our national institutions, out of the public purse, and that our liberality should not be exercised at the expense of individuals. He was extremely anxious for the adoption of the hon. Baronet's measure, yet at present he conceived it would be better not to press it to a division, as he was sure that Ministers themselves would next year, or in the course of a few months, see the propriety of coming forward to perform what was barely an act of justice.
Sir George Clerksaid, the remark which had been made by his hon. and gallant friend relating to the support the merchant service received from the navy in time of war, showed that that service derived some benefit from the Royal Navy, and, therefore, that there was such connexion between them that the private service ought to contribute to the support of persons occasionally wounded or disabled in defending their vessels. No other class of persons in the community were similarly circumstanced. The fact was, that this was neither more nor less than a tax of 20,000 l. a-year on the shipping interest of the country; and he should be very happy whenever the moment arrived that Greenwich Hospital had a surplus revenue, so that the right hon. Baronet might be able to relieve the shipping interest from that tax; but certainly they received the benefit of protection in return for paying it. Now that he was on his legs, he begged to put a question relative to the Keswick estates of Greenwich Hospital. The other night a question was put as to the sale of some of those estates; and he had understood the right hon. Baronet then to say, that only a small portion of them was to be disposed of in that manner. He now, however, saw by an advertisement in the newspapers that two or three of the estates were offered for sale; he, therefore, wished to know, whether it was in contemplation of the Government to dispose of the larger portion of those estates? With respect to the hon. Baronet's Motion he presumed that he would hardly think it necessary to press it, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, but for the present rest contented with the promise that had been held out.
Mr. Baringsaid, that all sea-faring men had an interest in Greenwich Hospital, because, from the manner in which Government manned its ships, no one who entered the merchant service was free from the liability of being pressed into the service of the King. He admitted that they were not taxing the seamen by this, but the commercial marine of the country; and, certainly, if it could be got rid of, it would be very desirable. He thought, however, that he could suggest a means of saving enough out of the funds of Greenwich Hospital to pay for this expenditure. According to a paper which he held in his hand, explanatory of the gross rents and disbursements of the Derwentwater estates,

1323
it appeared that the disbursements had frequently been as great as the receipts. In this he was speaking only of the estates, and not of the mines; and he fancied that as most Gentlemen understood something of the management of estates, they would be a little surprised at the statement which he had made. The amount of the rents last year was 25,000 l., and of the disbursements 17,000 l.; but this was comparatively low, for in some years the expenses had risen to upwards of 40,000 l. He, therefore, really thought that, with proper management, a saving on those estates might be made equal to the amount of the seamen's expenses.
Sir James Grahamassured the hon. Gentleman that the expenses of the Derwentwater estates had not escaped the notice of the present Board of Admiralty nor of the last. But his answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman must be, that the expense was already incurred, and there was, therefore, now no help for it. The estates, however, had been placed in the highest state of culture, and the consequence was, that they would be highly productive without incurring any great outlay for some considerable space of time. With respect to the sale of the estates, he had certainly thought it right to direct that some of them should be sold for the sake of ascertaining their value; the sale, however, had been confined to the outlying estates, and the main body of the property had not been at all dismembered. As the thing had only been done by way of experiment, it was impossible for him to say whether any further sale would be deemed advisable.
Mr. Goulburntrusted that, before any further sate took place, an opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of the subject in that House.
An Hon. Memberwas not disposed to withdraw a single farthing from Greenwich Hospital; and he thought it was an unreasonable argument to say, that, because a man was liable to be called on to serve the king, he ought also to be required to pay sixpence a month while in the merchant service.
Mr. Weylandsaid, if he saw any security that the money raised by the tax would be distributed among the men from whom it came, he would not object to its continuance. He, however, had a proposition to make to the hon. Baronet. It was well known that, by paying ls. 3d. a
1324
month to a Friendly Society, every man was able to obtain an allowance in sickness, and an annuity in old age. A similar provision in this Bill, or any other of the same kind, should have his support. But he would not consent to exact the payment of 6d. a month from the seamen, unless he could be sure that it was to go towards a fund, the result of which was to be the moral and temporal benefit of the sailor.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, there were two points in which he had been misunderstood. When he had opened this discussion he had distinctly stated, that he had no intention whatever to propose a deduction from the funds of Greenwich Hospital; be had merely taken it as a question between the Consolidated Fund and the pockets of the seamen. Neither was it, as supposed to be, money deducted from the pockets of the seamen into those of the ship-owners. His object was, that the subscription of the seamen should be applied to their own local funds, and swell them into importance and utility. With respect to Greenwich Hospital, though some hon. Gentlemen would seem to find fault with the appropriation of the funds of that charity, he felt bound to say, that he had made an inquiry on the subject, and his belief, in consequence, was, that there was no such misapplication. The appointments appeared to be fairly dealt out, and there seemed to be no just ground of complaint on any account. He felt much gratified at what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet; and finding that the sense of the House appeared to be, that he should adopt the suggestion thrown out on the part of the Government, he was willing to withdraw his Motion in the present instance, and look forward to the time when the right hon. Baronet should be able to carry into execution that which he proposed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LINCOLNSHIRE MILITIA.
Sir William Ingilbysaid, in bringing the Motion on this subject forward, of which he had given notice, he trusted that he might be allowed to enter into a history of the facts of the ease, in order that the grounds upon which he went might be fully understood. After the late prorogation of the Parliament, in October, his duties had called him into the county of Lincoln, which he had the honour to represent, much about the period when the two

1325
Militia regiments of that county were called out to perform duty. According to the notice of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who was the Colonel, the South Lincoln Militia met, on the 15th of November, at Stamford. It was, however, worthy of remark, that many of the officers of that regiment thought proper to be absent; in particular the Lieutenant Colonel, whom he saw opposite, had not cared to show himself on the occasion. To be sure, there were a Captain or two and some other officers with the regiment at Stamford, but, generally speaking, he might say, that there was a very shy muster in the officer department. Indeed the Commander himself seemed to think that his subordinates were setting him a very good example, for, having a little private business of his own, he took the hint, and retired to his own abode on the Saturday, and contented himself with coming back on the Monday morning. When he thus came back, it turned out that something had occurred at Stamford to excite the passions and stir up the irritated feelings of the noble Earl, which certainly were quite at variance with the sentiments that the noble Earl afterwards expressed in his speech to the regiment. In consequence of these angry feelings, the noble Earl wrote—he hardly knew what to call it—a puling sort of a letter to the Clerk of the Ordnance, calling upon him for his interference with certain parties in the borough of Stamford, whom the noble Earl supposed to be under the influence of that gentleman. This letter was replied to by his right hon. friend (Mr. Tennyson), in what seemed to him to be a very proper and satisfactory sort of a way; but it was not, however, his intention to read the letters to the House, as they had already been fully before the public. The material correspondence to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that which had taken place between the Government and the Lord Lieutenant; and he certainly thought that the relative situation in which these two parties stood to each other was a little curious. The noble Earl was what in those days was called an Ultra-Tory; and where an Ultra-Tory Lord Lieutenant had to act with a liberal Reforming Government, the very natural consequence was, that they were pulling two very different ways; but even though this was the case, he thought that, between them, they might have
1326
avoided casting a stigma on the county of Lincoln. In the observations that he had made he did not intend to complain of the noble Earl having retired from Stamford from the Saturday to the Monday. Being a family man, no doubt the noble Earl was very right; for though he had to serve the king, that did not exempt him from serving his family too; and as Saturday was a convenient sort of a day, it was all very natural that he should have made choice of it to wend his way homeward; but though there was this justification for the Colonel, there could be no doubt that the Militia had lost great opportunities of efficiency of service by the additional absence of the Lieutenant Colonel, who, having seen service all his life, and having been in Portugal, Spain, and Waterloo, and he knew not where besides, would, beyond all doubt, have been highly useful in the way of illuminating the Lincoln Militia; and no doubt it was owing to the hon. Gentleman's absence that the regiment was as blindly ignorant of service on the last day of the three weeks as they had been on the first. Having said thus much of the South Lincoln Militia, he would now pass on to the North Lincoln Militia. He happened to be in the neighbourhood, looking after some of his farms, and, therefore, could speak as to the impression made on him on seeing them going into Lincoln. All that he had seen were parties of fennmen, going, about six at a time towards the city, and withal so blithe and frisky, that to him they looked more like lively Emeralders than the sober men of Lincolnshire. Now, as to the officers of this regiment, he might say of them as he had of those of the other regiment, that they did not appear particularly active in making their appearance. He did not, however, intend to specify the whole corps; and he might, therefore, content himself with observing, that, with respect to the Lieutenant Colonel, the thing for which he appeared to be best suited was, to be a member of the Charles-street Club, and about as much might be said of the Adjutant. But, however, to return to his narrative: from the time that the men came into Lincoln nothing whatever happened, except that there was a muster (he believed) of the clergy and the old women of the place in the cathedral yard; but, of course, no harm came from that. But though this was all that took place with respect to either of the two

1327
regiments, to their great surprise they learned, that, pursuant to a direction from Lord Viscount Melbourne, they were to be disbanded before the regular time, in consequence, as he felt justified in saying, of the correspondence that had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government. He thought, therefore, that, in moving for a copy of this correspondence, he was doing nothing but what was fair and proper with the view of discharging the county from that disgrace which was now hanging over it, in consequence of the sudden and unexplained disbanding of its Militia force. He must confess, however, that he had some difficulty in reconciling this correspondence of the noble Earl with what had taken place when the noble Earl subsequently attended at Stamford, for the purpose of discharging the South Lincoln regiment. On that occasion the noble Earl addressed the corps in what had been called a high-minded speech in the paper published by the Marquis of Exeter; and he preferred quoting from that paper, because, as both the noble Earl and the noble Marquis were members of the Charles-street Society, of course they perfectly understood one another, and what was therein published might naturally be received as quite agreeable to both. The address was couched in the following words:—"Soldiers of the Royal South Lincoln Militia! It having been found necessary to shorten the period of training and exercise to twenty-one days, in consequence of the advanced season of the year, this is the last opportunity for drill; and I am bound to say that you have made as much progress in your military exercise as could be expected from the shortness of the time, and the state of the weather. I must also declare to you that your general conduct has been satisfactory to me, for, although attempts have been certainly made, by designing and ill-judging persons, to pervert your minds, little effect has been, I am quite sure, produced by such artifices, which artifices have been, I trust, nearly, if not altogether, as unsuccessful as the hope expressed by the same mistaken persons of scaring me from the execution of my duty in this place; for those, indeed, can know but little of my character who suppose that I am to be easily deterred from a strict performance of that which I feel to be upright, just, and honourable. I have been long enough engaged in military business to
1328
know that if a commanding officer will be at the pains to do his duty towards his men, they, as British soldiers, will not fail in their duty of manifesting towards him their good will, esteem, and confidence. As I can make the appeal on the subject of my own conduct towards you, without the least hesitation, I tell you, in the language of sincerity and truth, that I do place the fullest confidence in your behaviour and general conduct. I have now only to require that you will conduct yourselves during to-morrow, with the sobriety and good order due to the solemnity of the Sabbath day, and also that you will, early on Monday, according to the orders which you will hear read, appear at the muster, and, having been settled with by the officers of the companies, repair quietly to your respective homes." He quite agreed with the newspaper which was under the patronage of the noble Marquis, to whom he had before alluded that this was a high-minded address, but surely the inference to be drawn from it was, that the noble Lord had the fullest confidence in his men. What, however, was the result? Why, that Major Campbell of the 19th regiment with about 200 of his men, who were marching northward, were suddenly countermanded, and directed to remain in the neighbourhood to overawe the Militia, and protect their commander; that this was the fact, was proved by the resignation of Major Calcraft, who retired from the Militia in consequence. After this statement, although his Motion might be negatived in that House, he trusted that the noble Lord, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, would produce the correspondence, and satisfy the people of the county that he at least was not to blame. If it were produced, he entertained not the slightest doubt that that correspondence—that noble-minded correspondence, as it had been designated—would turn out to be what his hon. and learned friend, the member for Kerry, would call so much blarney. He expected that the hon. and gallant Member opposite would reply to him, and he hoped that, when he did, he would practise more courtesy than was usual with him—that the gallant Member would not inflict upon him a repetition of those observations concerning the county meeting, at which he had united with his constituents for the attainment of a public object, and which the gallant Colonel called an assemblage

1329
of 400 ragamuffins. The hon. and gallant Member was in the habit of sitting growling and grumbling like Etna, and then a crater would burst, and out would come—nothing but smoke and rubbish. He hoped that when the hon. and gallant Member came to speak of him and of his county, he would observe truth and correctness. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for a "Copy of the Correspondence between his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Lincoln, upon the subject of the dismissal of the two county regiments of Militia before the expiration of the term of service for which they were embodied."
Mr. Heneageseconded the Motion, and, observed, that, he could by no means understand on what grounds the dismissal took place, for, although an offence was committed during the first week the regiment were at Stamford, no one was punished for a repetition of it during the after period of the training. The dismissal of the regiment had caused much surprise in the county, as no other reason was assigned for it than the cold which prevailed at that time, and which, being no uncommon occurrence, might easily have been foreseen.
Mr. Lambassured the House, that he would detain it but for a very short time upon this not very interesting subject. He should resist the production of this correspondence upon general grounds. The House would readily perceive that the correspondence between the Government and the Lord-lieutenant of a county must often be of the most private and confidential nature, and, therefore, nothing but the strongest necessity could ever justify the production of it. No such necessity had been made out upon the present occasion. If he were to explain the reasons why the period of service for the Lincolnshire Militias had been shortened from twenty-eight to twenty-one days, he might as well produce the correspondence for which the hon. Baronet moved. This shortening of the service of the Militia was not at all unusual: it had taken place in two other instances besides this during the short period in which he had been in office: and could assure the hon. member for Lincolnshire, that it neither was a slur, nor intended to be a slur, upon the Militia regiments of his county. He would, therefore, content himself by re-
1330
peating his intention to resist the production of these papers.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that, although the hon. Baronet had paid him some compliments at the outset, the termination of his speech was of a totally opposite tendency. He wished the hon. Baronet to understand, that his compliments, or the reverse, were matters of perfect indifference to him. When he stated that his absence, which had been alluded to, was caused by indisposition, he hoped that he had given a sufficient answer to that part of the hon. Baronet's observations. If he were to move for the production of the correspondence between the hon. Baronet and the editor of one of the most scurrilous and venomous papers that ever came from the press, it would be quite as reasonable as the present Motion. If the hon. Baronet would consent to the production of the correspondence, between him and Messrs. Drakard, Northhouse, and Co., he Colonel Sibthorp) should not object to the production of this correspondence. The subject to which the hon. Baronet's Motion applied could not be understood by any other than a military man.—"Fit fabricando faber." He must say, that if the hon. Baronet would not interfere with matters of which he was utterly ignorant, but would let the House have the advantage of his eloquence upon subjects with which he was conversant—if he would favour the House with his ideas upon the tobacco trade, with which he was perfectly conversant—he would have a better chance of obtaining the approbation of the House.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that the Lord-lieutenant, for whom he had the highest respect personally, had shown that he was mistaken as to the facts which occurred at Stamford, among his constituents by a letter which the Lord Lieutenant had addressed to him, and which had been made public. If the letter which the noble Earl addressed to the Government contained similar representations, he had only to say, that the information upon which Government had acted must have been incorrect. He trusted that this transaction would afford a lesson to the Government, and would make them reflect how they consulted the wishes of individuals, who, having no consideration for what the people deemed their interests, had little feeling in common with them. Civil authority, unless exercised by those who sympathised with the people, was ineffective.
Mr. Custobserved, that he merely rose to say, that nothing which had Occurred in the course of this debate rendered it necessary for him to say anything.
Motion negatived.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Stanleyrose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the subject of Irish Tithes. On the 6th of December, that House, in common with the other House of Parliament, received from his Majesty a recommendation to take the subject of Tithes in Ireland into their immediate and most attentive consideration. In reply to that recommendation, the House assured his Majesty, that it should be one of its first duties to inquire whether it might not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting the subject of tithes in Ireland, which might afford the necessary protection to the Established Church, and, at the same time, remove the present causes of complaint. In a few days after the recommendation from the Throne and the Address in answer to it had passed, a Committee was appointed, and the subject thus referred to that Committee engaged its most careful and laborious investigation. Having had the honour to be the Chairman of that Committee, it had been his duty, in compliance with its instructions, to make a report to the House. The Committee had not been able to conclude its labours, yet it had proceeded far enough to be able to lay before the House some portion of the information which it had acquired and, in presenting its first Report to the House, to call upon the House to take such steps as, under the circumstances, might be necessary. The Committee having proceeded that length, it had now become his duty to lay before the House the views which his Majesty's Government entertained of the information acquired by the Committee on this most important subject, and the means of carrying the recommendations of the Committee into effect. The most convenient and regular course, however would be, that he should submit those views to a Committee of the whole House, especially as he wished to submit the whole plan of Government, with all its details, to the consideration of the House. Such a course would be more convenient, as affording wider scope for debate, and affording him a better opportunity to explain and state the whole of
1332
the plan which his Majesty's Government had resolved upon adopting, as well as the Resolutions upon which they intended it should be founded. Anticipating no objection to this mode of proceeding, he should, in the first instance, content himself by moving "that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, and that the Speaker do leave the Chair."
The question having been put,
Mr. Brownlowsaid, that, perceiving, from the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman, that it was his intention that night to draw the attention of the House to the consideration of the partial Report of the Committee upon tithes in Ireland, he had concluded, from that notice, that the right hon. Gentleman would feel it part of his business to open out to the House the nature of the views taken by his Majesty's Government, and the Resolutions which they meant to propose as founded upon that partial Report. Without intending or presuming to judge what was the usual course of proceeding in that House, with which the right hon. Gentleman must, of course, be much better acquainted than he professed to be, yet he must take the liberty of stating, that he thought the line adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion was of an unusual nature; because he ventured to think, that when a right hon. Gentleman moved that the Speaker should leave the Chair, for the purpose of the House going into Committee to consider of certain Resolutions, the reasonable and common-sense mode of dealing was, that, before they went into Committee, they should know what the Resolutions were that were to be moved. He believed that the Members of that House, agreeing to go into a Committee upon certain Resolutions, were regarded as assenting to the principles of those Resolutions. ["No, no."] Certainly, when he recollected various occasions in that House, and when he more particularly recollected the course of proceeding on the Catholic question, he ventured to state that whoever the hon. Member was who undertook to move that the Speaker should leave the Chair, for the purpose of the House going into a Committee to consider of certain Resolutions, that hon. Member found it his duty fully to state the nature and objects of his Resolutions; and he undoubtedly thought, that the Resolutions of his Majesty's Government ought to be stated to the House on the present oc-

1333
casion. The House ought not to be called upon to go into Committee upon Resolutions of which they knew nothing. They should not betaken, as would be the case according to the practice of Parliament, to assent to the principles of the Resolutions, which the right hon. Gentleman had not as yet thought proper to declare. He did not however, state that he was altogether sorry for the course which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued; because, in a certain degree, it removed him, and some of his friends who agreed with him, from the painful position in which they might otherwise appear to stand, of being opposed to his Majesty's Ministers, and to the Resolutions which they proposed. He and his friends were unacquainted with the Resolutions. They had received no intimation upon the subject, and, therefore, they could not be understood as objecting to them. In the absence, therefore, of all such information as he certainly thought it was reasonable to expect, and as it would have been consistent with the proceedings of Parliament to communicate on the subject, he must proceed to apply his observations, as well as he was able, not to the statements of the right hon. Secretary, but to the partial report to which the right hon. Gentleman said he would draw the attention of the House, but upon which at present he was perfectly ignorant. He was sorry—he deeply deplored—that the House was called upon by the right hon. Secretary to deal with that partial Report. He thought the proceeding premature and unseasonable and unwise. Why should they be called upon to deal with a partial Report? Why was not the whole subject before the House? Why had not the whole of the evidence by which the whole subject was capable of being elucidated been collected and heard, by the Committee, and presented in every point to the consideration of the House. That would have been the right course of proceeding. With an ample inquiry and full evidence, the House might have approached with justice to the consideration of the Resolutions and of the practical measures to be founded upon them. But he protested against this partial Report, as pressing the House with undue speed and precipitancy to consider the case of the parish clergy by itself, without reference to all the other great features of the question. But did he, when he said this, hold lightly the
1334
case of the parish clergy? Far from it; but he thought, that the case of the parishioners ought to be considered along with that of the parish clergy—along with the case of the Church should be considered the case of the congregation; along with the case of the incumbent should be considered that of the tithe-payer. It should be taken as one indivisible subject. Something like a settlement might be hoped for when the whole question was fairly brought under the consideration of Parliament. He begged again not to be understood as undervaluing the parish clergy. He felt that the parish clergyman was placed in a situation of great difficulty; that he was reduced to very great deprivations, and even dangers, by no fault of his own. He felt that, amidst extremely trying circumstances, the parish clergy had behaved with great temper and great moderation. But he said, that, even as regarded the clergyman, this was not a wise course to pursue, because he conceived the House was to understand that the Resolutions were to go to the fearful extent that additional laws of coercion and severity were to be called for by the Government, to enable the clergy to collect their dues in Ireland. He said, that this course would not serve the parish clergyman, and that it would injure the cause which his Majesty's Government had in view. He undertook to say, that the evils, great as they had been at the commencement of the Session of Parliament, and unmitigated, as they had continued to the present day, would be aggravated by the statement of the right hon. Secretary—that additional laws, if the fancy of man or the ingenuity of lawyers could devise a system of greater coercion and severity, were necessary for upholding the Church Establishment in Ireland. Could any announcement be more fatal than this? Would it produce peace between the parish clergy and the people? Would it dry up the sources of bad blood between the Church and the congregation? He believed, on the contrary, that it would promote dissension between the parish clergy and the people. It would place the clergyman in a situation of great difficulty, if not of danger, and would render him unfit for discharging any of those offices of benevolence which were so nearly connected with the duties of his profession. He felt that there could be nothing more injurious to the Church Establishment than the Resolutions which

1335
he understood his Majesty's Government were about to propose, because he thought that the only way to deal with this case, and to uphold the Church in Ireland, was to remove it, as quickly as could be done, from all connection with the causes of injustice and tumult and civil war. He did not mean to say, that the interests of these reverend gentlemen were not to be considered by Parliament. They had qualified themselves for their profession, and had entered upon that profession with the same rights as other professions, under the protection of the laws of England. He did not stand up there to defend illegal popular combinations in Ireland. He dreaded and denounced them. He felt the danger of them. He knew that they led to disgrace and discomfiture, and destroyed the peace of Ireland. He did not mean to state that the sums which had become due to the reverend gentlemen under the old tithe law, so long as that old law remained, were not to be recovered, if by possibility they could be. But he did state, that if the object was to protect the clergy, to uphold them and enable them to recover their incomes, the House was taking a very fatal course by looking to measures of coercion and severity for the accomplishment of such objects. They would not accomplish them. He thought that, by the side of such measures of coercion and severity. Ministers should have placed, in distinct and unambiguous language, measures of reform, of solid amendment, and of radical change, in the whole Church system of Ireland. If those measures of improvement and reform were proposed in accompaniment with the other resolutions, he should be disposed to see no great objection to measures of severity for a season, if, on the other hand, he saw that the Government was disposed to win the confidence of the people by conciliation and kindness. That was his plain opinion. Measures of severity, and additional laws might be necessary; but, in conjunction with them, let the House try the simple, easy, and wise course of conciliation and reform. It was much to be desired, that the House should know from whence sprung the opposition to tithes in Ireland. There was a Committee appointed to examine into the whole question, and yet they had not said a word on this subject. In order to be able to adopt a remedy, it was necessary to know from what opinions and prin-
1336
ciples the resistance to tithes proceeded, and to what extent it prevailed. Whence arose this opposition to the payment of tithes? From what causes did it originate? These were the all-important questions which the Committee had done little or nothing to answer. In his belief, the resistance to pay tithes arose from no oppressive measures which had been adopted by the clergy for the purpose of exacting their due, for such had never of late been the conduct of the clergy of Ireland. They had, on the contrary, generally exercised their rights with a singular disinterestedness and moderation, and they did not by many degrees enforce their legal rights. He was bound to say, that they conducted themselves with the greatest temper and moderation. He wished to be understood as bearing his humble testimony to the moderation of the clergy of the Established Church in Armagh. It appeared, then, that it was not exaction and oppression which caused the resistance. The clergy took nothing like the tenth part of the produce of the soil. He recollected the case of one gentleman, a witness, who was examined before the Committee—a Gentleman adverse to the collection of tithes, who, on being examined, stated that he held a farm of 700 acres, the rental of which amounted to 1,000 l. a-year, and the amount of tithe he paid was 30 l., which was not above one-thirtieth part of the rent. Supposing the produce to be double of the rent, the tithe, therefore, was not above one-sixtieth part of the produce of the soil. In many parishes in Tipperary, he believed that the tithes were not one-fourteenth of the rental, and supposing the produce to be double that of the rental, that made the tithes only one-twenty-eighth of the produce. There were seventeen such cases before the Committee. A tithe agent, Mr. Palmer, he believed, stated that, in general, the tithes did not exceed the fiftieth part of the produce. In the whole Province of Ulster the exaction was, he believed, still more moderate. In Tipperary, in the county of Dublin, in the province of Ulster, the tithes were moderate. It was very different, he believed, from the tithe system of England. If he were not misinformed, it was not unusual here, he believed, to exact a third of the rental. Generally, he might say, that the exaction exceeded one-fifth. It was not, therefore, from exaction and oppression;

1337
and he wished this to be clearly understood in justification of the clergy, and for the better knowledge of the question—he wished it clearly understood that avarice and oppression on the part of the clergy were not the sources whence the resistance had arisen. Whence then did it arise? That was the important question. Why did he ask this? Because that was the important question for the Representatives of the country to answer. It arose, from somewhat similar causes, as there arose among the people of England—the sober people of England—at a former period, the period of the Reformation, a new religion, and the people could not be brought to see with patience that the great mass of the community was of one religion, and the Church Establishment of another; that they should be of one creed, and their pastors and moral teachers of another. But that was the case of Ireland. There the majority of the people were of one religion, and there the instructors, the moral teachers and paid clergy, were of another. That was the great blunder which had been committed. In all the blunders ever committed by Irishmen, in all their bulls, there was something ludicrous, some stroke of wit, some touch of merriment, some mirth—but in this practical Bill there was no redeeming quality; it had no merriment, no mirth, no laughter in it. The establishment was strange to the disposition, and provoked the opposition of the people. He wished it to be understood, that the opinions of the people were in opposition to the institutions of the Church in Ireland. That was at the root of this difficult question. That had been, he believed, the source of the difficulties of Ireland through many centuries, and the great cause of her crimes, miseries, and distractions. Other circumstances might have some effect. It was impossible to mingle in society and not perceive that there was a visible, if not a strong current setting in against the payment of any religious establishment maintained by the State. Such a current had certainly set in against religious establishments. When did any individual hear a society of ten or twelve persons discussing the merits of religious establishments, and find any one of them maintaining that such establishments should be of the religion of the small minority of the people. Such opinions were gaining ground, and were lying at the root of this evil. The people,
1338
the whole people, nearly, were going one way, and the Church Establishment another. He begged, however, that it might be understood that the opposition to the payment of tithes was not confined to the Roman Catholics. God knew the question would be difficult enough if it only went to that extent. But that was not its limits by any means. What was the opinion of the Presbyterians? They were a numerous body strongly imbued with religious sentiments, and what opinions did they hold as to tithes? Undoubtedly they were one and all for what was called a free trade in religion. They wished that every man should pay his own Minister, that every man should support his own Church, and not pay for another. That was the sentiment of the great majority of the Presbyterian population of the northern part of Ireland. But what was the opinion of the Protestants—of the Episcopalians of Ireland? He should like to know what answer would be given by the men who were denominated Protestants in Ireland, if they should be called on to pay the Presbyterian Minister, or, who could picture their rage, should they be called on to pay tithes to the Popish Priests? He believed the sturdy yeoman of the North, on whom such a demand was made, would give those who made it to understand that he bore the King's Arms, that he would not submit to support an institution that he regarded as an injury, and that he would not pay a clergyman from whom he received no benefit. He should think those men justified, and they were, he believed, generous enough to concede to others the privilege of acting on principles of which they themselves approved. They made considerable allowance, then, for the feelings of their Catholic countrymen, and went along with them to a considerable degree. Whether it was right or not, he gave no opinion, but that was, he believed, the fact. But was the House sure that the Protestants, who were supposed to be the most attached to the Government—was the House sure that they wished to maintain the Church Establishment as it now existed? Was the House sure that the Protestants were satisfied with, that they approved of, the dignity assumed by the Bishops, and of the pomp, wealth, and splendor, they exhibited, while the poorer working clergy were obliged to put up with the most miserable pittance? He believed that no

1339
man was to be found, and, undoubtedly, there were but few Protestants, who did not wish to see that the emoluments of the clergy of the Established Church were in some measure proportionate to the service performed. The humble curate had been described as rising at six in the morning, to say the morning prayers; he rose from his dinner to repeat the evening service; he it was who baptized and who married—and for all these labours he received a miserable pittance not equal, in many instances, to the labour of a mechanic; he received 70 l. a-year. With that system the Protestants Were not satisfied. The important question for the House, then, was, how would it deal with the Church? How would it deal with the tithes—how would it deal with the whole question between the Church and the people? Was the Church property to continue as at present distributed? He did not apprehend that Parliament could give security to the present distribution much longer. What, then, was to be done? Would the Establishment not be better if some proportion were established between the institutions and the opinions of the people? Every man admitted that something must be done, and that speedily. The great source of the complaints and of the mischiefs of Ireland was the lateness of legislation. That which, granted to-day, was received only with gratitude, if delayed till tomorrow was altogether unfit, and was received with distaste. What, then, was to be done? He believed that he was not about to state anything but what was publicly known, and, certainly, he was about to state nothing but what had transpired in the Committee. He might state it, he believed, as an opinion of a dignitary of the Church delivered in the Committee, though, as that dignitary was cross-examined, and he was not present at the cross-examination, he would not mention the name of the individual: he might state what he was about to say, as the opinion of that dignitary, but as he might misinterpret it, though it had, he believed, all the weight of the highest authority, he would mention it as merely his own opinion. It was, however, suited to the occasion and his sentiments of duty. The question was, what could the House do to meet the difficulty—what practical measure could it adopt? He would state then, as his opinion, that respecting the rights and privileges of every existing in-
1340
dividual—for he would never, for the sake of any Reform, sacrifice the right of individuals—he certainly would proceed to consider all ecclesiastical benefices, as they became vacant, at the disposal of the State; and he would make the application of their revenues as best accorded with the spirit of the country, and with its circumstances. That was the line of conduct which ought to be adopted to meet the circumstances of the case, and that was the principle which should now be proclaimed to give satisfaction to the people. As long as the Church was in opposition to the people, and they were completely dissatisfied with it, no measure would succeed. They might talk of the danger of illegal combinations, of resistance to the law, of the danger of the people learning their own power, and of their capability to resist legal authority; all that was undoubtedly true, but for it all, there was only one remedy, that of making the law so as to ensure for it the support of the opinions of the people. But if the Parliament should embark in any scheme of coercion, if it should adopt measures of severity to support the Established Church—that would be a fatal day when it entered on such measures—it would meet with dangers such as it had not yet encountered, for the feelings of Irishmen never were stronger and never were more unanimous than on this question, and they were guided by good sense, justice, and moderation. Whatever was proposed he would say, as the first thing to be attended to, be cautious; be cautious how you adopt measures of severity and coercion. Were there not already measures of severity enough? There were severe laws to compel or recover the payment of tithes; and were other measures more severe to be adopted? At least let great caution be used, for if they enforced severe laws; if they adopted measures of coercion, it was plain that the Government and the Parliament would sustain a signal defeat. He would say one word more, and that was to entreat the Parliament promptly to apply itself to the subject. He wished that inquiry should be speedily made into the whole matter. He would take upon him to say, that anxious as he was to have the tithe question brought to a conclusion, and anxious as he was to support the Church Establishment, he was sure that not one landlord would claim the tithes as his, he distinctly renounced for them and for

1341
himself, as a landlord, all claims to tithes; they were a public revenue, to be disposed of for the public service. They were endowments made by the State for the service of religion, and for the support of the clergy; but if they desired to preserve these revenues from the State, for the benefit of the clergy and for the instruction of the people, they must act on these principles, and they must act speedily; or rapidly as things went from bad to worse in Ireland, they would lose their tithes altogether. He would say, then, that so valuable a revenue should not be lost; that the whole question should now be gone into, and they should not wait for the confusion and tumult of civil war to destroy this revenue altogether; but directing it towards those proper purposes for which it was already destined, it should now, and at once in order to secure it, receive a popular application. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That with a view to a full inquiry into the whole question of tithes, and to the just appropriation of Church property, the debate be adjourned till the whole of the inquiry be concluded by the Tithe Committee, and the evidence and the Report be both laid before the House."
The Amendment having been seconded,
Lord Miltonwished to observe, that the suggestion of his hon. friend did not seem likely to attain the object he had in view. He doubted the expediency of his hon. friend's Motion for postponing the debate, and thought it would be better to allow the House to go into a Committee. A stranger who had heard the speech only of his hon. friend might have supposed that his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had to propose only measures of coercion and seventy, and that they were not accompanied by any propositions for relief. He did not know what those measures were, but he thought it most desirable to postpone the discussion till they got into the Committee. If the Committee adopted the suggestion of his right hon. friend, they might hear the proposition of Government. He would not go into the quesion; he merely wished to throw out the suggestion, that his hon. friend's Amendment did not seem to him so well adapted to attain his own object as the original proposition of his right hon. friend.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellwas surprised at the innocence of the noble Lord with re-
1342
respect to the question of tithes, and his ignorance of the intended propositions of his Majesty's Government. Was there a single Irish Member in the House who was ignorant of the measures the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose? Certainly not; nor could the noble Lord be ignorant of their objects. He could not surfer this—he would not call it humbug, but the—veil which was attempted to be thrown over the movements of the House. There was not, he was sure, an Irish Member in the House who did uot feel with him in this respect; and, whatever might be the skill of the practised debater which had been used on the present occasion, he should think the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, would have discharged his duty much better to the House and to the country, if he had come forward at once with the statement of the proposed measures, and thus have given all parties an opportunity of knowing distinctly what they were to be. However, he was aware (and so he believed was every Member of the House) that, in the first place, a measure of remuneration to the Protestant clergy was to be proposed, and, in the next place, a measure for the recovery of the arrears of tithes. In both these he considered no man could hesitate to acquiesce; the latter point involved vested rights, and he, as a Catholic, was ready to stand up for them. But in the proposition of the Government there were ulterior views involved. The real object was to establish other and severe measures of coercion. In Ireland the arm of the law was already felt sufficiently strong and powerful, and he could not see the necessity at this moment of giving to the Government any extraordinary power. Indeed, last year, when the country was in a state almost of civil war, the Government had neither solicited nor sought for increased power, and he could not think an additional power was wanted at the present time, when the country was in a state of armed neutrality. The propositions of the hon. Gentleman could now lead to no satisfactory conclusion. He thought the information was not yet sufficient to adopt any measures, and he should support the Amendment.
Sir Robert Peelsuggested that there would be a great advantage in separating their views as to the order of proceeding, and as to the discussion of the principles of the proposition to be submitted by the Government. There was at present a

1343
mixed discussion of two questions, and till they were separated, they could reach no satisfactory conclusion. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, thought it would be better if his Majesty's Government would come forward with a distinct proposition. In his opinion, it would be more satisfactory if his Majesty's Government were enabled to state its proposition in Committee, and for the House to dispose of it on its own merit, and avoid all discussion as to the form of proceedings. The question was, what course was most conformable to the usage and practice of the House; and in offering his opinion on that, he gave no opinion on the merit of the propositions to be submitted to the Committee. Reserving his opinion on them till the proper time came when they were proposed by the Government, he must say, that the course proposed by the Government was most conformable to the usages of the House. It was supposed that one part of these propositions was to vote money for the support of the clergy. If that were the case—as it was impossible that his Majesty's Government could make any proposition of that kind, except in Committee—it surely would be inconvenient to discuss one part of the proposition in Committee, and the other part while the Speaker was in the Chair. There was also a Standing Order of the House—an order to provide a security against any sudden change in the religious establishments of the country, that no business relating to religion, or to the laws concerning religion, should ever be brought before the House till after it had been considered in Committee and agreed to. He did not say, that the propositions of the Government related precisely to religion, yet they were so connected with it, that it might be doubted whether it ought not first to be considered in Committee. Besides, going into a Committee was an additional security against surprise. By assenting to the Speaker leaving the Chair, hon. Members pledged themselves to nothing; and though the Resolutions might be approved of in Committee, the House might reject them on bringing up the Report. It afforded, therefore, an additional opportunity for discussion, and he considered that both friends and foes might concur in the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Going into the Committee was but a preliminary step; and only security against precipitate discussion.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had become the auxiliary of the Government. This did him credit, and afforded proof, if any was wanting, how much superior he was to the prejudices of party. He would not—he was above it—turn the Government round upon a point of form. A little reflection would convince him that the Irish Members were not unreasonable in the course they had adopted. They did not object to the Resolutions, like the noble Lord (Lord Milton); they had not sufficient sagacity to conjecture the course which the Government meant to take. They objected to the premature Report of which the Committee had been suddenly and abortively delivered. They thought that no legislation should be founded on this precocious document. Wait, they said, for the final Report. Therefore, they met the proposition of the Minister on the threshold, and said, "Do not act on a Report resting exclusively on evidence on one side." How stood the facts? First, the Government had injudiciously introduced the tithe system to the notice of Parliament. Reform was a labour sufficiently Herculean for their gigantic powers. Their next mistake was, the exclusion of Catholics from the Committee. This was unfortunate enough; but to give consummation to this calamitous proceeding, out of eighteen witnesses, they had examined only one Catholic witness, and then they produced their Report, and went on with their examination. It was as if the Jury were desired to retire on the closing of the plaintiff's case; they find their verdict, judgment (the Report) is pronounced, and then the defendant (Ireland) was requested to proceed with her case. Was this just—was this fair dealing? Was this pure, impartial British justice? Eight clergymen, four policemen, a Secretary to an Ecclesiastical Commission, a Registrar to an Ecclesiastical Court, had been examined, and on such evidence a Report, recommending coercion to the people, and largesses to the clergy, was produced. This was monstrous. If the Committee had confined themselves to the recommendation of charity to the clergy, the Irish Members could not complain; but they came here with a purse of gold for the Church, and a rod of iron for the people. But since you are so strict in investigating the offences of the one, what are the merits of the other? The evidence proves that

1345
the clergy have ministered to the excitement. Look at the evidence of Mr. Langrishe (a name familiar to the readers of Edmund Burke); he tells you that Dr. Hamilton of Knocktopher (the scene of sanguinary disturbance) refused a just composition, and refused twice to produce his books in order to enable a just estimate of his profits to be made. Dr. Butler hints that he is a starving exile; yet he admits that, for thirty-six years, he has received 2,000 l. a-year. He has fourteen parishes, with scarcely a single Protestant. This splendid sinecurist—he may be a good man—has got 60,000 l.; and he is one of the objects of eleemosynary commiseration to the Committee. There is evidence that, by a pious fraud, the clergy have availed themselves of the change of currency. Mr. Dwyer states, that the people are the victims of the most horrible oppression. Will you relieve the Church, and give no aid to the people? But you are to raise the arrears. Mr. Langrishe, a clergyman, tells you that you cannot raise them. The thing is to raise the arrears. The Lord Lieutenant (the gallant and high-minded Anglesey) is to be turned into a Tithe-Proctor-General of the Church. You are to shift the odium of tithes from the clergy, who are to receive the benefit, to the executive, which is to reap all the detestation. There will be cause, and cross-cause, in the Civil-Bill Court; we shall have the King versus the People; and in the tribunal of public opinion you will have the People versus the King. Infatuated men, what are you doing? Look before you—you are walking blindfold upon the brink of a gulph. You will exasperate Ireland; you will array the nation against you; then will come a general election in November; Reform will have thrown the close boroughs open; the democracy will have become gigantic; then will the people have their revenge. The poisoned chalice will, in just retribution, return to your own lips. It is your turn this Session, but it will be ours the next. What are you doing? Succouring a clergy, from which you expect nothing—affronting and irritating a nation, from which you look for much—opening the boiling fountain of popular indignation—leaguing a nation against you by your threats of coercion. We have served and supported you, and stood by you in many an emergency, and have received your praise for our zeal, our
1346
vigilance, our devotion to your interests; but, alas! what can we do for you in the hurricane of popular passion, which you are about to raise? Our voices in your behalf will be like whispers in a tempest; our arms are not strong enough to swim against the tide that knows no returning ebb, and if we attempt it we shall be swept before it. Reform, an election in November, and Ireland exasperated for the sake of certain persons of the establishment! Awake—you are on a precipice, and you must be rudely shaken to raise you from your perilous slumbers. But I may be told that relief was offered. What relief? It is a mere mockery of the national understanding. Tithes are to be abolished. How? By providing for them a sepulchre from which they are to arise in an immortal resuscitation. Nay, I do not exaggerate. We are informed that tithes are to be abolished, and uno flatu, that the revenues of the Church are to be effectually secured on land. What does this mean? Is it not a palpable contradiction, or is it not as if a judgment creditor were to say, "Sir, this judgment of mine may be incommodious, and in order to accommodate you, I shall oblige you by taking a mortgage, or, if you prefer it, a slice of your estate?" Is it not so? Do you call this relief? Relief! Pray content yourselves with a violation of our rights, and do not offer an insult to our ordinary sense. It is better to speak out at once. The collection of tithes is not the question—the amount of tithes is not the question—John Hampden was sent to gaol for 20 s.—but the question is, shall the tithes be otherwise appropriated? I tell you that a deep conviction has seized hold of the nation's faculties, and taken possession of its entire heart, that Church property is the nation's property. It is idle to tell the people that it rests on the same right as private property, and that an inroad upon one will afford a precedent for an invasion of the other. This is mere phrase—gainless and empty apothegms—with which we are not to be caught. I'll tell you how matters stand. The Irish nation look back to their history, and they find tithes originally divided into four parts, of which one-fourth was given to the poor, and another fourth was given to the priest of the poor. They find the Protestant gentry and aristocracy leagued in 1735 against the tithe of agistment, and pronouncing their parliamentary ana-

1347
themas against all those who should, in violation of their ordinances, dare to pay it—they see the Statesmen of their House of Commons (for once they had a House of Commons) the best and most enlightened Irishmen, confederated against tithes—they behold the pinnacles of the establishment shivered by the lightnings of Grattan's eloquence—they look round Europe, and they see tithes everywhere abolished—in France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Sweden, in Norway, in Denmark, in Prussia, in Tuscany, in Scotland—they see in Scotland a poor Church in a rich country, and in Ireland a rich Church amidst a starving people; and with these facts before them, and with the recollection fresh and vivid of what they have themselves achieved—conscious of what was effected by a virtuous organization—knowing that here they had a body of firm and dauntless advocates of their rights, they have arrived at the determination to put to these hideous abuses, these enormous anomalies, an immediate end. This may not be—I perceive it is not—relished by either party; but it is the truth. To both parties I fearlessly address myself; conservatists and resumers, I speak to both of you; you that are the prompt auxiliaries of the Government in every project of coercion; you that are to have none of the responsibility, are to reap all the advantage. You that would fain help the Ministers to their ruin, think a little, and look back to the year 1829. What did your great Captain do—he who was pledged almost from childhood against Emancipation—he who had declared that Ireland ought to be re-conquered—he who left his proxy against Ireland when he went forth to fight those battles in which English victory was achieved with Irish blood—he was the first to offer homage to the will of an united people, and after having called on England to throw away the scabbard, was the first to implore her to put by the sword. Wherefore do I mention this? to ask of you (for Tories, I speak to you) whether you think that the Whigs ought after emancipation to act on the principle on which you did not dare to act before it? Reformers, I turn from your antagonists to you. Do you imagine that your principles do not extend beyond a Reform in the House of Commons? What course did you pursue in the conduct of this great proceeding? Did you appoint a Committee? Did you refer
1348
schedule A to the right hon. member for Tamworth? Did you name a Committee formed of all parties (this is the phrase) to inquire into the state of the boroughs of England, and the constitution of the House of Commons, and to "report their observations thereon?" No—you saw that hesitation for a moment would be ruin for ever—you grasped at the irrevocable occasion, and you seized and held it. "We must content the English people." This was your answer to every objection. If it was urged that the Lord Chancellor had digested a very different plan of Reform, you replied and well and nobly, it is too late—we must content the English people. If it was said, that Lord John Russell's book was at variance with Lord John Russell's Bill, still you answered, we must content the people of England. If it was said, that the Representatives of the colonies would be excluded—that the avenues by which Pitt and Fox and Burke had obtained admission to this House, would be closed against genius—that the present system had saved the country at the Revolution, and had been concomitant with its glory since—still you well and wisely answered, we must conform to the great change and transition which has taken place, and must content the people; and if this be true, as it beyond all doubt is true; if you find it necessary to content the English people, by a Reform in the Parliament, is it perfectly unnecessary, is it matter for consideration, scepticism, and Cabinet debates, whether you must not content the Irish people upon the Church? Take warning in time—what is your policy? You have got up a race between legislation and events; an incident happens, straight comes an Act of Parliament; another incident arrives, behold a Committee, and another Act of Parliament; thus you go on, running a race with events, and events are sure to win it. Awake, for God's sake, to a sense of the condition of Ireland; embrace her evils in one large and comprehensive system of immediate amelioration; let us not have (to use a phrase of such powerful homeliness, uttered with such a pregnant familiarity, by lips so touched with fire)—let us not have "a bit-and-bit Reform," lay not that unction to your souls—do not burn that incense which self-adulation offers to itself, or hope conceives, nor so far delude yourselves as to think that, by dallying with the evils of Ireland, by

1349
procrastinations, and putting off, and sometimes giving buffets, and sometimes offering caresses to Ireland, you can effect her tranquillization, or, I should rather say, that you can save the country. For it has come to this pass; and it is not I alone that tell you this; events—those tongueless, but eloquent monitors—call on you, as they pass, to throw your prejudices aside, to legislate, not on the views of party, but on the principles of human nature, and from the calamities that impend over us, to rescue that country, which, under all changes of Government, and all vicissitudes of party, appears to have been pre-disposed to distraction, and pre-destined to misrule.
Mr. Wallaceobjected to the course proposed by the right hon. Secretary, because it was impossible for the House to know what ulterior measures were in contemplation, or what it was the Committee were to be called on to accede to. In fair dealing, and according to the precedents set by former Governments, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to let the House know for what reason it was to go into a Committee of the whole House on a part of a question which was still under the consideration of a Special Committee. He would put it, indeed, to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was right that they should go into that Committee without knowing what they were to be pledged to by assenting to such a course? There was, indeed, enough in the history of the practice of the House on former occasions, to demonstrate that the right hon. Gentleman was not warranted in calling on them to go into a Committee without some explanation. The Government had committed a mistake, but it was not the first they had been guilty of in connection with the question. They had, as it was rightly observed by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, been guilty of an error in alluding to the subject in the Speech from the Throne, without being prepared with some specific proposition to submit to the immediate consideration of Parliament. The next mistake that they had fallen into was the appointment of a Committee which, although composed of men of the highest capacity and undoubted worth and honour, did not include a single Catholic—a single member of that religious party which was so deeply interested in the result of their inquiries. The members of the Committee were at
1350
the same time men so devotedly attached to the Constitution in Church and State, as it stood—the majority of them were so thoroughly convinced that the property of the Church was as inalienable as any other property in the State, that their recommendations could not be looked on with confidence or satisfaction by the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had made out no case for the House to go into a Committee, nor had he given the House any explanation as to the nature of the measures which he intended to call on that Committee to approve. But if it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to propose Resolutions which should be made the foundation of coercive measures, without at the same time recommending the removal of the grievances which oppressed the Irish people, he would oppose such Resolutions, because the compact would be broken by which the Ministers had pledged themselves that they would adopt no measure of coercion unaccompanied by measures of remedy and conciliation. He could not have supposed that, after the Ministers had so pledged themselves, they would have come down that night with a proposition for going into Committee, not for the remedy of grievances, but solely to pledge the House to a measure of coercion. Amongst the witnesses examined by the Committee, whose Report had been laid upon the Table, was the reverend Dr. Doyle; and that gentleman, than whom there was no man who brought to the consideration of the question greater ability, a more honest judgment, or more accurate knowledge of the condition and of the feelings of the people of Ireland, said, in reference to the resistance of tithes, that he would rather give up his last table, his last chair, or even his life, than pay tithes. Such was the opinion of that gentleman. But, he added, that the resistance which he would offer to their payment would be passive, not active; and that the people for the most part would offer none other than passive resistance. Was the testimony of that gentleman of no value? and was it fit that it should be withheld from the House? Was it fit that they should be called on to legislate on so important a subject when they had before them no part of the evidence that had been taken respecting it? Would the House go into a Committee whilst it was in the dark as to the measures which the right hon. Gentleman meant to submit

1351
to it, and as to the evidence upon which those measures were to be founded? The only means which the House at present possessed of forming an opinion as to the intended propositions of the right hon. Gentleman were furnished by the Report of the Committee; and to judge of them from that, he (Mr. Wallace) would say, that evils incalculable might follow from the course which the right hon. Gentleman was taking. He apprehended that there was in the Report an exact specification of the measures which he (Mr. Stanley) intended to propose. He apprehended that it was intended to give the clergy a remedy against the persons of those who neglected or refused to pay tithes, and to give that remedy, not according to the usual form of the law, but by a summary process, upon the affidavit of the clergyman claiming the tithe, or that of the tithe proctor.
Mr. Stanleyreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was somewhat irregular in going into the discussion of a question which was not before the House. Besides, the hon. and learned Gentleman was stating as the measure of the Government that which was not their measure.
Mr. Wallacethanked the right hon. Gentleman for having set him right. But if the right hon. Gentleman had followed the usual course in moving for the Committee, of stating what were the intentions of the Government he should not have fallen into an error. He was compelled to argue without documents, which ought to have been before the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion. But, in the absence of the information which he ought to have, he should be satisfied to hear a statement of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. If the right hon. Gentleman would make the statement, he (Mr. Wallace) would sit down cheerfully to hear it. From all the information which he possessed, he must infer that it was the intention of the Government to act upon the recommendation of their legal advisers in Ireland, who in their evidence before the Committee, had stated that it was necessary to give the clergy a personal remedy against those who refused to pay tithes.
Mr. Henry Grattanregretted that he was obliged to oppose his Majesty's Ministers on the question before the House. But they were wrong in going into the Committee, without having first given the
1352
House an intimation of the measures which they would propose; and they were still more wrong in the measures, which, it was to be supposed from the only information before the House, they intended to adopt. He objected altogether to the recommendations of the Committee in their Report. He objected to the summary remedy which they proposed to give to the clergy against those who owed tithe, and he objected to the plan which they proposed to substitute for the present system of tithes. He was sure that such a plan would give no satisfaction to the people of Ireland, and he, for his part, would support no plan less effectual than that of his noble friend, the member for Armagh. There never was a Report—even in the times when the most virulent party spirit raged, and the most virulent party had power—there never was a Report returned to the House more pregnant with mischief than that of the last Tithe Committee. The gracious Speech of his Majesty at the opening of the Session recommended the removal of grievances; and how was that recommendation followed up? By a Report which recommended that the law of the land should be superseded; and that a process as arbitrary as that of martial law should be substituted in its stead. The Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had made was a deceitful one. He wished to get the House into Committee for the purpose of compelling hon. Members to agree to the measures which he proposed; but he would not go into Committee, he would say as Falstaff said to his ragged regiment, "I'll not march through Coventry with you that's flat." He would not join the right hon. Gentleman in imitating Falstaff's followers by stripping the hedges of the shifts and shirts of the unfortunate peasantry. If the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Acts of the Irish Parliament of 1786, 1787, and 1799, he would find no precedent for this measure. Were not fifty-five Acts of Parliament sufficient for the protection of the Church? The people of Ireland were willing to support the clergy, but that did not mean the present incumbents. The people looked back to first principles, and they found that the revenues of the Church were intended as a public trust. They found that the money was given for four objects, the support of the poor, the Churches, the Bishops, and the clergy in general. These objects were not attended to when a poor incumbent was receiving

1353
his 60 l. or 70 l. a-year, and a Bishop was living luxuriously upon 10,000 l. or 12,000 l. a-year. It would be impossible for hon. Members to face their constituents if they should agree to the measures which the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose. The people felt that Ireland was not treated fairly, and that her interests were not attended to. The ordinary forms of law were to exist in England, but in Ireland they were to be abrogated. The Members of that House deceived themselves if they imagined the people of Ireland would much longer endure the system of Government under which they had suffered so long. The Irish people would no longer look to men, they would look only to measures. They would not care whether the right hon. member for Tamworth, or his right hon. friend were in office; it was only their acts which they would look to. They had lost all regard for party. Ireland had been subjected to misrule for centuries. A variety of shameful Acts of Parliament had been enacted for Ireland, which some of the most eminent English writers had said to be more fitting for Barbary than a part of the British empire. The Government called upon the landlords to tax themselves, and, in point of fact, to become tithe-proctors, for the parsons. It was most unjust that the landlords should be made the collectors of a tax for the support of the parochial clergy only, and not for the original purposes of tithes, the support of the poor, the Church, the Bishop, and the incumbent. No benefit whatever would arise from pursuing the present course. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted his opinions in consequence of the statements of mistaken men who were interested in inducing the Government to exert all their power to keep up the present system of tithes. He should not have addressed the House at such length on this occasion, had he not been impelled by a sense of public duty. Ireland complained that the spirit of the English law was departed from in this abominable system. Shortly after the acknowledgment of the independence of the United States, the Congress of that country passed a law which was worthy of them as a free people. And here he might, perhaps, observe with propriety, that the colonies separated from the mother country because it was attempted to govern them in a manner opposed to the spirit of British laws. The Act of the American Congress of 1786, said, that the endeavour-
1354
ing to make a man contribute money to the propagation of opinions which he believed to be erroneous, was sinful and tyrannical. In the opinion here expressed he cordially concurred, and the time, he trusted, was not very distant when this principle would be acted upon. He would call upon the right hon. Secretary to pause before he went into the Committee and proposed his Resolution, as he would do irreparable injury by such a course. He trusted that the House would refuse to go into Committee on these Resolutions, which were alike injurious to Ireland, to England, and to the Sovereign on the Throne. There never would be peace in Ireland until the people of that country were put on a footing of equality with the other parts of the empire. He would only add that, as an Irishman, he would never cease to raise his voice in the language of complaint until this was granted.
Lord Ebringtonwould not follow the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House through the whole range of his observations; but, as a member of the Committee, he felt called upon to state the grounds upon which he had agreed to the Report which had been presented to the House. Before he proceeded to do so, he wished to state, that in one observation only of his hon. friend below him (Mr. Brownlow) he entirely concurred; that was, respecting the unfortunte anomaly which the Church of Ireland presented. He should not think any plan could lead to a final settlement of the question, which attempted to exclude the consideration of a thorough Reform of the Church of Ireland. When he saw the clergy of that Church receiving salaries so disproportioned to the number of Protestants under their care; and when he saw that those salaries were paid chiefly by Roman Catholics, he looked upon the system as pregnant with injury to the cause of religion. He protested, therefore, against the number of the clergy being so disproportioned to their congregations; and he should be glad to see some more just, distribution of the revenues of the Church, such as would afford a more adequate provision for the working clergy; and he should also be glad to see a state of things in which no part of the revenues of the Church should be diverted from the use of the Church. He could think no settlement of the existing complaints satisfactory, which, with a due regard to all existing interests—for God forbid that they should

1355
attempt to strip any man of that which of right belonged to him—did not contemplate the reduction of the Church of Ireland to a condition better proportioned to the wants of the Protestant inhabitants. But, independently of the many obstructions which stood in the way of any immediate arrangement for those so desirable ends, he thought that such an arrangement did not come within the province of the Select Committee. It certainly was not the wish of the Committee that any part of the revenue at present belonging to the Church should go into the pockets of the landlords; and he would ask the Gentlemen in that House who were connected with Ireland, whether it was not the wish of a great proportion of those who encouraged the present resistance to tithes, to appropriate the amount to themselves? Now his hon. friend, the member for Armagh, had admitted that the Protestant clergy in Ireland were placed in a situation of great difficulty and distress, and even of danger; and under those circumstances it was not too much that the Committee should have recommended a law to enable them to recover so much of the tithes now due to them, as the Attorney General for Ireland should think to be necessary for their support. If his Majesty's Ministers had shown any disposition to adopt coercive measures, without substituting for the tithe system some other less vexatious, he would not have given them his support. But he had done so, in a confident hope that it would not be necessary to use any new powers that should be given; but that liberal inducements would be held out to the people to pay the tithes now in arrear, without the necessity, on the part of the Government, of having recourse to any severities. It was with that view he bad agreed to the Report of the Committee. Under all the circumstances, he did not think that Ministers would have done their duty, if they had not pledged themselves to measures of conciliation and relief at the same time that they called for powers to put down the combination.
Lord Althorpdid not rise to enter into a discussion of the question before the House, but to invite back the attention of hon. Members to the real merits of that question. His right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) merely asked the House to go into Committee, so as to afford him an opportunity of stating the object of Ministers with respect to the Report of the tithe Commit-
1356
tee, and yet hon. Members expressed in very strong language their views of this object without waiting to hear it stated. This, he could take upon him to say, was not the ordinary course pursued by hon. Members in that House; it was customary to hear what were the propositions to be discussed before opinions were promulgated on their merits. And what were the arguments against his right hon. friend's Motion? The most extraordinary was that which some Gentlemen had made as to the effect of going into Committee. Some Gentlemen said, that, by consenting to the Committee they would pledge themselves to concur in the propositions which his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) had to submit. There was no reason to suppose any such thing. It had also been said, that it was the usual course, in asking for a Committee, to state the resolutions which it was intended to propose. That also he denied. It was true, that, when a Committee of the whole House was moved for, respecting the Catholic claims, the Gentleman who made the Motion explained his views at the same time. But there was no analogy between the two cases; for, on the Catholic question a large proportion of the Members of that House were strongly opposed to any alteration in the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, and it was, therefore, necessary for the Government who applied for the Committee to convince the House that some alteration was expedient. But, in the present case the Gentlemen who opposed the Motion for a Committee of the whole House were the very persons who most insisted on the necessity of an alteration. They were the last persons, he should have thought, who would object to the form and course of proceeding. But there was another objection, which he considered to have much more weight. That was, that the House ought not to proceed without further information than it at present possessed. That was an argument which he thought it was his duty to meet. Now, what was the objection to the present information? First, that it was ex parte: that the Committee had examined only one side, and that the persons examined were connected with the Established Church. But he thought that the information received from those persons was sufficient to induce Ministers to submit to a Committee of the whole House, some propositions for a change of the

1357
present system; and that the information ought to be so far satisfactory to the advocates of a change. It had been proved that the clergy were in the greatest distress, and that there was the greatest difficulty in collecting tithes; that a combination to resist the payment of tithes existed in one part of Ireland, and was spreading over the whole country; and that, if a change did not take place, the payment of the revenues of the clergy would cease throughout Ireland. It was proved, therefore, that the state of things was such as to make a change of system necessary. With such information before them, the Committee only did their duty in immediately calling the attention of Parliament to the state of Ireland, particularly to the situation of the Protestant clergy, who were deprived of their income by a combination against tithes, which was hourly spreading over the country, and called for an immediate remedy. It was the imperative duty of that House promptly to attend to the call of the Committee, and to adopt such immediate measures, and effect such a change in the tithe system, as might appear just and necessary. If one part of the Report pointed out a case of urgent necessity calling for an immediate remedy, and another pointed towards a measure of change, which necessarily must require time for its accomplishment, was it, he asked, consistent with common sense, to keep back the measure of urgent necessity till that which required time should be completed? It was the duty of the House, as it was certainly the duty of Ministers, indeed both would be acting inconsistently with honour and duty if they did not promptly apply themselves to affording a remedy to the urgent grievance, whilst they devoted their best attention to preventing a recurrence of the causes of that grievance. This was all that Ministers proposed in the present instance, which was merely a fulfilment of what he had stated on a former occasion, namely, that a measure coercively asserting the authority of the law should not be had recourse to, without a pledge of an efficient remedy for the evil effects of the tithe system in Ireland, which had led to that state of things which called for this extraordinary measure. He had not risen to follow the hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Committee through all their arguments respecting the general question, but only to state the reasons wherefore he thought
1358
that the House ought to go into Committee.
Mr. Leadersaid, if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, had deemed it expedient to have pursued the course which the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had just adopted, and, if a strait forward and generous confidence in his political friends who represented the popular interest in Ireland, and in the full confidence of the wisdom and justice of the measures he was about to introduce, had prefaced his Motion for a Committee of the whole House to consider the subject of tithes in Ireland, by a full disclosure of the remedy he proposed for the long-endured and now intolerable grievances of that country, it was more than probable that a protracted debate might have been avoided, and, at all events, a division on the subject rendered unnecessary. The line of conduct which the right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to pursue, on one of the greatest questions which could engage the attention of the Representatives of Ireland, had been attended with considerable embarrassment to those Representatives who had to this hour been the steady and undeviating supporters of all the Ministerial measures of liberal policy. Would any English Gentleman contend, that if it was expedient to move for a Committee on a subject involving the tranquillity, the prosperity, and possibly the existence of the institutions of his country, the measures proposed to be introduced in that Committee ought not to be fairly developed and fully discussed before the motion for going into that Committee was submitted to the House? He admitted that, in common with those Representatives from Ireland who bad supported Ministers, he was apprised of the nature and import of the resolutions which it was probable the right hon. Gentleman might deem it his duty to propose; but, as it had been the unanimous opinion of those who objected to any part of the preliminary Report, that the manly and candid course was, to make their objection in limine, and enter upon the discussion in the first steps proposed to be taken, he was compelled to imitate the example of his hon. friend, the member for Armagh, and give his best support to the Amendment which he had introduced to the notice of the House with so much eloquence and ability. In the many debates which had taken place on motions for a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of the nation, or other

1359
great questions of national or imperial policy, he had always seen those motions prefaced by statements fully explanatory of the object for which the Committee was proposed to be appointed; and as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House, he should feel an ardent and earnest desire to see observed the same courtesy and the same attention to the old and established usages of Parliament, on questions which involved the deepest interest of Ireland, as every English or Scotch Representative would expect to be pursued in the instance of Great Britain. Under these circumstances, it was his bounden duty to declare, that the evidence which was affixed to the preliminary Report was of too imperfect a description to warrant any measure but an immediate remedial measure for a change in the tithe system in Ireland. As one of the tithe Committee, he was under the impression that the preliminary Report was never intended as a measure on which any legislative proceeding was intended to be founded. He considered it as a measure intended to demonstrate to the House and the public the zeal and the diligence of the Committee, and, even in the Committee, it had occurred to him that the evidence was not sufficient to report the necessity of any pecuniary advance being made to the Protestant clergy, or, at all events, accompanied by laws of unusual, and probably unprecedented, severity, to enforce the recovery of arrears of tithe and composition rent in the disturbed districts. The first ground on which he would rest his opposition to the going into the Committee was, the inadequacy of the evidence. The right hon. the Secretary for Ireland having thought proper to decline prefacing his Motion for a Committee, by the full developement of the measures he proposed to bring forward, he was driven to the necessity of supporting the Amendment. In the first place, he begged to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee. Could it be denied that nearly one-half of the Report was taken up in the statement of an organized and systematic opposition to the payment of tithes in Ireland, and the description of the dioceses and districts in which the resistance had principally occurred, and the great probability of its extending itself to other districts? He admitted that so much of the case had been fully made out, and that there had been abundant evidence
1360
leading to the conclusion that, without a change involving a complete extinction of tithes, including those of lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge on land, or an exchange for, or an investment on land, there was no prospect of tranquillity in Ireland. With these observations his admissions, as one of the Tithe Committee, ended. He contended that, before any Report was made, the entire property of the Church in land and tithe, and the just appropriation of it ought to be inquired into; and he had earnestly insisted, in that Committee, that although strong cases of individual distress amongst the clergy were satisfactorily established, still there was no evidence of such widely extended distress as made it necessary that the immediate relief of the Protestant clergy, and the enactment of new, extraordinary, and unprecedented laws to enforce payment of the arrears of tithes, should be made the prominent object in the Report. He felt fully satisfied that the evidence on the impossibility of the present tithe system continuing in Ireland was so clear, and the Reports of the Tithe Committee, as to the necessity of a change of the entire system so decided, that there was no reason why they should go into a Committee of the whole House on these two topics. But when he proceeded to the other heads of the Report—the expediency of opening the Treasury for the relief of the Church, and of converting the King's Attorney General, by Act of Parliament, into a tithe agent for the clergy, he asserted that the evidence on these topics was by no means of so satisfactory a nature as that the House could come to a just conclusion without much further evidence than that which was contained in the preparatory Report. As one of the Representatives of the district alleged to be most disturbed—the diocese of Ossory—it was his duty to look with a scrutinizing eye, not only to the sufferings of the occupying tenants and tithe payers, in which he most deeply sympathised, but also to the alleged deplorable and intolerable distress of the Protestant clergy, by the illegal withholding of one year of their income. To establish his view of the case, he prayed the particular attention of the House to facts which, in the precipitancy for a Committee, Ministers appeared to have entirely overlooked. As far as had transpired in the Tithe Committee, it appeared that the districts in which the resistance

1361
to tithes had assumed the most inveterate and determined character, were the dioceses of Ossory, Leighlin, Cashel, and Emly; and that, in the dioceses of Ferns and Kildare, there had been also some small deficiency in the payment to the Protestant clergy. It appeared, by the Report of the Lords Committee, that the estimates of the aggregate amount of the arrears due to the several incumbents was—

OSSORY.

In compounded parishes

£.14,345

Uncompounded ditto

10,130

24,475

LEIGHLIN.

In compounded parishes

18,092

Uncompounded ditto

2,760

20,852

CASHEL AND EMLY.

In 113 compounded parishes

23,490

In 25 Uncompounded ditto

4,197

27,687

FERNS (supposed)

7,000

KILDARE (supposed)

5,000

Total

£.85,014

If he understood the case, this was the amount of the arrears of tithe due to the clergy of these disturbed dioceses, for which it was intended to grant pecuniary relief; and it had been stated, he believed, by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, that it was probable that 30,000 l. would be sufficient as an advance for the sum due in those dioceses for 1831. Had it been reported by the Committee, that the diocese of Ossory consisted of 138 parishes, and that, of these, ninety-nine were divided in unions among twenty-one distressed incumbents? Had it been reported, that the diocese of Leighlin consisted of eighty-four parishes, and that, of these, thirty-three parishes were divided in unions amongst nine suffering and reduced incumbents? Had it been reported, that the diocese of Cashel consisted of ninety-nine parishes, and that, of these, sixty-three were divided in unions among thirteen starving and disconsolate incumbents? Had it been reported, that the diocese of Emly consisted of fifty-three parishes, and that, of these, thirty-three were divided in unions among seven ruined and impoverished incumbents—making a total of 374 parishes in the four dioceses, 228 of which were divided in unions among fifty incumbents? If these were facts, and if those reverend divines had, some of them, been in possession of fourteen parishes, others
1362
of nine, seven, six, and some five parishes—would any hon. Gentleman say, that the interruption of one year's payment of tithe could cause this devastating ruin amongst the Protestant clergy, who, in tithe property alone had probably 800,000 l. per annum, and who, through the other provinces of Ireland, were never better paid? He did not mean to contend that, in those dioceses, there was no individual distress; nor did he presume to deny the illegality of the resistance to the payment of tithes; but the inference which he drew from the fact, that, out of 374 parishes in the four most disturbed dioceses in Ireland, there were 228 parishes held by fifty clergymen was, that the Protestant clergy, from their immense unions, their limited number, and from the large sums they derived from these unions, could not be in that distress which, for the purpose of silencing the prayers of the most oppressed and impoverished tenantry in the world, was blazoned forth in party papers, and at public meetings. He begged that it might not for a moment be supposed that he was adverse to a pecuniary advance to relieve the wants of any Protestant clergyman: but he was adverse to the Government and the Committee—ignorant of the state of Ireland—going further than the condemned Parliament of Ireland, under the guidance of Lord Clare and a Tory Government, after a frightful and devastating rebellion, which, through the years 1797 and 1798, shook the whole frame of society, and plunged the country in anarchy and blood. In 1800, when a measure for the relief of the clergy was brought forward, it was admitted by all parties in Ireland that proctors were murdered, tithe securities and tithe books destroyed, process-servers cruelly and scandalously persecuted, and every vestige of evidence, which could lead to the enforcement of the payment of arrears of tithes, sought for and destroyed in every part of Ireland; and the Protestant clergy were not only reduced to the greatest distress, but were without any lien on the land, and without any evidence to enable them to recover the arrear of tithe. Did Lord Clare propose, or did the Irish Parliament, at his suggestion, invite, the Protestant clergy to the Irish Treasury, and open the purse of the people for the arrears of tithe due to the Protestant Church. Did Lord Clare, or any Irish Minister in those awful times, besides, opening the Treasury, propose to

1363
convert the Attorney General of Ireland into a tithe-agent and collector for the clergy, or a plaintiff in their suits; or entertain, for a single moment, the monstrous and novel measure of interposing the law-officer of the Crown as the plaintiff, in every cause which the clergy found it necessary to commence any legal proceedings? In the Acts of Parliament passed after the rebellion of 1798, powers were given to the clergy to proceed by petition in the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in Ireland; and those Courts were empowered, in cases in which it appeared that a valuation of tithes could not be made in 1797 or 1798, or in cases where evidence of valuation was destroyed, to assume the average of the three preceding years to be sufficient evidence of value; and, in those cases, the Courts were empowered to refer the cases to their officers; and after debt proved, to issue injunctions against the goods or persons of defendants. It was true that, under the Act of the Irish Parliament passed after a general rebellion, the clergy were aided with new legal power, but still they were left to superintend the conduct of their own suits, and were not armed with all the powers of the Attorney General. Was the House prepared, after hearing these facts, to say there was sufficient evidence stated in the Report to go now into a Committee of the whole House, to open the Treasury to the Protestant clergy, and convert the King's Attorney General into a tithe-agent for the Protestant Church? Was it not a question of most grave and serious consideration, whether the Government ought to place itself in the situation of a plaintiff against each individual in 374 parishes, and encounter the legal and inevitable hostility of the immense population of occupiers and tithe-payers in these extensive and populous parishes? Was it expedient, for the Government to assume this new character and position? Would it be contended that it was not infinitely more judicious and wise to leave every Churchman to assert and prove his own claim, and then for Government to render him every assistance to put his judgment or decree into execution. Was it expedient to transfer to Government the odium and unpopularity of tithe exaction? Had not a considerable portion of evidence been given that, on account of the enormous expense in the superior Courts, the tithe-payer had little chance of resisting the clergyman? Would this expense be
1364
diminished when the Attorney General was the plaintiff? Would Attorneys General and their solicitors act in these causes without liberal allowance, and would not a severe increase of expense be occasioned to the already ruined and impoverished tithe-payers? No further evidence was requisite to show that the present tithe system must be entirely changed, but much further evidence was requisite to show that a grant of money to the clergy, and coercive measures of an alarming character were necessary to enforce the arrears of tithe for 1831 due to the Protestant clergy. He was fully convinced that the time was come when the abolition of the tithe system could no longer be delayed. The appropriation of the amount of tithe was the only thing to settle. In his opinion, that could be settled by Bill, without going into a Committee of the whole House, and, as to the measure of pecuniary relief to the clergy, and coercive laws for enforcing payment of arrears, further evidence was necessary, before the House could arrive at sound conclusions. The country might, by unwise and rigorous severity, be made a desert, the landlord might be ruined, the occupier starved, the clergy pauperized, and the King's Attorney General, and his train of solicitors, enriched; was that a wise, humane, or politic course for aliberal Government to pursue towards one of the most impoverished countries in the world, and under an excitement unparalleled in the history of Ireland? In his view of the question, it was wholly immaterial whether the combination against tithe was universal through Ireland, or was confined to a certain district, with the danger of extending to every part of the country. The resistance to tithe was no new disease—it was an inveterate and long-existing disease, deeply seated in the bosom of the community. The correction of that evil admitted of no delay; the remedy proposed would aggravate the evils, and being convinced that the evidence in its favour was quite inadequate to justify it, he considered it his duty to support the Amendment.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, he never knew an instance of a proposition to go into Committee, upon any subject whatever, without the individual Member who made the proposition for going into Committee coming forward, and explicitly stating the grounds upon which he called upon the

1365
House to take that step, and, at the same time, fully developing to the House the plan which he meant to call upon them to pursue. That was the course of proceeding adopted upon the Catholic Question, and he recommended hon. Members to require it upon the present occasion; for, if they did not, they would lose an opportunity of stopping that which they conceived to be a bad measure. He was thoroughly convinced that the measure which, he had reason to suppose, would be brought forward was one which would prove miehievous—nay, ruinous. Why, then, should they lose that opportunity of voting against it? It was in vain that they endeavoured to shut their eyes to the facts that stared them in the face. However nominally ignorant, they were not really ignorant of the plan of his Majesty's Government. He, for one, had heard the Resolutions which had been moved in another place; and if similar resolutions were adopted in that House, they would pledge the House to arming Government with increased power and authority, with the view of coercing the people of Ireland, and compelling them to pay tithes. He was not opposed to giving that relief to the clergy which their present condition demanded. There was no Irish Member who could be opposed to that part of the plan; but the mode of the re-payment to the Government—that was the real question. Now, he really thought that the means by which that object was proposed to be effected would not succeed. They had the most distinct proof in the evidence given before the Committee, that it could not succeed. To his knowledge that evidence was most correct. He entertained not the slightest doubt that it would not succeed; there was not one of the forty or fifty Irish Members who supported the Government would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the plan had the slightest chance of success. He would just ask the right hon. Gentleman—was there any one of his Irish supporters who gave him the slightest encouragement to proceed? The present was, indeed, a serious case, and one which could not be trifled with; and how did it stand? The right hon. Gentleman brought forward a measure for the relief of the Irish people, and every one of his Irish supporters in that House was opposed to it. He thought that that very fact of itself ought to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that he had
1366
much better have waited until he could lay the whole Report and all the evidence upon the Table of the House.
Mr. James Grattanregretted the necessity of voting against his Majesty's Government, but if the present plan was to be persisted in, he should feel it his duty to offer to it every opposition in his power. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that his plan must succeed but he was undoubtedly going upon insufficient data. He was a Member of the Committee, and he had not the slightest difficulty in saying that there was nothing like sufficient evidence to support the case which the right hon. Gentleman thought essential to the success of his measure. No man could doubt that the clergy were entitled to the protection of the law, but it was equally certain that there was no sufficient evidence to entitle the clergy to that amount of parliamentary relief which it was understood would be proposed. Not that he objected to giving them relief; but he thought, that some means ought to be devised for obviating the necessity of applying to Parliament. Such an application, as a precedent, was fraught with danger: there was nothing that would satisfy the people of Ireland but a total change in the appropriation of the revenue derivable from tithe.
Mr. Stanley,looking at the time of night, felt that it would be impossible for him to do that which he should have wished to do, had he been permitted, namely—to lay before the House in one view the plans, intentions, and opinions of his Majesty's Government. The course of opposition which had been taken with respect to the present discussion, though it could not be called an unfair course, yet it placed his Majesty's Government, and him individually, more particularly, in a very embarrassing situation. He had not that night come forward to call their attention to the subject of tithes in Ireland, as though it were a matter which had never been brought under their consideration before. It came to them after repeated warnings—it came to them recommended by the Speech from the Throne—it came to them in conformity with the Address which that House had voted in reply to the Speech from the Throne—it came to them after their solemnly expressed determination to make it the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee, and, finally, it came to them after

1367
evidence received, by a Report made by that Committee. That Committee having considered the question referred to them, arrived at the conclusion, though they were not prepared to recommend the immediate adoption of any final measure, that sufficient evidence had been laid before them to warrant their coming to the House, laying before it such evidence has had been taken, and calling for such immediate steps as the exigency of the case seemed to require. Now, before Government adopted any particular course definitively, was it not proper that they should come before Parliament at the earliest possible moment, and not come forward pledged to any particular measure? The most striking part of the objection raised by those who supported the motion was this—that they found fault with Government for being too early in consulting Parliament; it was really the first time in all his parliamentary experience, that he had known hon. Members find fault with his Majesty's Government for taking Parliament into their councils. That was the real state of the case. Had they not called upon the House to go into an inquiry? And he would appeal to the Report of the Committee, to show whether or not they had grounds for at least taking some steps. Was the present a time in which they could wait and trifle? Were they to be met in a time like that with the announcement, that the executive authority had not power to enforce the law? He was prepared to admit that, as a permanent system, such a law ought not to be enforced; but, so long as it was the law, there could be no doubt that it ought to be obeyed. But they were told by certain Irish Members, that they ought to propose nothing, because they could carry no plan into execution in Ireland. Was it becoming—was it safe, to be influenced by such a threat? That Report, then on the Table of the House, was one which, while it held forth a prospect of relief, at the same time, suggested measures by which Government could maintain the authority of the law; but certain Irish Members met them at once with the reply, that they could not, in that country, enforce the execution of the law. That was a fatal announcement, not only for Ireland, but for the British empire. Those hon. Members in effect said to his Majesty's Government, you must not stir an inch in this matter, because you cannot command the execution
1368
of the law. That was an opinion, which, if it had any force at all, was equally stringent with respect to England or to Scotland. He entreated hon. Members to consider what that announcement led to. They were told they could not enforce the laws, for that the people would not obey them. Let the House, then, look to the legitimate conclusion of such a doctrine. Whenever an ignorant and oppressed people conceiving themselves insulted, and feeling themselves injured, being, at the same time inflamed by the agitating spirit of the times, ground down by real oppression, and excited by fancied wrongs—when such a people, so stimulated, had signified that they would not obey the law, were Members of that House to come forward and tell the Government they should do nothing, but sit still, and submit to a state of things so utterly unheard of? Were they to be told, that the people had resolved to set aside the law, and that, therefore, the Government must do nothing? Was that the counsel which the right hon. Baronet opposite thought proper to give them? Was that the conclusion at which the right hon. Baronet would have the House of Commons arrive? It was idle to suppose that the House did not possess all the information which was necessary for taking, at least, a preliminary step. There was not a Member of Parliament who had not had the Report in his hands—who had not the evidence delivered before the Committee. He confessed he could not easily account for the objections to going into a Committee, for, in his judgment, that mode of proceeding would give the fullest scope for discussion. It really did appear to him that some hon. Members endeavoured to suggest that he had some design of tricking the House. The whole extent of his parliamentary experience did not furnish him a single instance in which it had been held that going into Committee pledged the House to the proceedings that might be adopted there. He would ask the right hon. Baronet opposite, did his experience tell him, that Members who voted for a Committee were pledged to the principle of the measures to be proposed in that Committee?
Sir Henry Parnell: I said no such thing.
Mr. Stanley: I am glad that the right hon. Baronet disclaims that doctrine.
Sir Henry Parnell: I give no opinion on the subject.
Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Baronet will allow me to ask him, as a person of great parliamentary experience, whether, in his opinion, the persons who vote for going into a Committee on a particular question, are thereby pledged to the decision of that question?
Sir Henry Parnell: Under such circumstances, I should feel myself to be pledged to the principle of the measure.
Mr. Stanley: Then the hon. Baronet, and those who resisted the present Motion, did so on the ground that it pledged them to the principle of taking into consideration the question of tithes in Ireland; but the House had already acted upon that principle, and not only that, but the right hon. Baronet had himself declared his full concurrence in the leading feature of the proposed resolutions, namely, relief to the parochial clergy. The right hon. Baronet, who seemed to be well informed as to the intentions of Government, from whatever quarter he got his information, said, that he approved of one part of the plan, and yet he refused to go into Committee. He must say, that, if ever misrepresentation had been indulged in, in one case more than another, it was with respect to the measure of coercion that had been talked of. He implored hon. Gentlemen who had not very regularly obtained a knowledge of that measure to suspend their judgment till they heard the Resolutions he should bring forward, and not decide upon the representations of those Gentlemen who, unintentionally, but mischievously and fatally for the impression which the measure might make in Ireland, had pronounced a verdict against it, even before they had heard the arguments and grounds upon which it was to be supported. He protested against this premature course. They were told, that they were premature in coming to the House; but what were their opponents, who, before the Ministers had brought forward their Resolutions, passed judgment upon them? Such a course, in such quarters, was of itself sufficient to make the measure fail in Ireland. Such opinions coming from Gentlemen who were naturally looked up to in that country, were not calculated to assist the views of the Government to relieve the people, for they taught the people, instead of accepting this relief as a boon, to spurn it with indignation, as an additional oppression. As to the present Report every body knew that it was never intended to
1370
be final; it bore upon its face that it was a first Report, but upon matters which every member of the Committee considered so urgent and pressing that they decided it ought to be made. He freely admitted that this Report could not be considered final, and that there was not sufficient evidence as yet before the Committee to enable them to make a final Report. Then, as to the necessity of a change, did those who opposed the Committee mean to say, that no change was necessary? If they did, their opinions were at variance with that of all others, not only of Catholics, not only Presbyterians, but of ministers of the Church Establishment, who had been examined, and without whose testimony the examination would, indeed, have been partial and incomplete. What was the meaning of this call for delay? Were they to wait three, four, five, or six months on a subject like the present; or did those who recommended delay think it would be more possible for the Government to vindicate the majesty of the law at the end of that time than at the present? There had been a charge made against the Government that they had encouraged agitation in Ireland. It was a false, a foul, a calumnious accusation—but it had been made; and yet, when the Government wished to produce a measure which would have the effect of quieting agitation, they were called on to delay for some time longer; and thus, while the charge itself increased the amount of agitation, the effort of the Government to prevent it was opposed and attempted to be frustrated. He had made these observations, because he had been unjustly accused of taking an unfair advantage of political circumstances in order to prevail over those who did not take the same view of the matter with himself—a conduct of which he had never been, and trusted he never should be, guilty in the whole course of his political life, any more than he should be guilty of it in any transaction of private life.
Sir Robert Inglisconcurred with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, in the expediency of his Motion, reserving, however, the power of entering, upon another occasion, into a fuller consideration of the details of this subject. But he was unwilling to come to a vote this night without stating to the House, in the first instance, one of the grounds upon which he should rest that vote, and without noticing some of the general principles which, in

1371
the course of this discussion, had been brought forward by two or three of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, protested against the Church of England and the Church of Ireland being bound up together on this occasion. He begged to recall to the recollection of his noble friend, that in law there existed no Church of Ireland; that the Church of England and Ireland was one united Church; and that if any thing was done to injure what the noble Lord called the Church of Ireland, from that instant there would be no security for any of the external frame-work of the Church of England. From the cheers on the opposite side of the House, he gathered, that he was not wrong in assuming, that those hon. Gentlemen felt there was great danger to the Church of England when any thing was done to the Church of Ireland. An hon. Gentleman who spoke early in the debate, asked, what a Presbyterian would think if called upon to pay tithe to a Roman Catholic pastor? But his answer was, that the people did not pay tithes—the principle had been established over and over again, but, as this objection was again urged, it was necessary to repeat the answer—the people did not pay tithes as Protestants, or as Roman Catholics, as Episcopalians, or Presbyterians—not according to their creed, but according to their property. The hon. member for Meath quoted a passage from an American law, in which it was stated to be contrary to the rights of man to compel any individual to pay to the support of a religion in which he did not believe. Now, was it not clear that there was no analogy in the case? There might be some ground for the objection, if it were now proposed to raise de novo a general tax for the support of a particular faith; but the question was not about a poll-tax, to be from this time forth regulated by the population, in which case only there could be the least ground for taking into consideration the creed of the parties; but it was a common question of property, whether tithes already existing be not like rent payable in respect to property, whoever may hold it—whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jew. The hon. member for Kilkenny entered into a variety of details, into which he should not attempt to follow the hon. Member; but there were one or two tempting points upon which the hon. Member touched, to
1372
which he must momentarily allude. The hon. Member said, that the attempt to call attention to the distress of the Irish clergy, was a factious endeavour to divert the public mind from another object; that the distress was exaggerated, if not unreal; and that, at any rate, there were in other parts of Ireland, clergy whose property ought to be made available for the relief of such distress. The hon. Member, from his natural feelings of humanity, could not disregard such suffering as had been described. He must, therefore, come to the conclusion, that the hon. Member could not place credit in the evidence upon which the description rested; but he would ask the hon. Member, on what authority he could deny the statements of Gentlemen whose characters were unimpeached, and who were summoned before a Committee willing to investigate the subject, some of the Members of which had no very friendly feelings to the existing Establishment? On what authority did the hon. Member suppose, that these Gentlemen had exaggerated the distress, or had not described that which really existed. But the hon. Member said, that there was other property of the Church which ought to be applied to the relief of this distress;—that in Ireland, generally, the clergy had 800,000 l. a-year in tithes, and that, from this source, the sufferers ought to be relieved. Without stopping to examine the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement, he would ask, whether the hon. Member meant, that the income of one clergyman in one part of the country ought to be seized to discharge a debt due to another clergyman? Did the hon. Member know what the clergy had done for their brethren? He had not the honour of being acquainted with the Prelate concerned in the fact which he was about to state to the House, but it was so creditable to him, that he could not forbear mentioning it. The Bishop of Ossory, in whose diocese were some of the most disturbed districts of Ireland, summoned his clergy together, and stated to them, that, knowing the distress in which they were involved, he had taken the liberty of arranging the salaries and discharging the arrears due to all the curates in his diocese. With respect to beneficed clergymen, he was prepared to give those amongst them who had neither friends nor relatives to assist them such pecuniary aid as was in his power. He

1373
must also remark upon another statement prominently put forth by the same hon. Gentleman: he seemed to imply, that Ministers ought not to proceed against the inclinations of the liberal Irish Members, in producing any measure for the relief of the clergy, because they had supported them in their measure of Reform.
Mr. Huntsaid, that, at that hour of the night, he would only make a few observations. He must complain, that the House had no information respecting the subject upon which they were asked to go into Committee. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland seemed to feel very indignant at what was stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell); but, had not the noble Paymaster of the Forces moved the Reform Bill without sufficient information? He concurred with much that had been said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Brownlow). The tithes, it appeared, were five times heavier in England than in Ireland; and, if they were put an end to in Ireland, rely upon it the people of England would soon offer them the strongest resistance. There was a Union going on at Birmingham, which had circulated a pamphlet calling upon the English Members to resist the payment of tithes. He, however, felt the very strongest objection to making the English public pay the bad debts of the Irish clergy. To such a measure he, for one, never would consent. [Cries of "Question.] Some Gentlemen cried "Question." Why, what this House required was the
1374
question, and he was satisfied that there was property enough in Ireland to pay the clergy, without calling upon the English people. The Irish Members had read a lecture to the English Members; they had acted as a compact body in favour of Reform; and, if they would look to the division to-night, they would see how they had acted.
Mr. Jephsonasked the right hon. Secretary, whether he would go into Committee, pro forma?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he would not even go so far to-night; but would, on carrying his motion, not move that the Speaker leave the Chair, but postpone the Committee to a future night.
The House divided on Mr. Brownlow's Amendment: Ayes 31; Noes 314—Majority 283.
Question put on the original Motion, and Committee postponed till Monday.

List of the AYES.

Bainbridge E. T.

Killeen, Lord

Bellew Sir P.

Lambert, H.

Blackney, W.

Lambert, J.

Bodkin, G. G.

Leader, N. P.

Brabazon, Lord

Macnamara, W. N.

Brownlow, C.

O'Connor, D.

Burke, Sir J.

O'Connell, M.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Farrell, R. M.

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Parnell, Sir H.

Duncombe, T. S.

Power, R.

French, A.

Ruthven, E. S.

Grattan, J.

Shiel, R. L.

Grattan, H.

Torrens, R.

Host, Sir J. W.

Walker, C. A.

Hunt, H.

Wallace, T.

Jephson. C. D. O.

Wyse, T.

MINUTES.;
Bill: Read a third time. Subletting Act Amendment (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. By Lord DOVER, from the Inhabitants of Bethnal Green, and from certain Individuals in the City of London, and by Lord SUFFIELD, from the Inhabitants of Christ Church, Spitalfields, against the Employment of Children for unlimited Hours in Factories:—By the Earl of FINGAL, from the Inhabitants of Kiltayle:—By Lord CLONCURRY, from Kill, Lyons, Bodenstown and Clonmere:—By Lord KING, from the Landowners of Monastereven, Kildangan, Nurney, Lacca, Rahill, Rathvilly, Moleary, Monastervoice, and Newtown, Carlow, against the Tithe System of Ireland:—By the Earl of FINGAL, from the Inhabitants of Kiltayle and Ballyconick, for a Reform in the Irish Representation similar to that of England as intended by the Reform Bill:—By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Clergy of the Deanerie of Boroughbridge, for the augmentation of small Livings by reducing large ones:—By Lord KING, from Tooting, to exempt that Parish from the Metropolitan Police Bill; and from Saltash, against certain parts of the Saltash Floating Bridge Bill:—By the Earl of RODEN, from the Protestants of Skull, the Presbyterian Congregation of Bally train; Inhabitants of Sevisby, and of Clare in Suffolk, against the proposed System of Education for Ireland.

CONDUCT OF THE EARL OF ELDON.
The Earl of Eldon: My Lords, in consequence of what has been said in another place, I feel it necessary to give you notice that on Monday next I shall bring forward a motion relative to the character and conduct of the individual who now has the honour of addressing your Lordships, and who for twenty-five years had the honour of sitting on the Woolsack as

1269
Speaker of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I have no other object in doing this than to set myself right in the opinion of my countrymen, to whom I leave it to decide whether my conduct, during the time I filled the office of Lord Chancellor, has been right or wrong. I have discharged my duty invariably to the best of my ability; and I will allow no man, unanswered, to arraign my conduct. Not seeing any of the Members of his Majesty's Ministers in their places, and as I think that certain persons ought to be present when I make observations of this nature, I will decline saying anything further at present, and content myself with giving your Lordships notice, that on Monday I will bring forward a motion with respect to the imputations to which I have alluded. It is not fit that I should say more at present, but I wish to let my countrymen know that I am content to apply to them for the opinion which they entertain of my public conduct.

TITHES (IRELAND).
On the Motion of the Marquis of Lansdown, the first report of the Committee on Tithes in Ireland was read by the Clerk at the Table.
The Marquis of Lansdownthen rose and said—My Lords, the Report which you have just heard read, together with the evidence on which that Report is founded, having been for many days in your Lordships' hands, I trust that I am justified in assuming that the time has arrived when you may with propriety be invited to accede to it. In submitting to your Lordships resolutions confirmatory of, and founded strictly on, that Report, for your approbation, I feel considerably relieved from the difficulties which I should have to contend with if I had to lay it before you on my individual authority, or if I had to ask your Lordships' concurrence in these resolutions, as the result of an opinion entertained by myself alone, from that difficulty I am relieved by the nature of the Report, and I feel great satisfaction in stating, that it represents, not alone my own opinion, but those of a Committee of your Lordships' House, selected from amongst you, and composed of persons the weight of whose judgment cannot fail to be greater than mine in your Lordships' estimation. It is, however, my business, my Lords, to bring these resolutions before your Lordships, and in asking you to adopt them, it will be necessary for
1270
me shortly to call your attention to the three prominent features of the Report, namely, to the facts and circumstances connected with the state of opposition which exists to the execution of the law in Ireland, as respects the collection of tithes; to the effect of that resistance upon the fortunes and condition of the individuals most interested in that description of property; and, finally, to the general considerations arising out of the bearing of these facts and circumstances on the property which has been attacked, with a view to finding a legislative remedy. It will be, unfortunately, an easy task to satisfy your Lordships as to the existence of the facts referred to in the Report. You will find that not only has a resistance to the payment of tithes prevailed in many parts of the country, but that it has been effected sometimes by illegal acts and outrages, more frequently by combinations among the people, by which they availed themselves of such legal difficulties as enabled them to delay or prevent the payment; but together your Lordships will find systematic opposition has been organized for a considerable time, which has continued to extend itself, with various and comparative degrees of violence, through several counties of Ireland. The result of this opposition and combination has been that in those districts, the majority of the parochial clergy are driven into a most unfortunate, and, I fear, as respects their rights and character, a most cruel situation—they having been deprived in very many instances of the means of subsistence, and reduced to live on the charity of their friends. Some of them have been compelled to make efforts by means of the law to recover their property, which have been, in many instances, unsuccessful, although supported by the power of the Government when that power could be properly employed. Some have succeeded in obtaining by force a part of that which was illegally withheld from them; but it is not desirable that such means to recover their incomes should be resorted to by clergymen; and others, perhaps the most estimable of the whole, who, in such a state of things, were fearful of sacrificing the sanctity of their character, and of losing the influence which they possessed among the people, declined to act at all for themselves, and they have trusted altogether to your Lordships and the wisdom of the Legislature to

1271
make a provision for them, they desiring above all things, with a view to the efficiency of their ministry, to avoid all collision with the people. It is their duty to console and instruct. My Lords, this is the state of things in which you are called upon to legislate with respect to the tithe system of Ireland. I can hardly presume that your Lordships have yet perused the evidence attached to the report, but I may presume that you are acquainted with the chief facts, by the common vehicles of information, and that, therefore, it will be unnecessary for me to dwell long on this part of the subject, or to detain the House by proving the extent of the combination and of the mischief which has arisen. I will only advert to one or two points. Your Committee examined clergyman after clergyman, and magistrate after magistrate, all of whom were well acquainted with the state of the country, and they all concurred in stating, that the clergy were unable to collect their tithes, and the Magistrates, that applying all the means at their disposal they were unable to give effectual assistance towards recovering the tithes. My Lords, I will only state the answers of one or two witnesses. We examined Mr. Roberts of Kilkenny, who stated, that the greater part of that county was engaged in a systematic resistance to tithes. We examined Mr. Cotton, of Tipperary, and Mr. Hans Hamilton, of the same county, besides various other clergymen, all of whom united in describing the opposition as of the most determined nature. But, my Lords, I will not detain you with this evidence; I will turn to the evidence of Magistrates, in order that you may understand how far it was practicable to give to the clergymen the assistence or protection of the law. We examined Colonel Sir John Harvey, the inspector-general of police for Leinster, who, after stating the intensity and extent of the feeling of opposition to the tithes throughout his division, and the inadequacy of the law to overcome that opposition, was asked—
"Has it since prevailed in more parishes?—It has extended to more parishes. I have here a more detailed statement of every occurrence connected with the opposition to the payment of tithe; it recapitulates what I have already stated, with the addition of a great deal more matter. They are facts to which the resident Magistrate of the county would be more Competent to speak with precision than I can
1272
be, because my situation is one of a more general character. The gentlemen employed under me, and they are here in attendance can give the details, I can only, give the substance of the reports of others as they are officially given to me.
"What counties does it extend to within your district?—The counties of Kilkenny, Carlow, West Wicklow, Queen's and Kildare.
"In what parts of those counties, and to what extent, did it prevail, taking Kilkenny first; does it embrace the whole of Kilkenny?—That question will be distinctly spoken to by Mr. Green, who is the resident Magistrate of that county.
"Do you understand it to be general throughout the counties; that is embracing a larger portion than the portion that is exempt from it?—Certainly; particularly in the county of Kilkenny.
"Do you conceive that this system is extending itself thither?—Certainly. I am satisfied that it is now rapidly extending; the proof of it is the notices of intimidation, which are almost every where given.
"What is the extent of the resistance; is it by force, or is it by refusing to buy at the sales?—The ostensible means of resistance are those by which they are enabled to keep the law, but to give every legal obstruction and every legal opposition in their power to the collection of the tithe.
"Does it fall within your knowledge whether they have been advised to offer every possible resistance, so as not directly to violate the law?—I cannot say that it has been within my knowledge, but I have always been impressed with the belief that the system did not commence with the lower orders of the tithe-payers."
And the evidence of Colonel Harvey is fully borne out by that of Mr. Fitzgerald, the resident police Magistrate, and Mr. Green, a resident Magistrate of the county of Tipperary. And in like spirit, and to the same effect, Major Tandy, a resident Magistrate in Kildare, informed the Committee that such was the extent and organization of the resistance, that the civil power was wholly incapable to enforce the payment of tithes. Major Tandy says, in his evidence that—"A few days ago, at Maynooth there were processes served upon different persons, and the process-server came to me, and told me, he received two threatening letters through the Post-office, to deter him from going to Maynooth. I told him he should have every protection. The man went there, but when the tithe cases came to be called on, the Attorney declined to proceed. He told me that he was afraid to proceed; that he had received two threatening letters, forwarded to his House in Dublin

1273
through the Post-office, and that he went to one of the principal clergymen by whom he was employed, and showed him those letters; and this clergyman said, 'I see your life is in danger, and therefore I will not press you to proceed upon it.' The consequence was, that this gentleman was afraid to proceed upon any of the tithe cases and they all fell to the ground, to the number of 160. There were four other Attornies in Court, but none of them would interfere." My Lords, I shall not detain you by further extracting from this I report. The facts which are contained in the evidence attached to the report will convince you of the unhappy state of things which now exists in Ireland; but if it were necessary, I could refer you to the additional evidence received by the Committee since that portion which is now on your Lordships' Table has been collected. But I think I have said enough, and that I need not dwell any longer on the extent of the resistance, the menacing appearance, and the serious nature of the illegal opposition to the payment of tithes which has sprung up, and spread itself in such a dangerous combination through so many counties. My Lords, I flatter myself that I need not say anything to enforce the performance of the duty which devolves upon you of adopting resolutions to administer an effectual relief to the respectable body of persons who, through no misconduct of their own, are placed in this unfortunate situation. To afford relief to the Irish clergy is not only a matter of expediency, or generosity, but of strict justice. When I recollect who are the persons brought into this unforeseen and unhappy position—that they are gentlemen of education, who have foregone other prospects in life, and devoted themselves to the Church, in expectation that the incomes allotted to them would at least have been secured to them; when I think on all that they have endured, I am sure it will not be necessary to urge many reasons on your Lordships to induce you to adopt that recommendation of the Committee by which his Majesty's Government are to be empowered to grant them assistance out of the Consolidated Fund, in respect of the tithes due for one year, that year being the one during which the spirit of resistance chiefly prevailed, on a scale which it is not necessary for me to enter into any explanation of, because you will find it in the appendix to your report. The scale
1274
is, of course, regulated by the annual income to which each clergyman is entitled; but the Committee in recommending that it should be adopted, have not forgotten that it was necessary to vindicate the law; and the Report recommends that a power to levy arrears in the districts where the resistance has been most effectually organized shall be vested in the Government, as the means of obtaining the repayment of its advances. Here, my Lords, I will quit this part of the subject; and I trust you will agree with me that the Committee have not neglected any remedy calculated to meet the existing evils, or to provide for the wants of that deserving body of men, whose claims are founded on right and justice, and who have, in common with all his Majesty's subjects, a claim on the full and complete protection of the law. My Lords, the Committee have not confined themselves in this investigation, to the evils suffered by the clergy, but they have felt it to be their duty, in examining into the causes of that system of opposition which has arisen, not to overlook the circumstances connected with the particular nature of tithe property which are calculated in a peculiar manner to promote dissentions, to engender broils, and to excite those animosities which have so long prevailed in Ireland on the subject, and which, if ever they remained dormant for a time, were soon afterwards put forth with increased activity. My Lords, it cannot have escaped the notice of such of your Lordships as have reflected on the nature of this species of property, and the circumstances with which it is connected, that though it is venerable for its antiquity, and though it has been found to exist, in some shape or other, in almost every country it has been more or less complained of as containing within it the seeds of great discontent. It is hardly necessary for me to contend in this place for the truth of a proposition so obvious, that tithe operates as a tax on industry. The question also has been mooted here, whether the tithe operates as a tax on the landlord, or the tenant in possession, or on the consumer. It is my opinion, that it operates either immediately or remotely, as a tax on land falling on the landlord. Putting out of view the opportunity the landlords may have by the changes of the law, by the prohibition or restriction on the importation of corn, to raise the price

1275
of that and remove the burthen from themselves, it must be clear, that whenever a lease comes to be renewed, the landlord will only get a rent proportioned to the claims which are upon the land, and the tenant will give a rent calculated on the diminution of a certain portion of his produce, which is pro tanto a diminution of the fertility of the soil or of its value to him. Its effect as a tax does not stop here; it not only acts upon the landlord but on the occupier, but as no one takes land without contemplating to expend capital and labour upon it, the tithe follows upon and increases in proportion to the increased produce obtained by that expenditure. The capitalist must take into account the returns he is likely to receive, and as those returns are diminished by the tithes in that proportion is his enterprise checked, and the employment of his capital, rendered profitless. Thus, my Lords, if you consider for a moment, you will find that it is a tax not only on the income of the landlord, on the industry of the tenant, but on the labour, power, machinery, and animals, in short, on all the capital which is brought to bear upon the land. The effect of tithe is, therefore, to deter, rather than to encourage improvement; it makes, on an average, all land less productive by one-tenth, and it deprives pro tanto the tenant of a part of the surplus which should remain to him, after paying his landlord, and for the natural outgoing of the farm. It obstructs the occupier in all his designs, and discourages him from laying out capital on land at present unproductive, lest he should have to share his gains with a person who has contributed nothing to the stock or to the risk. Besides bearing on the landlords, and on the occupying tenant, it falls heavily on the consumer, inasmuch as its effects are to cause a diminution of food, and a consequent advance of price in the market. As tithes have, on all occasions, borne hard upon the owners and the tenants of the soil, as well as of the consumers of the production of the land, the system has, from time to time, undergone modifications greater or less, in many of the countries where it has existed. Far be it from me, my Lords, to recommend those modes by which, in some places, the tithe has been removed on the principle of spoliation, and without an equivalent being paid to the Church to which it belonged; and I only allude to the modifications
1276
which hare taken place, for the purpose of showing that wherever the tax has been in operation, it has been dealt with according to the circumstances of the country. In some places, as I have said, the Church has been spoliated of its property; but this is an example to be avoided, and not to be imitated; in other places a different kind of property has been substituted for the tithes, and means have been taken to find an income for the clergy in another shape. The system of farming a public revenue, which has been sometimes done with tithes has always been productive of great inconvenience. It is uncertain and irregular in its operation. It cannot extend to a whole county in the same form and proportion. The amount to be collected is regulated by local customs, caprice, or the feelings of the persons entitled to the produce. In one district it is larger in amount than in another, and it is calculated to impress on those who are rated in a high proportion a sense of the injustice which has been done them. In some places, for instance, nine-tenths of the tithe is taken; in others only seven-tenths; and in others perhaps, but six-tenths; and to this must be added the vexations attending the collecting of it, consequently the man from whom the larger sum is exacted feels that a wrong has been done him, and he complains of the great injustice which he sustains, in comparison with that of his neighbour. I am aware, my Lords, that the great antiquity of the institution of tithes, associated as it has been with long habits, makes it, at least, a matter of hesitation to what extent the system should be interfered with in other countries; but I ask, my Lords, with what aggravated force, with what intolerable bearing do not those inconveniences press upon the particular condition of Ireland? In Ireland the Legislature has been repeatedly called upon to interfere to mitigate the evils flowing from the existence of the system. I will not occupy the time of the House, by any reference to the Acts of Parliament passed, both before and since the Union, in which the Legislature has assumed the power, or rather invested the Government of the day with a power, beyond the ordinary course of the law for the enforcement of tithes; I shall only allude to a measure which has been passed within the recollection of all of your Lordships—I mean the Tithe Composition Act. I lament, for the sake of the country, that

1277
at the time that Act was introduced it was not made compulsory; at the same time, I am bound to state, that I do not believe it was the fault of my noble friend who introduced the measure in this House that it was not made compulsory. If the Tithe Composition Act had then been made compulsory, we should have advanced a step forward, and the progress we are now called upon to make would have been rendered less difficult. I certainly shall not detain your Lordships by going through any considerable part of the evidence taken before the Committee; but I must beg leave to call your attention to the testimony given by one or two persons, in order to prove what they think as to the expediency and practicability of upholding the tithe system as it at present exists in Ireland. Allow me, first, to direct the attention of the House to the evidence of the Archbishop of Dublin, who had certainly no bias on his mind against the particular provision from which the clergy of the Established Church have derived their incomes; and, in adverting to the evidence of this distinguished Prelate, I must observe that I do not rely on his evidence alone, but on that of others given through him. I shall read the exact words of the right rev. Prelate, in which he states his opinion as to the impossibility of persevering in the present system. The emphatic words of the Archbishop of Dublin, as given in page 137 of the evidence, are these,
"But as for the continuance of the tithe system, it seems to me that it must be at the point of the bayonet—that it must be through a sort of chronic civil war. The ill feelings that have so long existed against it have been embodied in so organized a combination, that I conceive there would be continually breakings-out of resistance which must be kept down by a continuance of very severe measures, such as the Government might indeed resolve to have recourse to for once, if necessary, but would be very unwilling to resort to habitually, so as to keep the country under military government. And the most intelligent persons, and the mo3t experienced I have conversed with, seem to think that nothing else will permanently secure the payment of tithes under the present system."
These, my Lords, are the sentiments of the Archbishop of Dublin, and they have been corroborated by the testimony of many clergymen of the Established Church, who were also examined before the Committee. I shall now show that those sentiments are
1278
not confined to the clergy, by reading the evidence of a layman connected, by situation and circumstances, with the Established Church in Ireland. I will quote the evidence of Mr. Grace, the Registrar of the Consistorial Court of the diocess of Ossory:—
"You have stated that the making the composition compulsory would be a very great benefit; you have stated also that the resistance to the tithes is the same in parishes where that Act is so now executed as in parishes where it is not. In what respect do you imagine that the making it compulsory would be beneficial?—I state my opinion that it would be beneficial merely as a preparatory step towards a commutation—the one, I conceive, could not be effectually obtained without ascertaining and fixing the other.
"You do not conceive it possible to come to a satisfactory arrangement by a temporary composition only, even if it were compulsory and universal?—No, I do not.
"You conceive that that must be the basis of a future commutation?—Yes.
"Do not you conceive that such a composition would afford a material, if not an indispensable, facility, for effecting an ulterior arrangement?—I conceive it is indispensable."
He was subsequently asked, whether such a plan would be generally approved of by the clergy, and he stated, that he believed it would be generally acceptable to them. And, further, Mr. Grace has stated his decided opinion to be, that Ireland will never beat peace untilsomecommutation—such as an exchange of tithes for land—be effected. I have here only referred to the testimony of those two witnesses, as a sample of the evidence taken before the Committee, and which is now on your Lordships' Table. I feel that it would be quite premature, at this stage, to call upon the House to enter into details, or to adopt any particular plan. All that I call upon your Lordships now to do is, to sanction the principle adopted by your Committee in their Report. When, for the purpose of insuring and enforcing the collection of tithes, you are about to arm the Government with extraordinary powers, I ask, is it not fair and wise for your Lordships to look to what have been the effects of the system? Looking to the constantly recurring difficulties with which the collection of tithes has been attended in Ireland, aggravated, as these difficulties have been of late years, I ask, if you are satisfied that the extinction of that system is indispensable to the future peace and tranquillity of Ireland, whether you can hesitate in adopting the principle laid

1279
down in the Report of your Committee, and consenting that a great change shall be made? Your Lordships have seen that the whole machinery of the law, by which tithes are now recoverable, has become crazy and unfit for the purposes for which it was established. Attornies are not to be found to carry on the usual legal proceedings for tithes; and how can you be assured that they will hereafter be found? Even the tithe-proctors cannot be bribed in many parts of Ireland to undertake the collection; and if litigious and desperate Attornies are only to be found, and desperate and cruel proctors can only be selected, is it consistent with the peace of the country that the law should be administered by such instruments? Whether the sum due to the clergy should be raised in the nature of a rent-charge on the land, and the money paid, in the first instance, to Government, or whether a commutation should take place of the tithes for land, the Committee do not suggest. I may be allowed to observe, however, that the difficulties which suggest themselves to the latter proposition do not appear to me to be of an insurmountable character, as there are greater facilities for procuring land in lieu of tithes in Ireland, than, perhaps, exists in any other country. If your Lordships are of opinion that the commutation should be of this nature, I think the means of carrying such a commutation into effect may be found. On the other hand, if you think it wiser that the commutation should be in the nature of a rent-charge upon land, as now takes place in the case of many local and provincial taxes in Ireland, I do not conceive that such a plan presents any insurmountable difficulties; and the manner in which many other taxes are raised for local and public purposes, will afford facilities for carrying such an arrangement into effect, and raising a tax upon land in lieu of tithes. Contemplating all the evils which have occurred from the present system, it is for your Lordships to say whether you so far distrust your own power as legislators as to decide that you are not able to charge the land with a sum in lieu of tithes, or to provide in some other way for the subsistence of the 900 persons of which the parochial clergy of Ireland consists, by the adoption of a system which, if not perfect in itself, may at least be less objectionable than that which now prevails, with its crowd of civil-bill
1280
processes-tithe-proctors, appraisers, and all that complicated, expensive, and insufficient machinery, which is the frail foundation on which the Irish clergyman now depends for the receipt of his income. The mere simplification of that system would of itself be a great advantage; but if you adopt any system by which you get rid of the collision between the clergyman and his flock—always recollecting that the flock do not receive, or do not think they receive, any benefit from the services of the clergyman—it is impossible not to perceive that you will confer a great boon on the clergymau, and also on the country. I believe that if this great cause of collision was removed, from what we have seen of the conduct of the clergy in Ireland, they would be looked up to by the people with feelings of respect and attachment; and I have no doubt this would be the case, but for that perpetual grievance, as it is considered by the people, of being called upon to pay those from whom, in a spiritual sense, they receive no benefit. It is impossible for your Lordships not to see in what an independent condition the clergyman will be placed by a commutation of tithes, as compared with the mode in which he receives his income under the present system. He will be free from all the trouble and annoyance, of making ten or twelve collections in the course of a year: raising one part of his income by the tithe on potatoes, another by the tithe on flax, and so on through the different articles of agricultural produce. I say, my Lords, that, by such a commutation, you will place the clergyman in a situation in which he may hope for, and will doubtless possess the respect of his flock, at the same time that you give him far better security than any he now possesses, for the means of a respectable and decent subsistence. If you carry into effect such an arrangement in my opinion, my Lords, you will have effected a most glorious work; nor will it be altogether unprecedented, for your Lordships must recollect, that, in the time of Charles 2nd, tithes in Scotland were exchanged for land. Upon all those various considerations, then, the independence and respectability of the clergy, the improvement and tranquillity of Ireland, and the laying a foundation in that country for the exertions of industry, of which no country stands more in need, your Lordships are called upon to consider this question. I am satisfied that nothing will

1281
tend more to excite and stimulate industry in Ireland than a commutation like that which has been recommended in the Report of the Committee. I know that the clergy have not received their tithes in Ireland to the extent to which they were entitled. This, I feel, I am always bound to state, that there is no evidence which can lead us to suppose that in any instance the clergyman extorted more than his due; but all the evidence goes to prove, that the clergy generally received less than what they were entitled to. All the resistance—all the evil—then, has arisen from the radical defects of the system; and the Christian temper and endurance displayed by the clergy only goes to prove how bad must be the system, which, when thus administered, has produced so much evil. The alteration of such a system, I think, will entitle the Legislature to the gratitude of the country and of posterity. My Lords, I have now done. It gives me great pleasure to be the organ of the Committee, and, as such, to have had the honour of calling your attention to a subject on which, notwithstanding the heat arising from the difference which exists on political questions, I look for the absence of all party feeling—an absence which has sometimes distinguished the consideration of such questions in this House, and which has induced the House, as I trust it will on this occasion, to look to nothing but the adoption of measures tending to promote the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. I now beg leave to move the following Resolutions:—
"That it appears to this House that in several parts of Ireland an organised and systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, by which the law has been rendered unavailing; and many of the clergymen of the Established Church have been reduced to great pecuniary distress.
"That, in order to afford relief to this distress, it is expedient that his Majesty should be empowered, upon application to the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, to direct that there be issued from the Consolidated Fund such sums as may be required for this purpose.
"That the sums so issued shall be distributed by the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, in advances proportioned to the in-
1282
comes of the incumbents of benefices, wherein the tithes or tithe composition lawfully due may have been withheld, according to a scale, diminishing as the incomes of such incumbents increase.
"That for the more effectual vindication of the authority of the law, and as a security for the repayment of the sums so to be advanced, his Majesty be empowered to levy, under the authority of an Act to be passed for the purpose, the amount of arrears for the tithes or tithe composition of the whole or any part of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear which may be due for a longer period; reserving, in the first instance, the amount of such advances, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal claimants.
"That it is the opinion of this House that, with a view to secure both the interests of the Church and the lasting welfare of Ireland, a permanent change of system will be required; and that such a change, to be satisfactory and secure, must involve a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange for, or investment in, land."
The Earl of Wicklowdid not rise to oppose the resolutions which had just been moved, nor was it his intention to follow the noble Marquis through the vast variety of topics on which he had touched, his object was, merely to make one or two observations, with their Lordships' permission, on the present condition of Ireland. In the present awful and alarming state of the country, he owned he could see no mode more effectual for relieving the clergy of Ireland than that recommended in the Report of the Committee. He was most anxious, too, that some measure should be adopted to establish the incomes of the clergy on a more secure and less obnoxious footing. At the same time he must express his disappointment at the statement which their Lordships had just heard. He regretted that they should be called upon to adopt a report recommending the total extinction of tithes, without any specific substitute being brought forward for the payment of the clergy in lieu of tithes. He would call the Report the Act of Government, for he found the same words in the Reports of both Houses. He had already said, that he considered a recommendation for the extinction of

1283
this species of property, without any recommendation of a substitute, as a very great evil. He had expected that, in the interval which had elapsed since the Report was brought forward, some progress would have been made, and that the noble Marquis would have been able to have given their Lordships a distinct notion of the measure which Government intended to bring forward. The House, however, was only called upon to approve of the Report, and to sanction the principle propounded by his Majesty's Government. In his opinion, the Committee had not entered into the difficult part of the question. The difficult part of the question was, the establishment of a permanent system, in lieu of tithes. As Government proposed to take upon itself the collection of the arrears now due, he hoped they would so far re-consider the subject, as not to allow the law for the recovery of the arrears to be confined to the one year referred to in the Report. The clergy were totally debarred from proceeding for the recovery of the arrears by the declaration of Parliament, and there must be a new law to enforce the payment. All the clergy could hope to recover was, this one year and nothing more. Now, what he asked was, that Government should have power to carry back the system they were about to adopt, and until a new law was enacted for placing the property in tithes on a permanent basis, that, the Government should have the power to levy the whole arrears. If such a law should be introduced, during the present Session, what difficulty was there in giving this additional advantage to those whom the noble Marquis so justly eulogised. Unless this was done, the clergy would have no income until the new system was carried into execution. It was admitted that the Crown was able to enforce payments from the people with greater facilities than individuals, and it was right, therefore, that the clergy, in this instance, should be sustained by the power of the Crown, until the Legislature agreed upon a permanent measure. Whilst on this subject, he must say, that he could not help being apprehensive, that, in the end, Government would not be disposed to enforce the payment of the arrears at all. They would probably consider that it was better to commence the new system with the concord and good will of the people, to let the agitation subside, and not to enforce
1284
payment of the arrears. That such a resolution would meet the approbation of the agitators in Ireland he doubted not, but he was convinced, that such a resolution would be detrimental to the security of all property in that country, and also to the property of the Established Church in England. He hoped, also, that Government would adopt some measure to remove the feeling which existed amongst the people of Ireland, as to the views of the Government on the subject of tithes. The Archbishop of Dublin stated, in his evidence, that he had heard of a Magistrate who said, "he would rather put his hand in the fire, than take part in enforcing a claim for tithes." That was the ground of a charge against the Magistracy of Ireland; but their Lordships would recollect that the Magistrates of Ireland were placed in a very peculiar and difficult situation. Captain Graham's name had been left out of the Commission—which was substantially the same as if he had been dismissed from the Magistracy—for his conduct at Newtonbarry; and yet, in the last newspaper he (Lord Wicklow) had seen, that on the trial of a man for that transaction at the assizes for Wexford, the Judge stated, that no imputation whatever rested on the conduct of Captain Graham. He begged to observe, that he had no acquaintance with that Gentleman, but he stood up in defence of the Magistracy of Ireland against what was stated in the evidence of the Archbishop of Dublin. He knew that the Magistrates thought they had not the hearty support of Government, and were consequently afraid to act with vigour. The Archbishop stated, in substance, that he attributed much of the success which had attended the resistance to the payment of tithes to the supineness of the Magistracy and police, and that their want of energy arose from an idea entertained by them, that the Government were not favourable to the cause, they, therefore, felt a difficulty in acting with promptitude; while it appeared, also, that there were not sufficient troops, and that the troops who were there did their duty with some degree of unwillingness, and seemed, according to the testimony of some of the witnesses, to be marching with ropes round their necks. The noble Marquis had quoted to them the opinions of the Archbishop of Dublin—that these tithes could not be collected but by the

1285
bayonet. That evening he had learned, that in some parishes the display of a small degree of vigour had procured the payment of every farthing that was due. That fact showed that the most rev. Prelate's opinion was not perfectly well founded with respect to all parts of Ireland. In fact, wherever a proper degree of vigour was exhibited on the part of the Government, resistance was put down; and he would further instance the case of the parish of Tullagh, near Dublin, as a proof that, when vigour was shown on the part of the Government by the employment of the military and the police, the resistance to the tithes was effectually and at once put down. He was quite certain that if the prompt measures taken in that instance by the Government had been employed earlier, and upon a larger scale, the evil would not have grown to its present magnitude. The great question, however, now was, what was the substitute proposed for the present law? It was not now laid before them; when it was likely they should have it he did not know. The noble Marquis had insinuated, two or three times over, the modes by which it was possible such a thing would be done. The first of these was to fix a charge on the land of the country; the other plan was, that of commuting tithes for land. Against the first of these he protested, for, in the present state of the country, a more injurious system could hardly be adopted. It would set the people at variance with the tended proprietors; it would place the latter in the situation of tithe proctors. In times of peace that might not be so injurious as at the present moment; but now, when the most angry spirit was existing throughout the country, he should much deplore such an act. The other plan of commuting tithes for land was by no means so injurious. It might appear difficult at first, but the difficulties would vanish when they were met with decided resolution. Every individual who was subject to the payment of tithes held his land in the way of a mortgage, and the law might oblige the whole country to pay the mortgage, and in that way there certainly would be no insuperable difficulty in the way of obtaining a commutation for tithes. But there was another point, to which neither the noble Marquis nor the Committee had alluded—it was with respect to the church cess. That cess was as much
1286
objected to in Ireland as the tithes. He trusted that, whatever plan might be adopted, it would comprise the church cess, so that the clergy would receive the amount of that as well as of the tithes. He begged to be understood as not offering by these remarks the smallest opposition to the resolutions of the noble Marquis.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that as one of the Members of the Committee from, whom the Report on this subject had emanated, he felt it his duty to say a few words in reply to some observations which had fallen from the noble Earl who had just sat down. The noble Earl said, that, in point of fact, the Report was not so much the Report of the Committee as the Report of his Majesty's Government. He begged leave to contradict that assertion of the noble Earl. It was essentially the Report of the Committee. As one of the Members of that Committee, he had put his name to it, and, unimportant as that name was, he certainly would not have affixed it to the Report unless he had cordially concurred in the whole of it. There possibly might be here or there a word in it, which he might think should be altered, but, in the substance of that Report he quite concurred. He had entered the Committee with a determination to do his duty, to inquire into the system, and report only according to the evidence. It was true, as the noble Earl had said, that the substantial parts of that report had been proposed to the Committee by the Government, which was the duty of the Government; but if he could refer the noble Earl to the proceedings which had taken place in the Committee, he should be able to show him, that so far from that Report having been submitted to, and adopted by them, without any thing like discussion or deliberation, as the noble Earl had said, the contrary was the case, and that the very word to which the noble Earl had so much objected was not in the original draught of the Report, but was afterwards introduced into it, and that, too, not at the instance of a Member of his Majesty's Government. This was not the proper occasion to enter into a discussion of the remedy which should be applied to the evils, as far as tithes were concerned, which afflicted the unfortunate country to which the Report of the Committee had reference. The noble Lord said, that the Report was not specific, and that it sug-

1287
gested no precise or particular remedy for the evils in question. As he viewed it, a precise remedy was offered, as far as the discussion of the subject at present could go. That remedy was, either to transfer the payment of tithes from the occupier of the land to the landowners, by making them a rent-charge upon the land, or to commute them for land to be purchased or given in exchange for them. It was not to be denied, that the project was a difficult one, but he could not see how it involved any principle of unfairness or injustice towards the landlords of Ireland. The landowner had no right to complain that he had to pay for the religious instruction of the country, for he inherited his property under such a condition, and he felt quite assured, that their Lordships, in extinguishing tithes, would not transfer to the landowners that to which, neither under the laws of the country nor the conditions of the hereditary succession of their properties, they were entitled.
Lord Ellenboroughwas greatly surprised that the right reverend Prelate had not alluded, in the course of his observations, to that part of the noble Marquis's speech in which he had designated tithes as a tax. He remembered very well, some years ago, having heard a similar statement made once before by that noble Marquis; and he also recollected the correction which he then received from the noble Earl (Eldon) then on the Woolsack, who told the noble Marquis, that when a purchaser of land became the proprietor of it, he became, in fact and in law, the proprietor of only nine-tenths of it. That was a circumstance which their Lordships should always bear in mind in discussions of this kind. As regarded the question before the House, he (Lord Ellenborough), still thought, as he had expressed himself when the noble Marquis moved the appointment of the Committee, that his Majesty's Ministers ought, on their own ministerial authority, to have brought forward Resolutions, without any report or inquiry. It was indeed rather remarkable that the Report which the Committee had laid upon their Lordships' Table completely overthrew all the grounds on which it was granted. In the first place, when the noble Viscount moved for the Committee, he said, that if there was evidence of an undoubted organized system in Ireland to resist the payment of tithes, he would not have thought of call-
1288
ing for it. Now, the evidence distinctly proved, that, for a long time past, an organised system to resist the payment of tithes did exist in Ireland; and if such a system did actually prevail, it was all but impossible that Government was ignorant of it. The noble Marquis had argued, on the evidence of one of the witnesses examined by the Committee, in favour of the expediency of rendering the Composition Act compulsory. Unquestionably, the evidence of one of the witnesses had recommended such an enactment, but when the entire mass of the evidence was considered, it appeared that the resistance prevailed as much in those districts where composition was in force as in those in which it had not been introduced. The resistance was not to the mode of collecting the tithe: it was raised to the abstract principle. It might be recollected, that he had submitted this view of the subject to their Lordships when the Committee was proposed, and it had been amply substantiated by the evidence which had been examined. As to the proposed plan for remunerating the clergy of Ireland, by grants of the public money, he intreated their Lordships to pause before they adopted it, for it was impossible to say how soon they might be called upon to adopt the same course with respect to the clergy of England. If the principle of remunerating the clergy from the public funds in all cases where the payment of tithes was resisted, was established, there was no possibility of stating to what extent that resistance might proceed. He had expected that the Resolutions which the noble Marquis would propose, would tend to redeem the pledge which the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government had given, namely, that before their Lordships should be called upon to legislate on the subject, the authority of the law should be vindicated; but he was much surprised at not hearing, throughout the whole of the noble Marquis's speech, one word which could be construed into the redemption of that pledge. He thought the vindication of the authority of the law would have been put forward as a justification of the extraordinary measure which was about to be proposed; but in this expectation he was disappointed, and he could not avoid expressing his regret that it had not been placed in the foreground of the noble Marquis's address. He begged to remind their Lordships that

1289
they were then called upon to sanction a measure which, in all former times, and amid all kinds of disturbance, had not been deemed requisite. It was, indeed, a novel proposal to call upon Government to act the part of tithe-collectors. Even after the rebellion in 1798, when the tithe system was found particularly obnoxious, such a call had not been made on the Government of the country. Now, was it not of some importance to consider to what this state of things was owing? Of course, he did not mean to attribute its origin to the present Government, but it was rather singular, and deserved to be mentioned, that the state of things which called for such an extraordinary measure had grown up since the Administration of the noble Lords opposite. In every page of the evidence, it was shown that the combination to resist the payment of tithes commenced about ten days after those noble Lords had seated themselves on the Treasury Bench. It was said, that Government had no information on the subject of this combination. He really felt much difficulty in reconciling this statement with the evidence given before the Committee. Could they have been ignorant that, in the month of March, 1831, in one particular parish in Ireland, although the legal authorities were backed by a strong force, such was the effect of the combination, that not more than one-third of the tithe could be collected? They must have been cognizant of that circumstance. Ministers must have been as fully aware of the inadequacy of the law last April as they were at the present moment; and it appeared that, between the latter month and June, they had received information which ought to have induced them to have brought some measure before Parliament; and yet nothing was done. Ministers could not have been ignorant of the then state of Ireland; if they did not see the ordinary reports of what was passing in that country, could there have been any difficulty in collecting distinct reports from the magistracy of the country, or from the Superintendents of Police in all those districts where the disturbances prevailed? This information they were, or ought to have been, in possession of: and they ought to have come to Parliament for the purpose of obtaining legislative interference on behalf of those whose property was assailed. It appeared, too, that so
1290
far back as this time twelvemonth, a degree of resistance had been manifested in different parts of Ireland, which called upon the Government at once to come forward with some measure to put an end to it. So long since as July last, the Government knew that there was an opinion prevailing among the people of Ireland—a groundless idea, undoubtedly—that his Majesty's Government were inclined to put down tithes, and that they did not seem entirely to disapprove of the resistance which was made to the payment of them. That fact was distinctly brought to the notice of his Majesty's Government more than once; and so late as November last, it appeared that the clergy of the diocese of Armagh, who had previously presented a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to which a satisfactory answer had been given, expressed their opinion to the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Government, that if he would make known, by proclamation, merely what he had said in answer to their memorial, it would have a most tranquillizing and beneficial effect. He was astonished that such a request was not complied with—he was really astonished that when his Majesty's Government knew the mistaken notion entertained by the people of Ireland as to tithes, and as to the disposition of the Government, that, in order to undeceive the people, they did not adopt so wise a course as that of declaring, by proclamation, what was the state of the law, and of expressing their determination to carry its provisions into full effect. With respect to the measures actually taken by Government to suppress the resistance made to the payment of tithes, none were adopted which had any beneficial effect, notwithstanding the subject was constantly urged upon their attention: and it was not until the 7th of February, of this year, that the noble Earl, for the first time, bestirred himself, when he came down to this House, and, in very emphatic language, and in a most statesmanlike manner, declared that it was necessary, in the first instance, to vindicate the law, and then to take into consideration what measures were proper to be adopted, to prevent the recurrence of those disturbances which made such interference on the part of the Government necessary. With respect to the Resolutions proposed by the noble Marquis, he could only state that, as far as they went to vindicate the

1291
authority of the law, they had his entire concurrence; but he had ample evidence for saying, that if ministers had complied with the earnest calls made upon them, and had, at an earlier period, come down to Parliament for additional powers to enforce the law, many of those scenes of agitation which had occurred in Ireland would never have taken place, and that country might now have been in a state of comparative tranquillity; at any rate, their Lordships would not now have been called upon to do what was unparalleled in the history of legislation, namely, to make the Executive Government the tithe-collector of Ireland. He confessed, he was greatly surprised to hear the third Resolution which had been proposed. He certainly had expected that the Resolutions would have gone merely to declare the determination to vindicate the authority of the law; or otherwise, that the noble Marquis would have proposed a plan for affording some relief to the clergy of Ireland; but the present Resolutions, so far as they were prospective, took him by surprise. He could not think that the noble Marquis would comprise in his Resolutions that part of the Report of the Committee which related to a prospective remedy. Neither Government nor the Committee itself, had come to any conclusion upon that part of the subject; for they were still proceeding to take evidence in reference to it. It seemed to him, therefore, premature for Parliament to be called upon to pledge itself upon the subject; that was to say, upon one of two propositions which might possibly be hereafter submitted to them. The noble Marquis stated, that he had no doubt Government would present to Parliament some measure for effecting that object; but he was not prepared to join in giving a formal and distinct pledge upon a subject of the greatest possible importance, merely because he might happen to entertain a high opinion of the fertile invention of the members of Government. It was, therefore, with reluctance that he allowed these Resolutions to pass.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that if the noble Baron had attended to his speech he would not have accused him of having termed tithes a tax and not a property. If he had applied the term "tax" to tithes, it was merely for the purpose of contrasting them with other property which did not come under that head. The noble Baron
1292
had also accused him of omitting to speak of vindicating the authority of the law. Such was not the case. He had, in the first place, in the course of his speech, distinctly stated, that it became both Government and Parliament to vindicate the authority of the law; and, in the second place, the necessity of such a vindication formed a part of the Resolutions he had proposed. If speaking in favour of and founding a Motion upon the necessity of vindicating the authority of the law, was not to be considered a redemption of the pledge which his noble friend had given, he knew not what was to be so considered.
Lord Ellenboroughadmitted, that the words "vindicate the authority of the law," were mentioned in the Resolution, and had been mentioned in the speech of the noble Marquis; but he contended, that this should have been placed in a most conspicuous manner, indeed in the foreground of the Resolutions, and that it should have been offered by the noble Marquis as the best argument and sole justification of the extraordinary measure which he was about to propose. As to the noble Marquis's denial of having applied the term tax to tithes, he would only state, that it had been used throughout the noble Marquis's speech.
Viscount Melbournewished to say a few words in consequence of the observations which had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough), and which, though they appeared to him to be of no weight, should not go without an answer. Undoubtedly it was the duty of the Government to bring forward measures on its responsibility when they were required; but then there were occasions of such paramount importance, and this was one of them, upon which it was the duty of the Government to fortify itself by inquiry, and by the authority of a Committee. If they had nothing more in view than to vindicate the authority of the law and to enforce the rights of the clergy in Ireland, he should say, that these were measures which it was the duty of Government to effect upon its own responsibility; but when it was considered that ulterior measures of a much more important nature were contemplated, when it was asserted, that they were imperatively necessary, when not the mere recovery of arrears of tithes only, but the actual existence of tithes themselves as a means of providing for the clergy was the subject to be dealt with, he did say, that question was of such magnitude, that it ought to be submitted

1293
to a Committee, to decide what measures should be taken, and it was necessary that Ministers should have their own opinions corroborated by the examination of witnesses before they produced whatever plans it might be proper to adopt. The noble Lord had been pleased to say, that the evidence taken before the Committee had shewn the previous opinions held by Government to be ill-founded. If that was really the case, it was one proof they had decided right when a Committee was appointed, as the result had enlightened their minds by the information they had obtained. The noble Lord further said, that the Government should have taken earlier measures to put down the resistance to the payment of tithes in Ireland, and that knowing of the existence of that resistance, it should have come down to that House at a much earlier period with measures of this description.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not recollect to have made any such statement. What he had said, was, that if Ministers, instead of deferring to bring before Parliament the consideration of the question until summary measures were absolutely necessary, had come down when the evidence of a combination to resist the collection of tithes was before them, a much weaker measure, indeed weaker than that which was enacted after the Rebellion of 1798, would have answered, instead of the extreme measure which they then found themselves under the necessity of demanding.
Viscount Melbournehad a perfect recollection of the noble Baron's having said, that within ten days after their accession to office the combination had commenced. But the very shortness of the time stated, was a sufficient proof they had had nothing to do with it. The seeds of resistance must have been scattered abroad long before they came into office. This was a conclusion in which the noble Lord himself must coincide, though the Ministers were not justified in making that resistance the ground of any extraordinary measures until they had clearly and fully ascertained, that the ordinary means afforded by the law to secure the collection of tithes were insufficient for that purpose. If Government had done so, he very much questioned whether they would have received the support of the noble Baron. It was said, that the remedial measure to be substituted for the abolition of tithes was not sufficiently distinct and defined.
1294
With respect to this, he had only to say, that the principle of that remedial measure was perfectly distinct and defined.
Lord Ellenborough.—What is it?
Viscount Melbourne.—That henceforth the payment of the clergy should be provided out of the land itself, or a charge upon the land. This was the principle, and it was distinctly laid down. The machinery by which it was intended to carry this principle into operation unquestionably was not declared, nor did he think it would have been fitting to have declared it until the principle was agreed to. As he did not perceive much likelihood of opposition to the Resolution, he would not trouble the House with further observations.
The Duke of Wellingtonentirely concurred with the noble Viscount in thinking that the House had derived some advantage from the appointment of the Select Committee. He regretted much that he had not been so fortunate as to have attended that Committee, for he thought he should have addressed their Lordships on. the present occasion with much more confidence, knowing, as he did, the importance of their Lordships' decision on the Motion before them, not only as it referred to the Church of Ireland, but of England, if he had had the advantage of hearing the opinions of those distinguished Prelates who had given their evidence before the Committee. Had he heard that evidence he should, perhaps, have been better able to judge whether there was aught in the proposed plan, likely to affect or injure their interests. However, as he had heard the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) who had just declared his approbation of the proposed plan, which approbation was not dissented from by any of the right rev. Prelates who sat near him; he conceived that the measure proposed, as far as it went, did meet with their approbation, and consequently, that the House might proceed with confidence to take it into consideration, as being approved of by them. He likewise conceived that the Report of the Committee laid open to their Lordships, not only the state of distress of the clergy of Ireland, which was so well described by the noble Marquis, and the extent to which the combination prevailed, but likewise the unanimous opinion of the Committee as to its origin. The noble Marquis in his speech had said, (and he, the Duke of Wellington, begged

1295
to remark, that in so saying, the noble Marquis had only done justice to the individuals to whom he alluded), that the organized combination to resist the collection of tithes was not attributable to the clergy of Ireland, nor was it attributable to the non-compulsive principle of the Composition Act. He (the Duke of Wellington) would tell their Lordships to what source the existing state of things in Ireland was to be attributed. It was to the system of agitation established there by persons who never would let it be quiet as long as the noble Lord opposite would permit them to continue that agitation. It was idle to hope that any relief from the payment of tithes would tranquillize Ireland. Their Lordships might rest satisfied, that disturbance and agitation would be carried on even after the passing of the present measure, unless means were taken effectually to put an end to that plan of organized agitation which was openly avowed to exist among a certain class of the people. He had hoped that means would have been taken to put an end to this system, as well as to the system of tithes, and indeed it was as much if not more required. What did the Report of their Lordships' Committee clearly show? Why, that the property in tithes was nearly annihilated in Ireland, and that the system of agitation which prevailed there had almost totally destroyed the prosperity of that highly-favoured country. As to the subject then under consideration, he thought it was essentially necessary that measures should be adopted for vindicating the law. That ought to be a primary consideration. There was one point to which he felt anxious to direct attention. From the evidence taken before the Committee, it appeared, that, in some instances the clergymen in parishes in which the Composition Act was in force, had found it impossible to collect their tithes for several years. It was admitted that the Government had greater advantages in recovering tithes than the clergy; and he therefore regretted, that their attempts should be limited to recovering the arrears for the year 1831. He begged to ask, whether the Government had not some sympathy for those unfortunate clergymen who lost their property, not only in the year 1831, but also for a great part of the year 1829, and the whole of the year 1830? He wished to know, whether there were not some suggestions made in the course of the examinations before the Committee,
1296
which might with propriety, be adopted to enable the clergy, whether their livings were under the influence of the Tithe Composition Act or not, to recover their arrears, even if it should not be thought proper for Government to recover them? This was not the only omission which characterized that part of the measure. He should have wished that the noble Marquis had been a little more explicit with regard to the expense of recovering these tithes by means of the Officers of the Government. It surely could not be intended, first of all, that the clergyman should lose his property for two or three years; then, that he should be paid a small proportion only of that property; and lastly, that he should be called upon to discharge the full expenses incurred by Government in recovering for him that part. But he confessed, that, although he was disposed to support Government in many, if not in all, of the plans which they proposed to adopt on this subject, he certainly felt great objection to the last Resolution. The only distinct proposition contained in that Resolution was, the principle that an extinction of tithes in Ireland was desirable. It was true that the Resolution stated, that it was intended to provide for the clergy by some other mode. But how was this to be done? The noble Marquis said, either by imposing upon the landlord a rent-charge, or else by purchasing land in lieu of tithes. But he wished to be informed, whether there was no injustice in fixing upon the landlord the payment of the tithe? Was it quite clear, that he would be able to recover his tithe from the occupier of the land from whom the payment was now due? Or was it quite clear, that although he might be able, that he would be inclined to exercise his power? Was it right or fair to impose upon the landlord the obligation of making this payment, without insuring to him the means of repayment. He understood perfectly the right of Parliament to force him to make this payment upon all future bargains for leases of land; but when Parliament imposed upon a landlord who had leased out all his property to individuals, the payment of the tithes due from those individuals, and left him to recover the repayment from his tenants as he could, it imposed upon him a most grievous hardship; for it might possibly happen that the tenantry might be unable, or might refuse to pay the tithe, and then the landlord could

1297
only indemnify himself by the vexatious and dilatory process of the law. The other plan suggested, was the purchase of land. To that he did not see much objection, provided it met with the approbation of the right rev. Prelates. But the consequence growing out of that system would be, that the Government must continue to collect the tithes of the clergy. Either the Government must continue to collect them, or throw the collection upon the landlord; and in either way it was involved in considerable difficulty. This would be the case, even, as applied to this country; but when such a system was adopted in Ireland, where there existed between the landlord and the occupier of the soil, two, three, or four intermediate tenants, or middle-men, the difficulty would become so great as to amount almost to an impossibility. This was not his opinion only, for, if their Lordships would refer to the evidence given before the Committee, they would observe, that the same sentiments were expressed in several places. He should have been better pleased if the last Resolution had not been proposed until the Committee and the Government, were prepared with a detailed plan to carry the extinction of tithes in Ireland into execution. He should have preferred had the House not been called upon at present to vote upon that Resolution, for he felt they were going to hold forth to the people of Ireland the notion, that a system of relief was about to be adopted, which they would hereafter find it impossible to carry into execution. They might go as far as the first part of the Resolution. He thought they could enforce, in every instance, an arrangement under the Composition Act; but if they endeavoured to go further without a matured plan for carrying it into effect, it would only afford fresh ground for agitation, and for the dissemination of that spirit of dissatisfaction and discord to which he had already alluded. Under these circumstances, although he certainly meant to support the Government in all those measures which, under the particular circumstances in which Ireland was placed, were imperatively called for, he should wish that their Lordships should not be required to vote on the last Resolution.
Lord Teynhamsaid, he had very great objections to that part of the plan which made Government the collectors of tithes; for, if the Executive were once to enter
1298
on such a task, they must go on with it. It was easy for the noble Duke to say that the law must be enforced, and, in ordinary cases, it was generally not difficult to enforce it; but, when a whole nation rose up against it, the case was different—it then fell to the ground, and the vindication of the law could only be effected by conquest. A right reverend Prelate, who had given evidence before the Committee, declared, that by a military force only could tithes be collected: if so, those Resolutions were something like declaring war against the people of Ireland. He entreated their Lordships to pause before they consented to Resolutions having such a character. He would readily allow that the general principle of tithes was most objectionable—it operated injuriously on the landlord, and all persons engaged in agriculture; it frequently prevented capital being employed in the cultivation of the soil, and thereby restricted the employment of labourers. He therefore, had no objection to the extinction of tithes in Ireland, upon principle, although he wished fully to understand what provision was to be made for the clergy, before their incomes were to be taken from them. He agreed with the noble Duke that Government ought to give a more definite plan of what they would substitute in the place of tithes; for, undoubtedly, the opposition to the existing system was spreading in all directions throughout Ireland.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that when a measure was brought forward which went directly to the annihilation of Church property, and when they were not even told, by those who brought such a measure forward, what they would substitute for that property, he was very much disappointed not to see a single Member of the right reverend Bench rise to defend the interests of the Church, now so vitally at stake, and to protest against a measure of such a description as the present. There was no argument which applied to the extinction of Church property in Ireland but what was equally cogent for the same purpose, if directed against Church property in England. He thanked his God, however, that he should not be amongst either the ecclesiastical or the lay supporters of this Motion; that he would not give his assent (his opposition, he saw, would be useless) to a measure which went to deprive the Ministers of the united Church of England and Ireland of that which constituted their en-

1299
tire support, and to which they had as much right as there existed to any lay property in any part of England. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that what would take place in Ireland in this instance would not be sure afterwards to take place in England also. His long life had been thrown away in supporting the interests of the united Church of this empire, if those to whom the interests of that Church were intrusted did not come forward to protect them, when a measure was proposed which extinguished Church property, unaccompanied by a plan providing a substitute for it. He so entirely despaired of support for the Church of Ireland from that quarter from which it should be expected, and to whose support it was entitled, that he begged to intimate to their Lordships that the humble individual who now addressed them would give them no further trouble on this subject.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad always felt the obligations which the Church of England was under to the noble and learned Lord who had just addressed the House. He was obliged to him for the defence of the interests of the Church which he had that evening made, although he must say, that, in the conclusion of his speech, the noble and learned Lord had made an attack upon the representatives of the Church which was utterly unfounded. The noble and learned Lord asserted, almost in direct terms, that, because the Bishops had not opposed the Resolutions which had been submitted to the House by the noble Marquis, the President of the Council, they must be considered to have abandoned the interests of the Church. If their Lordships would bear with him for a short time, he would very briefly state what had been his view of the subject, as well as the motives which had influenced his conduct upon it. He perfectly agreed with the noble Duke who spoke before the noble and learned Earl, that the immediate cause of the resistance in Ireland to the payment of tithes, at the present moment, was to be found in a well-organized combination, supported from various quarters. That combined system of resistance the Government had exerted itself to put down; but the existing laws of the country were not found to be sufficient to enable it to do so. It became necessary, then, that other laws should be made, or, at least, that some new regulations should be adopted, to prevent a continuance of the
1300
mischievous consequences which resulted from the opposition to the existing tithe system. With that view a Committee was appointed, who were to institute inquiries into the subject, and report upon it. It appeared, from the Report of that Committee, that the existing mode of collecting the tithes in Ireland was a great grievance. For, although not more than half of the tithes collected reached the clergy, yet the mode of collection was vexatious and harassing in the extreme to the tithe-payer. Perhaps one cause of the existing evil was, the difficulty which stood in the way of enforcing the law with respect to the recovery of tithes; for it was well known that where there was a certain and speedy mode of recovering any just demand, there it was not probable that the payment of it would be resisted. He apprehended, from all the evidence which had been taken before the Committee, that the Tithe Composition Act had been received as a great benefit by the people of Ireland generally, not only on account of the relief which it afforded from the tithe proctors, but also because it compelled a more equal distribution of tithe than had previously existed. Although some resistance had been made to it by some of the landed proprietors, yet it appeared to have been received as a great benefit, and to have had a very soothing effect on the peasantry of Ireland. It appeared, in fact, that, in every parish in which a composition of tithe took place, tranquillity and harmony had prevailed. He need not say the reverse was the case in parishes where a composition had not been entered into. He could not bring himself to speak of the conduct of many of those from whom a different course might have been peculiarly expected, but who had contributed to prevent the beneficial effects of that Act. It was clear that the Composition Act would have answered every purpose for which it was framed, if it had been universally adopted throughout Ireland. The state to which it appeared that many of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland had been reduced was almost beyond expression. Many who depended solely on the emoluments of their livings had been reduced to want the absolute necessaries of life. Many had been obliged to part with their household goods, and were left in a condition of utter destitution. It was true, that some had been relieved by the kindness of friends, and that others had been enabled to raise

1301
money on the hope of recovering at least a portion of the proceeds of their respective benefices; but, in general, their condition was lamentable. He certainly wished that a greater measure of relief could have been dealt to them, than that which was proposed by the Committee; but, under all the circumstances, he was satisfied with their receiving one year's amount of tithe from the hands of Government, although he was afraid the clergy would find infinite difficulty in recovering any further part of the arrears due to them. Thence came the Resolutions which the noble Marquis had moved. With respect to the third of them—against which so much had been said by the noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, and for supporting which, he and his right reverend brethren had been so severely reproached—all he could say was, that he considered it fully warranted by the necessity of the case. It was an acknowledged fact that, in times of disturbance in Ireland, the first object of attack Was the revenue of the Church—the payment of the tithe was invariably resisted. It occurred to him, then, that, by placing the property of the Church on a more secure footing, Parliament would be conferring a very great benefit, not only on the Church, but on the people of Ireland. To effect that, the first thing that he would do was, the first thing these resolutions proposed to do—viz., to introduce some measure which should make the composition for tithe universal. Three-fifths of the country had acceded to the Tithe Composition Act, and he wished that the other two-fifths should be placed in a similar situation. If this were done, both the clergy and the people would find themselves in a much better situation than they were at present. That ought to be the first step, and a most desirable one it would be. There would afterwards be no difficulty, or very little difficulty, in taking into consideration whether the clergy should be permanently provided for by a charge on land, or in any other manner which might appear most desirable. By pursuing this course, he hoped they would be able to secure the peace and tranquillity of the country. While he made these observations, he must be allowed to state that he would never consent to give up the property of the Church. He should always assert and maintain his conviction, that the Church had as much right to its property as any other body of men in the
1302
country had a right to their property; but if the mode of obtaining that property was found to be generally inconvenient, both to the people and to the Church itself, and if a full compensation were made for it, he really could not see how he was betraying the interest of the Church, which it had been stated it was his peculiar duty to defend in consenting to such a measure. He should not hesitate, therefore, to support the Resolutions which had been moved. It was not his intention to have said a single word upon the subject that evening, but having been alluded to so pointedly by the noble and learned Earl, to whose opinions upon such matters he had always been disposed to bow with respect, he felt himself called upon to offer a few observations in the way of explanation.
The Earl of Caledonsaid, he felt called upon as a Member of the Committee to declare that, whatever the merits or demerits of the Report might be, they belonged to the Committee alone. They were wholly uninfluenced in their decision by his Majesty's Ministers.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that a large proportion of the Members of the Committee were the friends of his Majesty's Government, and he must be permitted to remark, as a strange circumstance, that the term "extinction of tithes" was to be found in the Reports of the Committees of both Houses. He also wished for some explanation as to the insinuation which had been thrown out by the most reverend Prelate with respect to the conduct of the clergy of Ireland with reference to the Composition Act
The Earl of Caledonsaid, that the introduction of the word "extinction" in the Report of their Lordships' Committee, had been proposed by the Earl of Harrowby.
The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that the last resolution said too little and too much. Their Lordships' attention was directed to a commutation of tithes, founded on two plans, but no Member of the Committee had stated that they had come to a decision on either of these plans. He should be glad to know what plan the noble Marquis meant to propose? It would have been whimsical enough if the noble Marquis had called on the House to pledge itself to either of these two plans; but it was more whimsical when it was not demanded of them to support either the one or the other, to come down and request their Lordships to pledge themselves, without

1303
delay, to the extinction of tithes, on one of two principles, neither of which the Government themselves had declared that they had adopted. Might there not, he would ask, arise a third plan in the course of the discussion which was yet going on in the Committee? And if that happened to be the case, the effect of the present vote would be neither more nor less than to stultify the House with reference to its future proceedings on this question.
The Archbishop of Canterbury,in reference to what had fallen from a noble Earl, disclaimed throwing any imputation on the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, as having been instrumental in getting up a conspiracy against the Composition Act.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, it was impossible for any individual to think that any observation which had fallen from the most reverend Prelate conveyed, or could convey, the idea that the resistance to tithes originated in the conduct of the clergy of the Established Church. It had been asserted in the course of the discussion that these resolutions ought to be considered as merely emanating from the King's Government, and not as the work of the Committee. The fact, however, was otherwise. The Committee was not partially selected, but was composed of individuals who held a variety of opinions. It ought particularly to be observed, that the proposition for the abolition of tithes did not originate with the Government, but came from a noble Earl who was not in the Administration. The noble Duke had said, that to throw the burthen of providing for the clergy on the land would be exceedingly unjust. He agreed in the abstract proposition. It would, he admitted, be unjust, unless that measure were accompanied by some arrangement that would satisfy, as much as possible, the landed proprietor. The collection of the tithe in Ireland had always been the great point of difficulty; and if they could induce persons to undertake the collection of what was necessary for the clergy—if they could induce individuals to come forward, who might collect it in safety, and without any injustice to the clergy—he conceived that they would effect a great and most beneficial object. If they could throw that duty on the landlord, by undertaking that he should derive a considerable advantage from the collection, and that at the same time the clergy should be fairly provided for, he
1304
thought that the evils of the present system would be avoided. The Committee then took into their consideration what prospect there was of attaining this end by commutation, for by commutation only could it be effected. Now he would say to the noble Duke, that if it were not for the demand made by the country, and which grew out of its present lamentable situation, he would be the last man in the House to call on their Lordships to state their opinion or to interfere with this question. But when imperious circumstances called for the expression of their opinion, it was their duty to state it, however harshly it might be received, or however unfairly represented. The great object of Ministers was not merely to extinguish tithe, but to prevent, in future, that direct collision between the tithe-payer and the clergyman which had produced so much evil. He was anxious that there should appear on the part of the House a determination to take up this question with a view to an equitable accommodation, not resting on the two plans to which the noble Earl had alluded, and, as he had said, leaving their Lordships to be stultified by the occurrence of a third. No; he wished that accommodation to be proposed, after looking with care and assiduity to all the various modes in which the amount and value of tithes could be taken from the land; and, let it not be forgotten, that from the land, and from the land only, it could be taken. He thought that the noble Earl would himself admit, that the individual must be completely stultified who would look to any resource beyond the land for the necessary provision. This was the principle on which the Report of the Committee proceeded. The noble Earl had censured the Committee for not having adopted one of the plans to which he had referred. Now he took no shame to himself that the Committee had not yet been able to come to a decision on these important points. Most rash would it have been on the part of that Committee, if, before they had closed their labours, they had come down and asked of their Lordships to give a preference to one of those plans. All they had wished to do was, to state their opinion that the burthen should be placed on the land, for the purpose of preventing that collision between the clergyman and the tithe-payer, which was unavoidable at present, and which every one of their Lordships must, deeply lament.
The Duke of Wellingtonassured the noble Marquis that he did not mean to oppose the commutation of tithe, if it could be shown that such a measure could be adopted with advantage to the parties chiefly interested, but he had yet seen no proof that such an object could be obtained by either of the plans proposed.
Resolutions then agreed to.
The following Protest was entered against the last Resolution for the extinction of Tithes in Ireland:—
"DISSENTIENT.—Because no sufficient security is given in that Resolution, nor was any sufficient explanation given in debate by any Spiritual or Temporal Lord, to satisfy our minds that, when the House was called upon to sanction the extinction of Tithes, any safe or adequate substitute would be provided for the clergy in their stead.

KENYON.

ERNEST.

H. EXETER.

CHOLMONDELEY.

REDESDALE.

LORTON.

GASCOYNE SALISBURY."