Sitting of 27 March 1832

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. SPRING RICE, to supply a Sum of 3,000,000 l. out of the Consolidated Fund for the Service of 1832; and to Indemnify such Persons as had omitted to qualify themselves for Offices and for extending the time limited for such purposes.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, of the Gross Amount of Stamp Duty paid at all the Ports of Great Britain, for Warehousing Goods and Produce entered inwards in the years ending 5th of July, 1830 and 1831, respectively, distinguishing the Amounts paid by the different Ports; of the total Amount of Money remaining in the Exchequer or to be received on Account of Ways and Means; also of the several Sums of Money which would probably remain to be defrayed on Account of the Supplies of the years from 1825 to 1831, respectively, and the Surplus of the Ways and Means at the disposition of Parliament:—On the Motion of the SOLICITOR GENERAL, of the Amount of Fees received by, or accrued due to each of the Messengers to the London Commissioners of Bankrupts in each of the years 1829, 1830, 1831, and 1832, from the 12th of January, to the 12th of March, in each year.

CASE OF BROADHURST, CURRAN, AND OTHERS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from Edward Curran, Nathan Broadhurst, William Ashmore, and Robert Gilchrist, now confined in Lancaster Castle, under the sentence of a year's imprisonment, for being present at an illegal meeting at Manchester, on a Sunday. They complained that they were ill-treated in gaol, and that they were refused even the gaol allowance, which was a kind of thin gruel, called skillet, and potatoes. He begged to call the attention of the House more especially to this petition, because it might, perhaps, be very shortly the turn of a different description of Reformers—these men being Radical Reformers—to be similarly situated. Having been ordered to suffer a year's imprisonment, they were supplied at first with the gaol allowance, but in consequence of their being unable to do the work assigned to them, the gaoler told them that they must provide themselves with food and firing. This was understood to be by order of the visiting Justices. The only work those poor men could perform was silk-weaving, and, therefore, it was impossible for them to do such work as the gaoler put them to. They also complained that a bill was now before the House, which, in the event of their dying in gaol, would give the gaoler the power of disposing of their bodies to the surgeons. They were very poor men; their families were obliged to be supported by the parish, and they were apprehensive they should die its prison, and that their bodies would be given up to be anatomised. They also complained that all their letters were broken open by the gaoler; and of that he (Mr. Hunt) had also to complain that the gaoler had committed a breach of privilege. He had occasion to write to those men, and his letters had been opened before the men got them. He apprehended that the law did not give the gaoler permission to break open letters addressed to persons confined for misdemeanours, whatever it might do so far as regarded felons—the more especially when the letters came from a Member of the Commons' House of Parliament.
Mr. Greensaid, that the gaoler was perfectly justified by the law in all he had done. The visiting Magistrates had power by Act of Parliament to withhold the gaol allowance from prisoners, unless they consented to perform some light work, so as

945
to prevent them from eating the bread of idleness. As to the opening of letters, the law gave such a power to the gaoler, and the letters of Members of Parliament neither could be distinguished from others, nor ought to be exempt from the regulations.
Lord William Lennoxsaid, if all the statements were founded upon the same accuracy as one to which he was about to allude, the petition did not deserve the attention of the House. He alluded to that part where the petitioners stated, that in the event of their deaths their bodies would be given up for dissection. He opposed the Anatomy Bill as much as the hon. member for Preston, but he must point out, bad as was the bill, there was a clause which enabled an individual to save himself from the dissector, by stating during his life his objections.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that these prisoners had been punished unjustly and harshly, and that they ought not to have been punished at all by an ex post facto law. They had acted improperly in attending a meeting on Sunday; but there was no law, he believed, against that. They were only punished by common law; and he wished to have that case pointed out by which an individual had been punished, and a precedent established, for attending a political meeting on a Sunday. The observation of the noble Lord, as to the Anatomy Bill, was correct.
Mr. Lambthought the hon. member for Lancaster (Mr. Green) had given a sufficient explanation of the circumstance as far as the conduct of the gaoler was concerned. The prisoners were not confined for attending a meeting on Sunday, but for attending an illegal meeting; and they would have been punishable if they attended such a meeting on any other day, though, undoubtedly, it was an aggravation of their offence meeting on Sunday.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, had not stated in what the unlawfulness of the meeting consisted. The circumstances, as he understood them, in which the meeting was called were these:—That certain individuals were under sentence of death at Bristol, for the part they had taken in the late riots, and these persons at Manchester being desirous of saving their lives, called a meeting for the purpose of addressing
946
his Majesty in their behalf. Now, he was anxious to know where was the unlawfulness of such a meeting, called by public notice, particularly as the Address was agreed to, and forwarded in due form through the Secretary of State to his Majesty? Where were the acts of violence—where was the impropriety?—there might be indiscreet speeches, but in what assembly in the world were they not to be met with? Even in that House they now and then listened to indiscreet speeches, and should the House not make an allowance for those who are not under such control? There ought then to be some strong and special grounds in order to make it an unlawful meeting. It was indeed highly indecorous to meet on the Sunday, for the purpose they had in view, but there was a difference between disapproving of that, and condemning the parties for such a misdemeanour to twelve months' imprisonment.
Mr. Weylandcontended that it was an unlawful not of which the Jury had found these people guilty; and he thought the Judge was authorized to pass a severe sentence on those men who had been guilty of attending such a meeting on Sunday. He objected to any re-hearing or re-opening of this case by the House.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the regulations of the gaol had been properly complied with in the treatment of these people, and that the Magistrates had only obeyed the law. The prayer of the petition, in fact, was directed against the Anatomy Bill of the hon. member for Bridport. The petitioners did not complain of the conduct of the gaoler. [Mr. Hunt: They do.] As to the character of the gaoler, he felt it necessary to say, that, from the long knowledge he had had of his conduct, he was perfectly convinced he was one of the last persons to do that which was either inconsistent with the orders received from the Magistrates, with the Act of Parliament, or with the due maintenance of prison discipline.
Mr. Huntsaid, the prayer of the petition was against the gaoler and visiting Magistrates of Lancaster, and the petitioners complained of their gaol allowance being stopped. He was not surprised at the character given by the noble Lord to this gaoler, when he recollected the high encomiums passed on the gaoler of Hehester, and knew of what he had lately been found guilty. He had once

947
been in prison for a political offence, and hon. Members did not know whose turn it would be next. The speech which the Attorney General had delivered at Nottingham would most likely, under another Government, have occasioned his trial for sedition, and inflaming the minds of the people. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and if this Reform Bill were not passed, would hon. Members on the Treasury Bench succumb? Would they give up Reform? If they would, he should not, and they might be imprisoned for political offences. He himself had heard in that House words much more violent, perhaps more vulgar, than those for which these men had been found guilty of a misdemeanour. During the time of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and during the worst things of Lord Sidmouth's Administration, no case parallel to the present had occurred: How would the hon. Gentleman like his letters to be opened? When he was in prison at Hehester, his letters were not opened. During the time the Tories were in power that was not the law; so that there was a severer law against political offences under the Whigs than even under Lord Sidmouth. As to the gaoler, of whom so high a character had been given by the noble Lord, he was a vulgar, insolent, unfeeling wretch. He was at a loss to know how the noble Lord could bestow on him such a character. He was convinced it was because the noble Lord did not know the gaoler.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that one of the points to which the hon. member for Preston had alluded had reference to an interference with the respect to prisoners, which he (Sir Francis Burdett) had always deprecated. All prisoners were, of course, under sentence of law; but, in his opinion, they ought not to suffer one iota more than the law had laid down; for it generally happened that the law erred on the side of severity rather than on that of mercy. He, therefore, thought that the rule which prevailed of opening the letters of prisoners was a great grievance, of which they had a full right loudly to complain; and that there was nothing to justify the Magistracy in issuing orders to that effect to the gaoler, except where there was specific ground for suspecting that conspiracy, or something of that nature, was carried on by correspondence. Without such a reason as this, he was quite
948
sure that such a proceeding was both cruel and unconstitutional; and it was particularly fitting, that where Magistrates were vested with a large discretionary power by an Act of Parliament, they should watch with a jealous eye the gaolers and others to whose care they confided the custody of the prisoners, instead of being disposed to regard the actions of such persons with too great indulgence, as was frequently the case. With respect to the particular complaints brought forward by petitioners of this kind, he thought that they ought to be investigated; for, while it was true that they were under the protection of the law, it should also be remembered that they were exposed to the rigours of the law; and that, in the case of injustice being practised, they had no other place but that House to fly to for redress.
Petition to be printed.

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
Mr. Ewartrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill abolishing Capital Punishment in the cases of horse-stealing, sheep-stealing, and cattle-stealing, also in cases of stealing in a dwelling-house, no person being put in fear therein. He owed an apology to the House for personally venturing to introduce the subject to their notice; but he had originally taken it up as an independent Member of that House, and he was not aware at that time of the years of attention and labour which had been devoted to it by the hon. and learned member for Ilchester. (Dr. Lushington), and other hon. Members, to the benefit of the country, and to their own immortal honour. He did it simply on the principle, that an unduly severe punishment must be an extremely uncertain punishment—a principle which had been theoretically laid down by Beccaria more than seventy years ago, and which had been practically illustrated in our times by the positive experience of Mr. Gibbon Wakefield. But if this principle were true, that an unduly severe punishment was an uncertain one, how much more must an irreparable punishment be to an uncertain one? Such a punishment was the punishment of death. Many punishments were more severe: this, when once inflicted, was beyond recall. Hence it was, that prosecutors trembled at the punishment, that Juries hesitated, that Judges paused, and that guilt escaped unpunished, or rather

949
rewarded with impunity. He should at once proceed to the point, and submit to the consideration of the House the Returns relative to this subject on their Table. It appeared that, in the year 1831, there were sentenced to death for sheep-stealing in England and Wales, 162 persons—executed one; sentenced to death for horse-stealing, 125—executed none; sentenced to death for larceny in a dwelling-house, 100—executed none. In the United States, he believed that none of those crimes were capitally punished; and none of them in France. But it might be said that this one capital punishment, occasionally given, tended to prevent the crime. He doubted the justice of executing a man for what others had been transported for. But he would admit that it was just; was it effectual? He knew instances of Members of that House, who, rather than subject an individual to even this contingency of capital punishment, waived the prosecution altogether. And it appeared on the evidence adduced before the Select Committee on Capital Punishments in 1819, that one of the witnesses declared that his land had been laid waste by sheep-stealing; that he would prosecute if transportation were the punishment, but never as long as it might be death. Mr. Bradford, a writer on the criminal law of America, fully confirmed this statement relative to the United States. It was his intention to propose to substitute the next secondary punishment on the Statute-book, which left the alternative of transportation, imprisonment, or solitary confinement. At the same time he wished the House to remember that this was open for consideration in Committee. With the permission of the House, he would proceed to state, that the capital sentences for crimes with respect to property, during the year 1830, amounted to 1,108; the executions only to eleven. Now, if we compared the certainty of execution in France with that of England, we should find that, while the sentences to death in England amounted to nearly 1,400 in the year 1830, the executions amounted to forty-six. In France, in the same year, the capital sentences were ninety-two, the executions forty-two. The same difference might be shown by going back for a series of years. Crimes punished capitally in France were also fewer, and more strictly defined, than those in England, Every one knew that
950
the definition of burglary in England was not satisfactory. In France it was, under the name of "Vol avec cinq circonstances," most clearly defined, and did not confound the lesser with the greater criminal, as was sometimes the case in the English law of burglary. In America also, in the states of Maine and Massachusetts, arms must be borne, and assault be made by the prisoner. In America, in New Hampshire, only treason and murder are capital. In Pennsylvania, only murder in the first degree; in Louisiana, under the code of Mr. Livingston, no crime was capitally punished. He would not refer to the comparative state of European countries. They were amply given in the pages of Lucas, Ducpetiaux, De Tracy, and many other well known writers. But as a practical illustration within our own dominions (even of a barbarous country too), he would mention the Mahommedan law in Hindostan, by which, he believed, that murder only, or violent robbery, was capitally punished. In the East-India Selections, Mr. Metcalfe, the resident at Delhi, in the year 1815, writes, that in that district they never punished with death, and that it was in no degree necessary. The Statute-law of our country was, he was afraid, the fertile parent of most of our sanguinary enactments: the Common-law knew them not. The Committee on Capital Punishment, in the year 1819, stated, that for the first thirty years after the Revolution, the average proportion of convictions to executions was thirty-eight to twenty; in 1830, it was 1,400 to forty-six. Sir William Meredith, who represented Liverpool in 1777, stated, that in the preceding reign, that of George 2nd, no less than thirty-three of these capital Statutes had been passed; and he emphatically adds, that in his days the real hangman was the Member of Parliament. These severe enactments were, in part, the results of an imperfect Representative system—they were the weeds of the Statute-book, and showed the corrupt soil from which they sprung, a Legislature which represented not the wants and wishes of the people. It was wise, in a free Constitution, to show confidence in the people for whom it existed. If they were treated like political disturbers of their country, could they be otherwise than degraded slaves or discontented freemen? If the Legislature told them, by sanguinary en-

951
actment on the Statute-book, that it suspected them to be prone to crime, could it hope to find them other than tame and silent victims, or audacious and incorrigible criminals? All example showed that, in a free country like our own, they would be the latter. Besides, it was important that, not only the sentence of the law, but the whole pressure of public opinion should bear down upon the criminal. But if enactments were at variance with the opinions of society, they excited an antagonist force and checked the influence and power of the law. If this were true in all stages of society, it was most true when society was in a disorganized state. A too severe Criminal Code, then, produced a set of men ever ready to act as the advanced-guard of anarchy and of revolution. It created a centrifugal force in society, which disturbed its balance and interrupted the harmony of its movements. He anxiously hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would assist in any amendment which was attempted. But remedial measures were not alone sufficient—preventive measures were indispensable. If there were any admonition which he wished to be thundered in the ears of every Legislature, it was this—"Educate your people: be not content with giving them a horror of the punishment—give them a horror of the crime also." A proper system of amelioration should begin in education, and end in prison discipline. This was the system laid down by Beccaria—this was the one suggested by Mr. Livingston, in his well known Report on the Criminal Code of Louisiana. This was the suggestion of his lamented friend Mr. Roscoe, a name which he might be permitted to allude to as a "memorabile nomen gentibus, et multum nostrœ quod proderat urbi." In conclusion, he begged to apologize for the length of time which he had detained the House; but he felt an inward satisfaction at having expressed his opposition, as an independent Member, to some portions of our code, which no time, no circumstances could justify—which could be palliated only when they grew up beneath the shadow of the darkest barbarism, or of the most unlimited tyranny.
Mr. Stricklandseconded the Motion, and thought that the House was much indebted to the hon. member for Liverpool for having brought forward this question, as the sanguinary state of the code of this
952
country had long excited the surprise and reprobation of the other nations of Europe.
Mr. Lambrose to express his wish that the House would consent to give his hon. friend the member for Liverpool leave to bring in this Bill, though he could not pledge himself as to the course which it might be necessary to pursue. He thought, after the alterations in the Criminal Code made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), there were not many capital offences the punishment of which could safely be lowered nor did he feel quite sure that the hon. member for Liverpool had chosen those offences which it was most proper to change with respect to their punishment. With respect to horse-stealing he had some doubts, for in that offence the article stolen was the very means of conveying the criminal from the scene of the robbery. With respect to stealing in a dwelling-house, also, they had to consider that the severity of the law, as it now stood, was chiefly aimed against those servants who should betray their trust—an offence against which the law was specially bound to guard, as the temptation was so manifest, and the facility so great; and, indeed, with respect to some of these offences, he was able to state, that there was an outcry raised by some against the Executive for not enforcing the law with sufficient severity. The main question, therefore, was, whether it was better to mitigate the law so as not to meet the justice of such aggravated cases, for the sake of ensuring a more certain punishment towards the whole of the offenders.
Sir Robert Peelthought, before the House came to any decision upon the subject of the hon. Members Bill, the Legislature ought to take a wider and more extended view of the whole question of punishment for all offences. He thought there were matters connected with the Bill proposed to be brought forward by the hon. Member which were deserving of the gravest consideration, and it would be much better deferred until the whole question respecting secondary punishment was reviewed, to the end that it might be, in some degree, altered. With respect to the stealing in a dwelling-house, that crime sometimes presented itself, as the hon. Under Secretary had well observed, under the most aggravated circumstances. Those robberies were sometimes not only committed by the servants, but by means of a collusion between the servant and a gang

953
of thieves. The hon. Gentleman said, "No person being put in fear therein." But, supposing a butler had the care of his master's place, and he admitted a gang of robbers into the house—they might come armed—they might steal, 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. worth of plate—and it might be owing to the mere accident of the family not being disturbed that no violence was committed. And did the hon. Gentleman think that the law ought to save from capital punishment the servant who thus put the property and the very life of his master in jeopardy? The House, however, appeared very little disposed at present to pay attention to the subject, and he should therefore, defer his other observations to a future stage of the Bill. He must, however, repeat, that, before the House took this step, they were bound to take a review of the state of secondary punishments in this country. They must also consider that, as civilization increased, the facility for the commission of crime increased more rapidly than the facility for the prevention of it. All these things, therefore, ought to be taken into account before any extensive alteration in capital punishments was made; though he did not at all mean to say that the time was not come for such an alteration to take place, he did not mean to say, that such an alteration ought not to take place at this time, but the greatest caution was necessary at every step, in order not to excite the prejudices of society against the alteration, by too rashly weakening the present protection of property.
Dr. Lushingtonagreed with the right hon. Baronet that it was necessary for the House to apply itself to this subject in the most calm and deliberate manner. The hon. member for Liverpool proceeded on the presumption, as he understood, that the having so many capital offences on our Statute-book was productive of injury, instead of benefit, to society. He was not prepared to deny that the fear of death was operative upon men's minds to a certain extent: but, on the other hand, he was quite sure that this excess of punishment prevented persons from prosecuting, Juries from convicting, witnesses from giving their evidence fairly, and the Executive Government from carrying the laws into effect; the result of all which was, to hold out to the criminal the hope of a complete escape from punishment; for, instead of meeting with that certain punishment which was duly proportioned to his
954
crime, he was acquitted by the Jury, and so met with no punishment at all. With respect to the picture which the right hon. Baronet had drawn, of a servant admitting a gang of thieves to rob his master's house, he must grant that, looking at it in the light of an individual offence, it was impossible to conceive a blacker crime—short of murder. But they were not legislating for individual offences: and even with respect to servants robbing their masters, he could remember, when the Earl of Mansfield prosecuted his servant for entering his lady's chamber, and stealing property to a considerable amount, what pains that noble Lord took to obtain the pardon of the criminal. He (Dr. Lushington) himself was once robbed by a servant, night after night, because that servant knew his disinclination to prosecute for a capital offence, and that he should be suffered to escape. He was happy to say, that, after living for many years by the most dishonest practices, went to the West Indies, became a clerk to a learned Judge, and subsequently obtained a situation under Government, which he held at the present moment. It was well known that the horror of capital punishment was continually operating in London and elsewere with respect to individuals who had been guilty of the crime of forgery. It was a matter of history that the punishment of death had never proved effective for the prevention of crime. Even in those early days when to death were added the most cruel tortures, as in the case of high treason, no one pretended to assert that the offence was thereby rendered of less frequent occurrence. And now, that general civilization had advanced, the Legislature must finally yield to the general feeling against the severity of punishment at present in force, he would conclude by observing that all he had stated was the result of the most deliberate consideration that he had ever given to any subject, from the year 1805 up to the present time.
Sir Robert Peeldid not mention the case of a servant robbing his master as deserving of death on account of the moral guilt of the offence, but, on account of the peculiar facilities and temptations that were thrown in a servant's way.
Lord Althorpwould not oppose the Motion of the hon. member for Liverpool; but he must say, that, until they had secured a better system of secondary punishments, he thought the Amendments pro-

955
posed to be introduced into our Criminal Code could not safely be carried into effect.
Mr. Robinsonvery much approved of the Motion of the hon. member for Liverpool, and was ready to give his humble assistance to remove those disgraceful blots, which, notwithstanding all the amendments of the last few years, still remained on the Statute-book.
Mr. Trevorwas much afraid that the breaches of trust, particularly among servants, would be much extended, if the punishment of death was abolished. The fear of the extreme sentence of the law might deter many from the commission of such offences, which a secondary punishment might not effect.
Mr. Huntsupported the Motion of the hon. member for Liverpool, and thought the country was indebted to him for bringing the question under consideration, and he was sure the passing of such a Bill would make a very favourable impression on the minds of the people.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamsaid, wherever there were great temptations to crimes against property, as was the case in this country, from the state of society, sufficient checks ought to be established for the punishment of offences of an aggravated character, and the law ought not to be so far relaxed as to be unable to meet these. He begged, therefore, to caution the hon. member for Liverpool not to take away the terrors of offenders being liable to the heaviest punishment without discrimination.
Leave was then to bring in the Bill.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
Sir Frederick Trench, on rising to move for returns connected with the expenditure on Buckingham Palace, said, he should not apologize to the House for taking upon himself the voluntary duty of bringing this subject under its consideration. The object he had in view was, to point out the very large and extravagant expenditure which had already taken place; and not only that, but he thought he should be able to convince the House, that there was about to be incurred a further expenditure, to an incalculable amount, and such as would excite the surprise of hon. Members when he named it. He had been anxious to bring the subject before the House, and had been watching an opportunity of doing so for the last three
956
weeks, because, at the present time, there were no less than seventy labourers employed daily at Buckingham Palace, directly in opposition to the plans which had been sanctioned by the Committee of the House, which had been appointed to inquire into and investigate the subject. With regard to the precise nature of their employment, he could not personally speak, for, though he had applied to the noble Lord at the head of the woods and forests for permission to inspect the works, not as an inquisitive spectator, but as a Member of the British Parliament, desirous of seeing what was doing, with a view to call the attention of the country to it—by that noble Lord he had been refused permission. It was true, he had been offered an inspection by his hon. friend, the Chairman of the Committee; but, after what had passed with the noble Lord to whom he had already alluded, he did not think proper to avail himself of the offer, and, therefore, he was not prepared to state what actually was going on. His hon. friend (the Chairman of the Committee) had intimated to him that he should not notice any observations which he might make upon the present occasion; and though he was perfectly aware that what he might state would not be considered worthy of the attention of the House, yet his desire was the more increased to express to the House the amount of the expenditure of the public money in the instance to which he now particularly referred. In doing so, he begged to state, that every syllable which he should urge was founded upon the Report of the Committee, and that of Mr. Blore, the architect, and not his own mere dictum. It appeared, from the Report of the Committee, that the first expenditure in four items, with the details of which it was unnecessary to trouble the House, amounted to the sum of 500,741 l. actually laid out on the building, which, with the sum of 54,964 l., for work delivered and completed by tradesmen—of 42,177 l. for works in progress, but not completed—and a further sum of 15,414 l., which was then necessary to finish the works in progress, made a total of 613,296 l.; to which sum must be added the amount necessary to complete the Palace, which, exclusive of gilding, ornamental painting, and finishing the conservatories and court-yards, was estimated by the architects and surveyors of the Board of Works at 31,177 l. But

957
the Committee, in the same Report, had stated, that to make Buckingham Palace applicable as a royal residence, according to the plans and estimates of Mr. Blore, with which he would not now trouble the House in detail, an expenditure of 73,777 l. was indispensable, exclusive of furniture, which he took could not amount to less than 300,000 l.; and, in this respect, he formed his opinion from what had been expended at Windsor Castle, for which 279,000 l. had been granted by Parliament, notwithstanding the furniture of Carlton House and Buckingham Palace had been appropriated to the purposes of Windsor Castle. He, therefore, thought he estimated the expense of the furniture for the new Palace extremely low when he named 300,000 l. Adding Mr. Blore's estimate to the sums he had already named, together with the expense of furniture, it would be found that the entire expenditure would amount to no less than 1,063,573 l. The expense which he (Sir Frederick Trench) had now stated would be required to make the Palace complete for a private Residence. But the Committee in their report went further, for they "recommended that the building, which is not applicable to any other public service, should be finished as a royal residence, and ultimately as a palace for the purposes of state, and thus prevent the necessity of any future expenditure on St. James's Palace." The House would hear with surprise, that, in addition to the parallelogram of buildings described in Mr. Blore's report, as proposed to be erected on the site of the circular colonnade, it had been proposed to raise another tier of attics over those now built, notwithstanding the ascertained weakness and unfitness of the walls; and when such crude plans were proposed, he trusted the House would agree with hint in thinking the sum of 75,000 l. was not very likely to be sufficient. He contended that preliminary inquiry was required, and real information was wanting. The four architects consulted, were directed to report on the expense, security, and condition, of Buckingham House, and also to consider a minute of the Lords of the Treasury referring to the expediency of preserving St. James's Palace, and enlarging it on the side next to Marlborough House. What did the committee of architects state in their letter to Sir Benjamin Stephenson, and what reason had they assigned for not attending to the
958
minutes of the Lords of the Treasury? The architects stated, that want of time, with other attendant circumstances, had compelled them to limit their present inquiries, leaving for a future occasion the other matters of reference which they conceived might be subject to alterations, or even rendered unnecessary by their then report. The subject had neither been fully investigated by the committee of architects, nor by the Committee of the House; for the House would bear in mind, that they had passed a resolution that it should be an instruction to the Committee on Buckingham Palace, to consider to what purpose it could be converted; but this resolution had never been taken into consideration, but had been blinked altogether. He had himself addressed a respectful letter to the hon. Chairman of that Committee, and requested to be permitted to be examined as a witness before them. His hon. friend, who was candour and good nature itself, told him, in reply to that communication, that the Committee thought the proposition he had made was wild and fantastical, and, therefore, could not be entertained. He was at a loss to know how the Committee could be aware of his proposition until they had heard it, and he should be glad to know from the noble Lord (Lord Duncannon) if the building was not, in every respect, calculated for the purpose of a barrack, capable of accommodating sixteen officers, and 2,700 men; and whether the saving likely to arise to the public from such an application of the building, was not estimated at between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l.? He could, if he had been examined, have proved this, and could also have shown that the building could have been made to produce 500,000 l. But the Committee, without giving any consideration to the resolution or instruction of the House, and, after refusing the evidence of one who thought he could get them out of a very bad scrape, by the recovery of a very considerable portion of the expenditure, came to the recommendation, that the Palace should be finished for time purposes of State, which would require a further outlay of public money; and they conclude their report by "trusting that care will be taken that the estimates which may be approved, shall, as far as possible, not be exceeded, and that the responsible authorities will maintain a fixed determination to check any additional expend-

959
iture." He begged now to call the attention of the House to the report of Mr. Blore; and though he had some distrust for amateur architects, he could not but admit that the report of that gentleman was most fair and candid. Mr. Blore did not pretend to accuracy in his statement as to the probable cost of the alterations necessary to fit the Palace for State purposes; and, in answer to that part of the inquiry, he had stated, that the subject was one requiring more time than had been allowed him, to give it that Cull consideration which ought to be bestowed upon so important an inquiry, before venturing to record an opinion upon it. He then went on to state, "that it was obvious, as a preliminary step towards accomplishing that object, a very considerable purchase of property of unascertained extent and value would necessarily be required on the side of Pimlico, and, until the practicability of obtaining, and the amount of such a purchase could be ascertained, it was impossible for him to frame a report to meet the demands of the minute and resolution referred to him." After this statement by an architect, he felt himself justified in asserting, that a more injudicious experiment had never been made, than ordering the continuation of the work, when the architect had declared it was at present impossible to ascertain the amount of expenditure which would be necessary to make it fit and competent for state purposes. The property to which Mr. Blore had referred in his report, as necessary to be acquired, consisted of a row of houses, at the corner of which stood a public-house, within thirty feet of that portion of the Palace which had originally been intended for the chapel, but which was now converted to some other purpose. The whole range must necessarily be purchased if the plan was to be persisted in, for he put it to the House, whether such a nuisance as the public-house he had mentioned could be permitted to remain in such near approximation to the palace of the King of this country? This property he did not believe could be purchased for less than 500,000 l., taking a most subdued view of the value, and, notwithstanding the opinion of others was, that, if the brewery of Messrs. Elliott, and the steam-engine of Mr. Bramah, were not to be purchased, the property might be had for 200,000 l., at which low estimate he set it. But he begged to call the atten-
960
tion of the House to what were the preparations in the new Palace for State purposes, for levees, drawing-rooms, and balls. Between the two staircases were three apartments of various dimensions—one being twenty feet long and nine feet wide; another fifty feet by forty-three feet; and the third sixty-two feet by thirty-six feet; and in this last it was proposed to erect the throne. Besides these there were a number of small apartments, but altogether the best of them could not be put in comparison with the suite of seven rooms in York House, which were infinitely superior to those destined for State purposes in the Palace at Pimlico. In the proposed throne-room there was but one entrance, and the King would have no means of passing out unless it could be accomplished through the panel, like an harlequin. In St. James's Palace there were now six splendid apartments for the purposes of State, and he thought that ought to be an inducement not to dispose of the whole question of St. James's Palace in the cavalier way in which it was now proposed, by asking his Majesty to go to Buckingham Palace, merely because it would save any further expenditure at St. James's. The apartments at St. James's could not be fitted up at a less expense than 180,000 l., and, if a similar expenditure was to be made at Buckingham Palace, which would be necessary to make it fit for State purposes, this sum, added to the amount to be expended in the acquisition of property, say 200,000 l., would make a total for the cost of the new Palace, of 1,443,000 l. He should not be surprised, if the accuracy of his statement was questioned by many hon. Gentlemen, but he trusted the House would think with him, that further expenditure ought not to be suffered, without first considering the two circumstances which had completely been blinked by both the Committee of the House, and the committee of architects—namely, whether the accommodation afforded at St. James's Palace was not sufficient; and, secondly, whether Buckingham House was not applicable to other purposes. He begged to mention one circumstance much to the credit of the late Government:—In looking over the estimated expenses of the Palace, he found, that the Duke of Wellington and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, on coming into office, used their best endeavours to reduce the charges for the Palace. With

961
that intention a Committee was appointed, and every effort was made by them and the then Government to arrest the lavish expenditure then making, and, in page sixty-five of the last Report, it would be seen that the right hon. Chairman, Mr. Goulburn, had struck out of the proposed items, for trellis-work, &c., in the flower-gardens, no less a sum than 56,000 l. The late Government had never been charged with penuriousness, but, as the present Government was stated to be a most economical one, he appealed to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have the subject re-considered before any further expenditure was made. He knew not what his Majesty's feelings might be on the subject, but, he maintained, further investigation was necessary. He could tell the House a saving might be made of not less than 700,000 l., which it was purposed to lay out on a Palace which never could be inhabited. Indeed, whatever sum might be expended, it could never be rendered a fit residence for the Sovereigns of this country. The situation was unwholesome, for there was a large pool of water both in the rear and from of it. There were already complaints in the vicinity of the Palace, of the nuisance occasioned to the neighbourhood by the stagnant water in the gardens, as well of new mounds, forming by contract, from rubbish and filth brought from all parts of the town. The garden was as open to objection as the Palace itself. It might appear to some advantage on a fine day, to a person who entered it from the dirty and smoky streets of the metropolis, but it was utterly destitute of beauty, and it was overlooked by all the houses in Grosvenor-place and near Buckingham-gate. He had before said, the Palace was damp; indeed, it was impossible it could be otherwise, when it was considered that the basement story was below the level of the river at high water, and the premises were kept dry only by art. During the winter, not less than seventy fires had been necessary for that purpose, and these had been since superseded by a heating apparatus. The country would be loaded with the expense of both Palaces, for Buckingham Palace would never be habitable, and it was preferable to get rid of it by expending upon St. James's Palace 75,000 l., than to leave St. James's, and expend 180,000 l. on Buckingham House, to make it, as the Committee recommend-
962
ed, a Palace for State purposes, with the indispensable preliminary of the purchases that must be made on the side of Pimlico, and the expenditure of at least 300,000 l. for future furniture and decoration. In Buckingham House no accommodation was afforded for the servants. There were, indeed, fifty-one attics, but forty-six were very small rooms without fire-places; though he imagined it was considered that amends were made by there being thirty-four water-closets. It had been said, that the basement story of Buckingham House was extremely dark, but that defect might be remedied. But what was the report of the four architects? They said, "You may open the area, but two inconveniencies will follow: the apartments immediately over that story will not be inhabitable, on account of the noise of the servants; and individuals walking on the terrace will be exposed to the annoyance of seeing all that is going on in the area." In his opinion, it would be better to erect buildings for the Royal Family, in the space between Marlborough House and St. James's Palace. He would rather, at all times, judge by the expense which a building already erected had cost, when he was going to build one, than depend on the estimate of an architect. Now, York House had cost about 80,000 l., and two houses of that description might be built in the space between St. James's and Marlborough House, for 160,000 l. This was the consideration he wished to submit to the Committee, but they would not listen to him; he, therefore, found it necessary to institute some comparison between the accommodations of York House and Buckingham Palace:—In the first floor of Buckingham House there were only ten rooms, York house contained the same number, but much larger. The gallery in the former on the same floor was 126 feet by 22, in the latter, 125 feet by 32. The staircase on the first was 38 feet by 30, in York House, 80 feet by 45, including the corridor; York House, even standing singly, was almost equal to a Palace, while Buckingham House was a miserable, incommodious, ill-situated, place, and must be extremely unhealthy. It was seated near the common sewer. The sewer had, indeed, been removed to a little distance, but filth and nastiness abounded in it at every spring-tide. York House, in his mind, possessed a princely and splendid suite of rooms, which Buck-

963
ingham House could not boast of. The former had cost 80,000 l., the latter had swallowed up 700,000 l. of the public money; and, before it was inhabitable, it would require 700,000 l. more. An hon. friend of his had said, that he would get into a scrape by meddling with this subject; but he knew not what scrape he was likely to get into. He was an independent Member of Parliament, doing his duty, and showing to a retrenching Government what an immense expense had been incurred for a building which afterwards could not be occupied. He would now refer to the statement of the Lord Steward, who stated that he should require for his department, the whole of the basement story, the whole of the ground and upper floors of the south wing, with such additional accommodations as "I mark out in red ink;" and that of the Lord Chamberlain, in which he observed that Buckingham House was not at all calculated to enable their Majesties to hold courts there. His hon. friend, whom he had already alluded to as having apprised him that he would get into a scrape, also informed him, in his courteous note, that he did not wish to hear him speak on this subject. He supposed that his hon. friend considered him to be a wild visionary. He would, however, address his hon. friend in the words of the ancient Grecian hero, "Strike! but hear me!" It was not his intention to ask them to abandon the building, but he wished them, not only to save any further expense, but to recover some of that which had already been expended. Having stated the plan which he had in view in a printed circular, it was not necessary for him now to dilate at any great length upon it. His object was, to save to the public an expenditure of 700,000 l. by changing the destination of the building, and he was sure that a positive gain would also be effected by adopting that plan. For this purpose he proposed that apartments should be appropriated in Buckingham Palace for the use of King's College. There was a willingness on the part of those who were connected with the College to accede to this proposition; but they said, that they had no money. To this it was answered that no money was wanted. The proposition was, that proper accommodation should be set apart in Buckingham House for King's College, and that the latter building should be converted
964
into public offices. By this mode an expense of 15,000 l. would be saved, which was at present paid for houses in which the business of the Government was transacted. This saving, at twenty years' purchase, would produce 300,000 l. It was a discredit to this country that it should be without an elegant picture-gallery, and it was well known that many valuable collections were lost, for want of such a depositary. The present picture-gallery at Buckingham House was only 126 feet long, but his plan would give a picture-gallery 526 feet in length and twenty-eight in breadth. That of the Louvre was 1,300 feet long by thirty-five broad; but the one would be as superior in beauty as the other was in extent. Indeed so admirable a gallery would not exist in Europe. The upper part of the premises might be converted into an office for records, as it would admit of the most perfect ventilation, and was fire-proof, and the country was at present very much in want of such a place. There might also be a statue-gallery composed of two conservatories to the garden front, eighty-eight feet by fifty feet each, making 176 feet; which, with the terrace between them, 158 feet, would give a range of great beauty of 334 feet. The marble chimney pieces not yet set up had cost 18,970 l.; the State Room doors, which might be unhinged and sent to St. James's cost 12,600 l.; marble floors had cost 2,670 l., and 104 marble columns 24,000 l. The whole amounting with other items that might also be removed, to 94,000 l. He was not one of those who would wish to see the King go down to the House in a hackney coach; or wish him to live in a ready-furnished lodging, and he believed that the most economical Member of that House—even the hon. member for Middlesex—was anxious to see a splendid and magnificent residence appropriated to his Majesty; and such a residence, he had no doubt, might be raised by his plan, without imposing any burthen on the public. To the sources of saving which he had already mentioned, there was to be added the 94,000 l. he had just noticed. The account would then stand thus—if Buckingham House were disposed of in the manner which he proposed: In the first place, 700,000 l., that otherwise must be hereafter expended, would be saved.

Saved by the appropriation of King's College to public offices, 15,000 l.

965

per annum

£.300,000

Picture Gallery

50,000

Statue Gallery

30,000

Attics for Records, 2,000 l. per annum

40,000

Cellar and Basement, ditto

40,000

460,000

Credit for items, marble chimney pieces &c., at Buckingham-house

94,000

554,000

Thus would be realized, in money's worth the sum of 554,000 l., which he looked upon as a very handsome sum to be recovered from the lavish expenditure of Buckingham House. If that place were not occupied, then the garden was unnecessary, and it contained 15,000 feet of frontage. That, if let for building at 3l. per foot, would produce 45,000 l. per annum ground rent which, at twenty-seven years purchase would, produce 1,215,000 l. As objections had, however, been raised to covering the ground with buildings, he would take but one-fourth of it, and instead of building rows of houses and squares, he proposed that it should be laid out in villas, like the Regent's-park. It would then, at the same rate of purchase, produce 303,750 l. which, with the 554,000 l. already pointed out, amounted to 857,750 l. Deduct from that sum 160,000 l., double the expense of York House, for the erection of the buildings he had previously mentioned for the residence of the King and Queen, and it would leave a net sum of 697,750 l. for the erection of a splendid palace. And it should be observed that not one shilling of taxes would be necessary to effect this plan. He hoped the statement which he had made was sufficiently clear to induce the noble Lord to take it into his serious consideration. If the question were to be again opened and re-considered, he would not, having now stated his case to the House, trouble them further. But if a contrary course were taken, he would not, until he was convinced that he was in error, omit any opportunity, when the House was going into supply, of stating his opinion on this subject; and he would even lay a petition before his Majesty with respect to it. He had had an interview with the late King relative to the new Palace. He was received with the utmost affability. He then told his Majesty that, while he was sure that the humblest peasant in the country wished his Majesty to have a splendid residence, his best friends were
966
obliged to confess, that large sums of money had been squandered on Buckingham House, but that nothing magnificent, nor even convenient, had been produced. It seemed to him that a comparison might well be drawn between the new Buckingham Palace and the Reform Bill. They were originally told, that Buckingham House was to be altered and repaired; but when he asked the persons there to show him some of the old Palace, he found that it had been wholly removed. A very small portion remained, near the King's bed room; therefore, he thought it might be said, that as the new Palace presented but a small portion of the old building, so it might be feared that the noble Lords' new Constitution would return but a very small remnant of the old one. With these observations, without trespassing further upon the patience of the House, he begged leave to move for a copy of any minute issued by the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury referring to the expediency of preserving St. James's Palace and of enlarging it by means of a communication with Marlborough House;" also for copies of the instructions given to Mr. Blore for the expenditure of 75,000 l., granted for the erection of a parallelogram of buildings at Buckingham House, and the plans, estimates, and specifications of the building proposed to be erected.
Mr. Cressett Pelhambegged to take that opportunity to express his disapprobation of the expenditure of the public money in a way unsatisfactory to the people, as in the case of Buckingham Palace, without adding to the splendor or comfort of the Crown by the outlay.
Lord Duncannonsaid, that, without meaning any disrespect to the hon. and gallant Member, he did not feel it his duty to go into any reply to the observations which the hon. Member had addressed to the House on this occasion. The whole of this subject had been already before a Select Committee of that House. That Committee had made its Report, and it was in pursuance of that Report, and upon the authority of the Committee that he had moved for, and had obtained, leave to bring in a Bill to apply the sum of 75,000 l. for the completion of Buckingham Palace. The whole of this question, he repeated, having been brought under the consideration of a Committee, and that Committee having decided that the best plan was, to complete the Palace, he had felt it his

967
duty to come to Parliament for the authority to do so, and that authority having been obtained, the work, accordingly, was now actually in progress towards completion. He begged to say, that in his opinion, it would have been extremely improper on the part of Mr. Blore, or any other architect, to have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go into the Palace and inspect the works while in progress, in order to find fault with them.
Mr. Robert Gordonwas very sorry that the hon. and gallant Officer had not been a Member of the Committee on this subject, as he was sure, if he had, that he would have been convinced by the oral as well as by the documentary, evidence which had been laid before them, that the plan which they decided upon, namely, the completion of the Palace, was the best one. The gallant Officer's plan was submitted to that Committee, and he must say, that all the primâ facie appearance of probability about it was such as to induce the Committee not to go further into an examination of it. Indeed, it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that they would be only unnecessarily occupying the time of the hon. Member, if they proceeded to an oral examination of him on the subject. The Committee left the amount of the sum for the completion of the Palace to be suggested by his Majesty's Ministers, and they had suggested the amount in question—namely, 75,000 l. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would get any capitalist to buy the Palace for 400,000 l., he (Mr. Gordon) was sure that his Majesty's Government would be glad to get rid of it upon such terms, and he, for one, would rejoice at seeing such a bargain effected.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the public must now content themselves with the expenditure of 700,000 l. or 800,000 l. on this Palace. They would not recover that money, and the only alternative for them was, to fit it for the purpose for which it was intended. All that the public got in return for that expenditure, and he was not sure, great as it was, that the benefit which accompanied it had not been well purchased, was the having St. James's-park opened at the same time, and laid out in walks for the accommodation of the citizens of this immense metropolis. In his opinion, the Government could not have done otherwise in this instance than have adopted the recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee on this sub-
968
ject. He certainly should oppose any project for selling this Palace for 400,000 l, or 500,000 l., even if so much could be got for it, to any private capitalist or builder, as that might be the means of shutting up the park, which was one of the lungs of the metropolis. He would conclude these few remarks by confirming the statement of the chairman of the Committee (Mr. R. Gordon) as to what took place there in reference to the plan of the hon. member for Cambridge.
Mr. Huntthought, that the hon. member for Bridport had made a very extraordinary speech for one who professed himself to be an economist. He defended the wanton outlay of 700,000 l. upon a Palace, because as he said, the public had got a walk for their money. It must be acknowledged, however, that it was a very costly one; besides it was said that the Palace would never be fit to be inhabited by the King, and he had even heard that his Majesty had expressed a personal objection ever to reside there. If so, their "walk" would cost still more. If the account of the unwholesomeness of the situation, which had been stated was a correct one, it was a place to which he should not send even a convict to reside, much less a king, the people ought to be satisfied that this could be made a fit residence for their monarchs, before their money was spent on a filthy hole surrounded by nuisances.
Lord Althorp, though he did not feel it necessary to follow his hon. and gallant friend through the statement which he had made, could not avoid saying that he had not at all made out his case that there must be an additional expenditure of 700,000 l. on this Palace in order to complete it. He did not think that it would be very advisable on the part of that House, or of the country, to commence the building of a new Palace. He could hardly persuade himself that it would be enonomical to do so even on the grounds stated by the hon. Gentleman. He begged to say, that, though he did not think it a wise thing in the first instance to have built a Palace in the situation of Buckingham Palace, yet when he heard so much said as to the unhealthiness of that situation, he would only remind the hon. Member that George 3rd, and Queen Charlotte resided in that very situation during the greater part of a long reign,

969
and therefore that it could not be regarded as so unhealthy as some would describe it. He was ready to admit at the same time, as he had already said, that the place was not one that should have been originally selected for a Palace, but as the building was in a great state of forwardness towards completion, his Majesty's Government thought it right to bring the subject before the House, in order that it should decide what should be done with it. A Select Committee was accordingly appointed, and amongst the Members of that Committee were several Gentlemen who, so far from being inclined to spend the public money, had been uniformly distinguished for their anxiety to save that money as much as possible. That Committee went into a full examination of the whole case, and they reported, that after the most careful consideration that, they could give to it, it appeared to them that the best plan was, to complete the building so as to render it fit for a residence for his Majesty. Under these circumstances, the House adopted the Report of the Committee, and decided that the Palace should be completed, and having voted the sum for that purpose, the work was accordingly commenced. Now, he would ask the House whether, having gone so far, and whether having recommenced the works, they ought to retrace their steps, and commence the building of a new palace, knowing so well as they did, how little able they should be in the first instance to calculate the expense of such an undertaking. No minute of the nature of that described in the hon. Gentleman's motion, he believed existed, and he should object to the production of the other papers for which he called, on the ground that their production would be only reopening this question, so as probably to lead to great additional expense. He had already said, that he would not enter into the statements of his hon. and gallant friend, but he could not avoid observing, that his hon. and gallant friend had by no means satisfied him by the assumed statements and assumed calculations which he had brought forward, that he would be able to produce the great saving which he said he would effect if his plan were adopted.
Mr. Curteistook that opportunity of observing that he thought the public had a right to ask of the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, or of
970
that member of the Government who possessed the control, that the passage through St. James's Park, between Storey's-gate and the Pimlico-gate, should be left open at night. Those gates were now closed at an early hour of the evening, and the consequence was, that every person who desired to go from Pimlico to Westminster, or from Westminster to Pimlico, could only do so by a most circuitous and disagreeable route.
Lord Duncannonbegged to state that the gates to which the hon. Gentleman referred were not under his charge—they were under the control of the Ranger of the Park. He would, however, take care that the subject should be brought under his consideration, and he had no doubt but that the hon. Gentleman's wishes would be complied with.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellwas of opinion that, as we were going to have a Reformed Parliament, the question of Buckingham Palace was one that ought to be referred to it.
Sir Frederick Trenchsaid, that after the observations which had been made by the noble Lord, although by no means satisfied that his plan was not the best to be adopted, he should not press his motion to a division.
Motion negatived.

TITHES. (IRELAND) MINISTERIAL RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. Stanleymoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the subject of Tithes in Ireland.
Mr. Wallacehoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion at present, but would consent to postpone it at least for a week, as the Select Committee up-stairs had now nearly gone through all its examinations on the subject, and was on the point, he believed, of finishing its inquiry, and presenting its Report. The peace of Ireland was at hazard in this case, and he would most earnestly entreat—nay, beseech—the right hon. Gentleman not to press this measure forward until they had the whole of the evidence taken by the Committee, and the result of their inquiry laid before them.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he never desired to press any measure forward without affording to the House the fullest possible information with regard to it; but in his mind the very argument that the hon.

971
Gentleman had urged for the postponement of this Motion was the most powerful that could be advanced for its being taken into immediate consideration. The House had already devoted two nights to a full discussion of the Resolutions which he should have to propose in the Committee, and those Resolutions by no means constituted a final measure as to the settlement of the Church of Ireland. The Resolutions which he was now anxious to press forward were intended to meet a pressing emergency, and to express the sense of that House as to what it was their determination to do in reference to the resistance that had been made to the payment of tithes. It was true that the Select Committee might very soon close its inquiries, but he was far from saying that such would be the case. Taking into account the intricacy of the details through which they had to go, and the overwhelming importance of the interests which had been committed to their consideration, he did not think that it would be practicable or fair to call on the Select Committee to come immediately to a final decision on the subject. It had been said, that all the Irish Members were arrayed against the measure which he had proposed; but he could not consider twenty-seven out of the 100 Members for Ireland as representing the opinion of that country on this question. It had been stated, also, at meetings in Ireland, that with regard to this question, Ireland was on one side in that House, and the Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, had all joined on the other, for oppressing Ireland. Now, he begged to say, most distinctly and emphatically, that such was not the case, but that there had been 314 English and Irish Members on one side, and only thirty-one on the other. Under the circumstances of the case, he thought that he did not ask too much from the hon. Members opposed to him on this question, to allow him to go into Committee now on this subject, have his Resolutions considered seriatim there, and an opportunity given to him of bringing forward his Bill, founded on those Resolutions, in order to meet the urgency of the occasion. During the progress of that Bill through the House, ample opportunities would be afforded for the discussion of this subject.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, Sir, I should not, perhaps, have now risen, were it not for the manner in which the Secre-
972
tary for Ireland has met the very reasonable request of my hon. friend. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for persevering in his own course; but I do find fault with the taunting manner in which he has spoken of the minority on a former division on this question ["no, no," from Mr. Stanley.] Sir, the right hon. Gentleman may not have intended the taunt, but it was felt and understood by every one of those twenty-seven Irish Members, and it will be felt and understood in Ireland, to which country the right hon. Gentleman will have to answer for his conduct on this question. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the House had already decided, by its vote, the course to be pursued, and that it is not for a small minority to array itself against the sense of the House—for thirty-one Members to stand up against 314. He goes further, and he says, that England, Ireland, and Scotland are with him, and only twenty-seven Irish and four English Members against him. Sir, this statement I utterly deny. This is not a question between 314 English and Irish Members, in the majority, and twenty-seven Irish and four English in the minority; it is a question between the majority and the minority of the people of Ireland. It was, in the first place, a question whether the great majority of the people were to continue to pay a great portion of their earnings to maintain the Church of the minority in affluence and luxury; and it now comes before you in its modified shape, as a question whether (the inexpediency of so mulcting the people being determined on) a large portion of the money of the people is to be paid away, without any definite promise of relief to them—whether the clergy of the minority were to receive remuneration for services unperformed, and the majority not even the hope of relief from miseries endured. Thus had the question been received in Ireland—thus did it still continue to be viewed—and as long as the twenty-seven Irish Members who voted in that despised minority had the voice of Ireland in their favour, so long would the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman be disregarded by them. Sir, it is in vain to tell us that only one quarter of the Representatives of Ireland voted in that minority. Will any one here deny that the people of three-fourths of Ireland are loud in their opposition to this impost, in their approbation of the part taken by that "quarter"

973
as it is called, of the Irish Members, and in their condemnation of the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman's majority. I say, three-fourths of Ireland—for I will not venture upon the debateable land of Ulster—though even there the evidence produced against us the other night by the Solicitor General, in the shape of a letter from that highly respectable character, a lieutenant in the revenue police, states that in Protestant Ulster—in ultra-Protestant Donegal—6,000 people had assembled at noon-day to call for the abolition of tithes. Thus supported, Sir, I care not for the majorities which may be obtained in this House: I care not for the decisions of the English and Irish supporters of these propositions. I look for my majority to Ireland; I say that the country which feels the wrong, has the best right to decide upon the remedy. The tribunal before which we are to be judged lies in Ireland—and fearlessly do I call for the decision of that tribunal. But, Sir, let us look to the composition of that minority of twenty-seven; I find that in that minority there voted both Members of each of eight counties in Ireland; I find that of another county both Members who would have voted with us, were unfortunately absent, mid, on my soul, I believe that it was the absence of one of those Members which occasioned the haste with which the right hon. Secretary has brought forward his propositions ["oh! oh!" from the Treasury Benches.] The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters may sneer at that declaration; I give it as my firm conviction; and I ask, without tear of contradiction, whether such is not the opinion of Ireland, of the country where the measures of the right hon. Secretary are to be judged?—I ask whether that is not a received opinion in England? I ask whether there is a Member in this House to whose mind the same idea has not occurred? Sir, there voted, also, in that minority, one Member for each of several counties, and the Members for most of the principal towns in the south of Ireland. Of one great city in Munster, indeed, both the Members had voted for the majority—with what effect upon the minds of their constituents, I will leave them to discover. Sir, I beg pardon for having been led thus away by my feelings, and I come to the request made by my hon. friend, the member for Drogheda, of his Majesty's Ministers. That hon. Gentleman asks for
974
time—he says, wait a little, until your Committee closes its labours, or, at all events, give us the benefit of the evidence before the Committee of the Lords; but the Secretary for Ireland says no—you have detained us three weeks, and, therefore, we will give you no more evidence. It is true that many witnesses have been examined before our Committee, but we will pin you to the evidence already published; it is true you have had the result of the labours of the Lords for this fortnight back upon your Table; but even that yon shall not have printed; you must proceed to judgment upon the evidence of my eight or nine parsons, and three or four policemen; that testimony is in your favour; it is likely the rest of the evidence will be more so, therefore you shall decide upon that ex parte evidence! Sir, is not this the meaning of what has fallen from the right hon. Secretary? Is not this what will occur to every man in Ireland as his determination? He tells us, you would have to wait too long for the evidence before our Committee—we shall not close for many days. Granted; but then give us the advantage of the evidence before the Lords; it has been a fortnight on the Table. Your own assistant, the Irish Solicitor General, has moved long since that it be printed. Why are we not in possession of it? [Mr. Stanley: There has not been time.] Not time, Sir! not time in a fortnight to reprint so small a volume as that! Sir, I have myself, short a time as I have sat here, known much more voluminous Reports printed and distributed in infinitely less time—but it is not the want of time, but of inclination, that has withheld this Report from us. It is my firm conviction that it has been intentionally with held—that some secret influence has been used to keep it back—and such, Sir, will be the opinion of the people of Ireland. They are not to be deceived—and they will reiterate with me—"That we have been called upon to decide, on insufficient evidence, and that evidence, at all events, more full, and, as regards the people, more favourable, being within the reach of the Ministers, they have withheld it." Sir, I once more, and for the last time, implore the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he hurries us to this decision. I tell him it may be fatal to his own fame, and must be injurious to his party. I tell him it will prevent his measures from being final and satisfactory, and render them

975
temporary and insufficient. I know that he can and probably will overwhelm us with a majority in this House; but I know, also, what Ireland will think, and I value not his majority. Of the twenty-seven Irish Members amongst whom I voted, there is not one who does not feel that he is acting in this matter according to the most ardent wishes of his constituents. There is not one who is not strong in the support of those whom he represents, and for one I tell you that it is not here this question will be decided, but in Ireland [cries of "Oh! oh!"]. I am not to be deterred by that interruption from doing my duty to those whom I represent. I repeat distinctly, that it is not here this question will be decided, but in Ireland. I know the feeling of that country on these propositions; I know the feelings of those who sent me here on this entire question, and, strong in their support and their concurrence, I care not for your decision.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, there was no real difference between hon. Gentlemen on this occasion, for all agreed that there ought to be some relief afforded to the suffering clergy of Ireland, and this proposition was assented to by the hon. and learned Member himself, who now opposed going into a Committee. The only questions, then, that remained were, out of what fund that relief ought to come, and whether it ought to be repaid? If the Irish Members wished the relief to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and desired that no re-payment should take place, he was sure that they would have the manliness to state that at once, and not attempt to gain their object by a side wind. The question of the mode of re-payment was, however, a matter of detail, which they could not consider till they listened to the details that were now to be laid before them. If he was not convinced that this measure was framed with the intention of benefiting the people of Ireland, there was no earthly consideration that should induce him to vote for it; but he was so convinced that such was its intention, and that such was its object, that he urged the House to go into Committee upon the subject, and there to express their opinion on the details that would then be laid before them.
Mr. Wysesaid, it was with precisely the same views as those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, that he had formed the determination of opposing these Resolu-
976
tions. He felt convinced that the subject could not be satisfactorily settled by the present course, and, therefore, he was compelled to vote against it. On a former evening, he had opposed the Motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee, from a conviction that they had not sufficient evidence before them to legislate upon. He observed, from the evidence already on the Table, that the evidence given by Dr. Hamilton, Mr. Dwyer, and Mr. Langrishe, was greatly modified by that subsequently given by Mr. Greene. Therefore it was desirable they should wait until all the other evidence could be laid on the Table, before they were called upon to legislate. He was sure there was not a Catholic Member in that House who would not attach great importance to the evidence of Dr. Doyle—there was not a Presbyterian who would not estimate highly the evidence given by Mr. Montgomery, and Protestant Members must also attach importance to the evidence of two gentlemen who had so many opportunities of knowing the state of the country. He saw no immediate necessity for pressing this measure through the House, but it might be safely postponed, in his opinion, until the investigation before the Committee was concluded. He would caution the right hon. Gentleman against supposing for one moment, that however interested in the settlement of this question hon. Gentlemen might be, they spoke the sentiments of only a small portion of the Irish people. He could assure him they did not express mere personal feelings on this subject, but that they represented the opinions of thousands, and, indeed, gave utterance to a very important portion of the public opinion of the country. It was not as simple individuals, but in their relation to public opinion in Ireland, that they ought to be judged. He objected to the course now proposed, of proceeding to frame a coercive measure, before they knew the nature of the remedy to be applied. He could not arrive at the same conclusions as the right hon. Secretary, relative to the necessity of agreeing to these Resolutions without delay. He did not think that a case had been made out as to the clergy being placed in a situation of utter destitution, but, at the same time, he should be loth to withhold from them any pecuniary aid.
Mr. Brownlowdid not expect that this debate would have arisen on a preliminary

977
Motion of this sort. He had opposed the first introduction of these Resolutions, but he had been overruled by a majority of the House; and as the Resolutions were now before them, he thought that they ought to go into the discussion fairly, and with a view to a final adjustment.
Mr. Henry Grattanagreed with the hon. member for Tipperary, that it was most desirable that the evidence of the witnesses who had been examined by the Committee, since the former evidence was printed, should be laid on the Table; but he had no objection to proceed, as the House had already determined that the Resolutions should be considered in Committee, although he would rather that the discussion should be postponed.
Mr. Leaderconceived the House was in the same situation as if the debate had stood over from a former night, but every allowance ought to be made for the excited feelings of the Irish Members, who were acted upon by the extraordinary excitement which prevailed in Ireland upon this most momentous subject. He assured the House that the solicitude of the people of that country upon the questions of Catholic Emancipation and Reform, were much less than their interest in the settlement of the measure, connected as it was with the Protestant Church, now before the House. Still he considered that as it had been suggested to bring the question in controversy to the narrowest point on the first night's debate, the Irish Members made their stand on the Resolution respecting the coercive and penal laws, to enforce the payment of the last year's arrears of tithe in the disturbed dioceses. He should think it most expedient to adhere to the same course. He did not entertain a doubt that the state of that country required not temporary laws of a coercive nature, but remedial laws, calculated to restore order, by relieving the wants, and conforming to the wishes, of the Irish people. For his own part, he had not a particle of doubt but that the attempt to connect the power of the Crown, the Church, and the army, against the people, for the purpose of enforcing payment of the arrear of tithe in the disturbed dioceses, would form a dangerous precedent, and was to be scrutinized with great jealousy, and opposed with the utmost firmness; that was the point which caused the recent division, and which had excited such a strong feeling in Ireland. His hon,
978
friend, the member for Drogheda, was highly commendable in looking for every information which could throw further light on the subject; and so was the hon. member for Clare, in his desire to have the evidence of the Lords' Committee printed and circulated. But as the Speaker's leaving the Chair was for the purpose of resuming an adjourned debate, the best way was to proceed, and for the Irish Members to expose the danger of extending any further penal and coereive laws to their country.
Mr. Wallaceassured his hon. friend that he did not rise originally to oppose the Speaker's leaving the Chair; but to appeal to the good sense of the right hon. Secretary, whether it was desirable to press this subject, until after the evidence lately given before the Committee, was printed.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellwished to oppose the Resolutions as unsatisfactory, but he felt that it would be more consistent with the rules of the House to do so in Committee.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
The first Resolution—"That it appears to this House that, in several parts of Ireland, an organized 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,"—was read.
Mr. Ruthvenassured the House, that the course now about to be pursued was directly opposed to the feelings of the people of Ireland, and, if persisted in, would produce nothing but mischief. They were now called upon to proceed with these resolutions, when the evidence upon which they professed to be founded was most imperfect. He protested against proceeding until all the evidence had been heard before the Committee, and the Report presented. The right hon. Secretary admitted that he brought forward this subject, because it was absolutely necessary to afford some aid to the distressed clergymen of the Irish Protestant Church. He would venture to assert, and he was sure that his opinion was borne out by the evidence adduced before the Committee, that the accounts of that distress had been greatly exaggerated. He admitted there were individual cases of great hardship, and there could be no objection to a temporary advance of money for these persons; but he

979
protested against the system of coercion which it was proposed to introduce. He objected to the disposition shown by the Government to coerce the people of Ireland, when there was so much tardiness shown in bringing forward the remedial measure which had been promised. There had been great haste in submitting these Resolutions to the House, but no haste in laying the ulterior measure before the Committee. He never would consent to this measure of coercion being passed until he knew what was the nature of the plan to be submitted to the House relative to tithes. Nothing was of so much importance to Ireland, as the settlement of this question. If the clergy were in such distress as was represented, he was sorry not to see those members of that body who were revelling in luxury, come forward to assist their brethren. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Secretary read the Irish Members a lecture, but his admonitions would have little effect, if not accompanied with more salutary measures than he had hitherto brought forward. When the right hon. Gentleman said, on a former occasion, that the country wanted a lesson, and that the people of this country were not to be overawed by strong language, he was at a loss to understand what he meant. Did the right hon. Secretary consider this language as conciliatory to the people of Ireland? he assured him it was felt to be quite the reverse, and gave little reason to expect much benefit from any remedial measures to be brought forward by him. He felt that the measure to be submitted by the right hon. Gentleman, relative to tithes, was likely to be one of those bit-by-bit measures, calculated to keep open the seeds of dissension, and satisfactory to no parties. The resolution before the House had reference only to the present year, and it did not afford a redress for the wrongs committed in former years, nor would it prevent the recurrence of them in future. He must condemn the conduct pursued by the clergy in many parts of Ireland, some of whom were in favour of delivering the people over to the army and the sword, for the purpose of extorting payment of that which ought to be a voluntary offering. They were now, however, called upon to pass a Turkish law, and compel the people to give that which they could not be induced to give by other means. The clergy were to be indebted to martial law for the
980
recovery of their tithes. He feared that the consequences of this policy would be such as all must lament. Public opinion ought to be attended to; and if the Government were not prepared to yield to it, they ought to be compelled to yield, or resign their power to those who would. It was in consequence of the resistance to public opinion, in the reign of Charles 1st, that that monarch was brought to the block. His Ministers—Laud and Strafford, fondly anticipated that they could constrain public opinion, but the result showed how much they had miscalculated. He thought every part of the present resolution was most objectionable. It appeared that the Law Officers of the Crown were to be employed in every case where the recovery of tithes was concerned. The expense of paying those gentlemen would ultimately fall on the people of England. Suppose a man refused to pay, were the Ministers prepared to send him to gaol for resisting the payment of a charge, which the authors of the resolution admitted was of so oppressive a character, that it must be abolished? Would hon. Members allow men to be sent to prison for conscience sake? Hitherto, only passive resistance had been shown, but coercion would drive the people to desperation. Besides, the expense in the collection of tithes by the machinery proposed would be most enormous. An army must be employed for the purpose, and many persons would resign themselves to the utmost rigour of the law, and even to death itself, rather than submit to the payment. In any outrages that had hitherto taken place, the causes could be distinctly traced to the conduct of the police and the military, and the people looked to Parliament for relief; were their expectations now to be disappointed? If they were, their patience would be wholly exhausted, and they would retaliate upon the authors of their sufferings by every means in their power. The object of the meetings nominally in favour of Reform was really intended to get rid of the tithes. In a country situated as Ireland was, it was impossible to expect that the people should not dislike the payment of tithes; while such a large revenue was devoted to the Church establishment for the instruction of only a small part of the people, it was impossible that they could be contented. If that Church were overthrown, it would be rather by the luxury of the clergy than the defects

981
of its doctrines. It was impossible that the Church establishment, in its present form, could continue. It would be safer and better for the Protestants themselves if the Catholics were made more contented than at present, by a different distribution of Church property. Even the Protestants complained that the working clergy of their own Church were not sufficiently paid, while the Bishops were much overpaid. There ought to be a fair remuneration for all the useful clergy, and nothing more. He had the authority of Dr. Doyle for saying that the present system could not be carried again into execution in Ireland.
Mr. Stanleyrose to order. He put it to the hon. Member, if he could quote the evidence of Dr. Doyle, which was not yet before the House. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the resolution related to a matter of fact, and it would be advisable to confine themselves to the matter immediately before the Committee.
Mr. Ruthvenconsidered it a matter of grievance that this evidence was not laid before the House in a parliamentary state, when it was printed in the newspapers. However, as referring to it was objected to by the right hon. Secretary, he would confine the few words he had to say to the point before the Committee. He must recommend an harmonious agreement between all parties, and a submission to the doctrines of expediency. He looked to some means of that kind as calculated to restore peace to the country, for nothing would prevent the people of Ireland from insisting upon the removal of tithes, and the Reform of the Church. They had no desire to infringe upon the income of the present parish incumbents, who were, many of them, worthy respectable men; but a disposition should be shown to make a future distribution of Church property according to reason, which would tend to allay irritation, and would induce the people to pay up their arrears. The hon. Member concluded, by moving the following Resolution as an amendment:—"That the state of the property of the Church in Ireland requires revision and modification, and that a reduction of the Church Establishment has become necessary and expedient, so as to facilitate the ultimate appropriation of its revenues to the uses of their original objects, viz. the maintenance of the clergy, the building and due support of churches and places of public worship, and the relief of the poor; but that,
982
under existing circumstances, the present incumbents of parishes in Ireland are entitled to protection in the arrangement of Church property, the future regulations of which should be made upon a basis calculated to afford a proper and suitable provision for the ministry of the several congregations in the respective parishes of Ireland, as well as to supply means of materially relieving the poor."
Mr. Stanleysaid, having so often troubled the House upon this subject, he would not detain the Committee, on the present occasion, beyond a few moments. The hon. Member who had moved a resolution as an amendment to the one which he had had the honour of moving, had been guilty of an absurdity, for he had complained that the evidence was not sufficiently developed upon the subject of tithes, to enable the House to come to a proper conclusion, and yet the hon. Member had now moved a resolution founded upon that evidence, which went much further, for it not only went to pledge the Committee as to the state of the Church property in Ireland, but that there should be future regulations to afford a provision for the ministry of the several congregations, as well as means for the relief of the poor. He objected to this amendment, and he did not consider the present as the most convenient time for going into the whole question introduced by the hon. Member. Whenever the subject should be regularly introduced before the House, he should be ready to discuss it; but, as he had already said, the present was not the proper time to bring it forward.
Mr. Gally Knightconfessed that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Downpatrick had confirmed his opinion, that the evidence contained in the first Report of the Tithe Committee not only justified the Resolutions proposed by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, but made it imperative on the Government to act without delay; not so much on account of the state of the Protestant clergy, as on account of the state of Ireland itself. He would yield to no man in regard for that country. He became acquainted with it, at a period of life when impressions are deep and lasting; and earnestly desired to see her happy. It was painful to him, to pursue a course said to be opposed to the wishes of the Irish people; but it would be more painful to do that which he thought wrong. He regretted

983
to hear that which he considered an inestimable boon, represented to be a burthen. He had laboured hard in the cause of Catholic emancipation, because it was the cause of justice, but he entertained the hope, that the gratitude of Ireland would have been the reward. He entertained the hope that, in consideration of that concession, Ireland would have endured other evils with a little patience; and would have allowed the Legislature time to redress them. To him it was no small disappointment to hear on the present occasion expressions of dissatisfaction; and, when the Legislature appeared with fresh gifts in its hands, to be overwhelmed with fresh demands. Let them look back for a moment; let them remember what was the grievance which, till very lately, was alleged to be the most vexatious grievance that afflicted the people of Ireland. Was it not the intrusion of the Protestant tithe-proctor into the Catholic cabin? Was it not the collision of the tithe-proctors and the peasantry which so frequently produced these scenes, of which it was painful even to think? Surely the entire abolition of such a system was no trifle either to undertake, or to bestow! Was it not, on the contrary, an undertaking surrounded with difficulty—an undertaking as bold as it was humane? Was it, then, to be expected that so many hon. Gentlemen, immediately connected with Ireland, instead of seeing this measure in the light in which it might have hoped they would have seen it, would be heard to declare, that what was hitherto thought the greatest of all grievances was only a very minor grievance; and to assert that the measure proposed contained nothing of a conciliatory nature? He would not presume—he had no right—to reprove. He spoke, not in anger, but in sorrow, when he appealed to those whose words were words of power; and when he attempted to express his grief that they should employ that power rather in accordance with the passions of their susceptible countrymen than in clearing away the mist from their eyes. Such men as they were could not be mistaken: they knew what the tithe system was in Ireland; they must know that the abolition of that system was a beneficial measure. How, then, could they have the heart to tell a deluded multitude, who looked up to them for advice, that the abolition of that system was no
984
boon at all? and, when the measure in preparation might have been received with delight, how could they poison the very springs of joy, and pour that beverage into the peasant's cup, when he might have tasted the waters of health? Did he tell them that this concession was to be the last, or ask them never to look for anything more. No, he, on the contrary, allowed that more must be done; that more ought to be done. But he called upon them, as reasonable and practical men not to declare that nothing was done because all was not done, to acknowledge the difficulties by which measures of such vast importance were surrounded, to give time for those difficulties to be gradually removed, and whilst they looked forward to the future with hope, to contemplate the present with approbation. Allusion had been made to future elections and future constituencies; but were they to mislead their countrymen in order to secure their votes? It was not absolutely necessary for a man to be a Member of Parliament. He might pass his time happily and honourably in a thousand other ways—but it was necessary for him so long as he was a Member of that House to consider nothing but the real good of his country. If he knew that the vote which he intended to give that night were to cost him his seat to-morrow, he trusted that it would undergo no alteration. He had practised what he preached; and he trusted, that, in any sentiments which he might deliver in that House, he should at no time be found to be influenced by any considerations of popularity, or fortune, or fame—by no consideration but what he believed to be the real good of the empire. There was nothing which he so ardently desired as to see Ireland in a state of repose. Why was that unhappy country to be for ever torn and convulsed by excitement and agitation? Why was she never suffered to know what it was to be tranquil? and was it her own sons who prolonged the distraction of their parent? and, instead of helping the Legislature to bind up their wounds, bid them bleed anew! He conjured his countrymen to have mercy upon Ireland—on their own country! and, instead of telling the people to remain discontented, enjoy the sweet and holy triumph of guiding them to their good! If this subject were calmly and dispassionately considered, it must be allowed that a complete awl final commu-

985
tation of tithe must place all parties concerned in an infinitely more satisfactory situation. But, the proposition of the hon. member for Downpatrick—to apply the tithes, or any other part of the Church property, to other than ecclesiastical purposes was not to be thought of. Whatever the Church enjoyed had always belonged to the servants of the altar. Whatever the Church enjoyed belonged to the Church by as good a title as the layman's estate belonged to the layman. No part of the Church property was ever, in these islands, charged with any provision for the poor. No part of the Church property was ever bestowed by a grant of the nation. The whole of it was nothing but the free gift of pious individuals, confirmed by the laws of the land. How, then, could it be considered as national property, applicable to other than ecclesiastical uses? If an act of spoliation were committed on the Church, a blow was struck at the root of all property, and the consequences would be no less dangerous than the act would be unprincipled. He did not mean to say, that, in Ireland, no change in the distribution of the Church property would be admissible; because the ministers of the national Church, which in Ireland, was the Catholic, did not, at present, receive any part of that property, and because he was convinced that some change in this respect was essential, not only to the welfare of Ireland, but to the existence of the Protestant Church. He rejected with scorn and abhorrence the modern and revolutionary doctrine that Church property was public property, applicable to the purposes of the State; but, in Ireland, he was anxious to see a more equitable distribution of the Church property amongst the clergy themselves—he meant the Catholic clergy as well as the Protestant. And whenever this important measure should be adopted—and adopted, he was convinced, it must be at no distant period, he hoped it would be no half measure—no miserable attempt to keep up the revenues of the Establishment to their present amount. He wished the measure to be extensive and complete, in order that it might be final. And now, one word with respect to the measure of coercion:— From the manner in which this measure had been reprehended, one should think that martial law was about to be instantly declared throughout the whole of Ireland! one should think that the tithes
986
were forthwith to be collected at the point of the bayonet! But what was the truth? That Government should be invested with the power of calling upon the debtor to pay a part of those debts, which were, on all hands, allowed to be just—at the same time relieving him from all the legal intricacies, and hateful reminiscences, of the old system, and at once concluding the vexatious and indecorous scuffle between the Catholic peasant and the Protestant minister. Would any man seriously say, that England could be expected to advance the money for the liquidation of the debts of Ireland, without taking, any security for being repaid. Would any man say, that any Government would be worthy of the name, that permitted the laws to be eluded because they had been disobeyed? But they had been told that the Irish peasant could never be made to comprehend the propriety and advantage of the change—this hocus pocus conversion of tithes into land, and the substitution of the King in the place of the Protestant clergyman. In reply to this, he must say, Paddy was by no means a dull fellow. He had heard of his ignorance of English when called upon to give evidence; of his being a little deaf when desired to do what he disliked; but he must be allowed absolutely and entirely to deny his dulness of comprehension. Let the matter be explained to him as it was, and he would quickly understand it; and, if he had a head to understand, so had he a heart to feel—a heart which was in the right place, and which only wanted to be aware that kindness was meant, to be ready to overflow with gratitude and good-will. For the reasons which he had stated, he felt himself bound to support the proposed Resolutions. He thought that the evidence already before the House warranted them in going thus far at present. In his opinion, the coercive part of the Resolutions was amply compensated by the conciliatory part—the promise of commutation. This step was a great one: all could not be achieved at once; more would be accomplished hereafter.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Galley Knight) surprises me: he says, that the property of the Church is appropriated as it ever was, and ever must be; he denies the public and charitable appropriation. I beg to say he is mistaken: let him turn to ancient authorities—turn to Origen, who wrote "that the Church

987
should not devour those things that belonged to the poor and the widow, but be content with simple diet and apparel;" to Prosser, who wrote "that the minister able to support himself ought not to participate in the food of the Church;" to the decree of the council of Antioch, which says, "that the Bishops do distribute the goods of the Church," but required "that they took no part to themselves;" to the council of Nantz, which declared, "that the clergy were not to use tithe, but as committed to their trust, to be disposed of for the use of the poor." Tithes were called "the Lord's goods"—"the patrimony of the poor." The hon. Gentleman mistakes terms, and confounds principles—he narrows the term "Church" to, the clergy, whereas its real acceptation among others is "God's people," the "poor and the destitute." How then can he say, that the clergy possess an exclusive right to this property? What is their title but the Act of Henry 8th? They hold their property under this law, and under no other title, and they hold it subject to the ancient uses for which it was intended. The Report of the Committee, in one part, seems to favour this interpretation, for it speaks of an extensive change in the present system of maintaining the clergy, and of the complete extinction of tithes, therefore, I support the Amendment, because it is similar to one I intended to submit to the Committee—because it reverts to original principles, and because, while it secures the best interests of the clergy, it points out a provision for the poor, and a relief for the people. This is what we ask—this is what we conceive to be just, and we know it to be requisite. Allow me to say that I conceive it to be one of the misfortunes of the Ministers of England, and originally the cause of the distress and disgrace which now attend their Government of Ireland—that they should never have heard the language of truth, except in the complaints of her people. Perhaps, it is not yet too late to correct this original error. The Irish themselves are far from thinking the noble Lord, who in this House presides over the Administration, capable of a direct attack upon their dearest rights, and the legal protection of their persons and their property. They are ready to hope for much from his honest intentions and from the natural benevolence of his disposition; if it were possible in us to form a suspicion dis-
988
honourable to his character, I hope we should adopt a style of remonstrance very different from the humility of complaint. It is worth while, considering how far we agree, and where we differ—first, we agree on the great importance of the subject—it is not only an Irish but an English question. To the Irish it is a question of life and death—to the English it is one of security and repose, for England can never be safe unless Ireland is tranquil. I agree in the three first Resolutions. Though I differ on the principle laid down, I do not admit the right of the clergy to come to this House, and ask for the arrears withheld, any more than I would the right of a landlord. On the contrary, I conceive a good resident landlord preferable to an absentee clergyman, who has no church and no parishioners—but I am willing to grant as a benevolence what I deny as a right. Here, too, the case is overturned, and not fully made out; it is founded on partial testimony, and the most essential evidence is not yet before the House. The fourth Resolution is the most objectionable. If I refer to the Report, I read there that "rigorous measures" must be adopted, and the execution of measures of severity. If I refer to the speech of the Solicitor General, I find that he is only to dispense with the service of process. Can I believe this to be the only thing in contemplation? Impossible; if the Resolution means to be effectual it does not go far enough. I will not trust such a Resolution. This Committee was called a blind Committee, and this I call a muffled Resolution; it is brought in, too, with a theatrical parade, and is cautiously kept from the view, where the drapery conceals the bowl that is to lull our senses, and the weapon that is to wound us to the heart. Can the Solicitor General imagine that he removes the evil by dispensing with the legal form of the process? I tell him no. He will be just where he stood before, for what becomes of his decree? who is to buy? who is to purchase? He dispenses with the form of law, but will that secure a sale, or procure a single bidder? He must know it will not, and he is likely to find that his royal prosecutor will prove to be the only purchaser. Sir, the fault I find in the mode of treating this subject is, that the people of Ireland are wholly forgotten. The Secretary for Ireland talked much of the clergy and their usefulness—he forgot the people—

989
he talked of the military and their arduous labour—he forgot the people. He talked of the police and their dangers, and their losses, but he forgot the people—he forgot their wants, their complaints, and their sufferings. I much doubt whether a lofty tone and a dictatorial phraseology is best suited for the case, the crisis, or the country. We are told, you "must vindicate the authority of the law—assert the dignity of insulted justice—do not offer a premium for revolt against the law, or give any reward for disaffection." In my judgment the question is not whether we should vindicate bad laws, but amend them—not whether we should assert the dignity of an oppressive and unjust system, but totally reform it—not give premiums for abuse in the state, but remove them at once and for ever. Now, I conceive the remedy is not the strong Resolution, but a Resolution for redress. English gentlemen deceive themselves if they imagine that by changing the name they remove the evil. It will still exist, whether paid by the landlord, or extracted from the tenant—the abuse will still exist. The trust remains violated, and the country discontented, for it is not the amount of tithe so much as its bad appropriation. The people look to this, and will not be satisfied until they obtain it. But here we are told, in ominous terms, that "the day of collision" has been put off. The day of collision! Are those the words of the Secretary? Has it come to this? Has the Government—or the effect of all your varied governments in Ireland, indeed, only come to this, "that the day of collision is put off." Sir, I make no comments on the prudence of the phrase—but I here take leave to caution the people of Ireland. I call on them to mark these words; to ponder over these words; to be cautious what they do; to be careful that they be not entrapped by insidious friends, or deadly foes; to guard, as well as to control, their passions and their acts, for they may depend upon it, that violence will frustrate their object, it will defeat their friends, destroy their cause, and endanger their country. But I rely on it, that an antidote to violence will be found in the good conduct of the people, as I am sure it will be in the good feelings of the government. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to attack the Irish landlords—an old theme, and not a just one—and much overstated. In some cases they may be
990
bad landlords, as well as in England but, as a general charge, I deny it. See, however, the policy of this attack. The right hon. Secretary finds two parties in Ireland at variance—the clergy and the people—and he sets at variance two other parties—the landlords and the people; and he does so at the moment that he proposes to tax the one without relieving the other—to make the landlord pay the tithe, to make the tenant pay the cess, and thus he gives all to the Church, and takes all he can from the landlords and the people. Connected with this he revived the stale subject of the subdivision of land—that miserable crotchet on which the fleeting fame of so many Irish Secretaries hung and expired. The Subletting Act he spoke of—the Subletting Act he exclaimed against, and most emphatically did he say—"in my conscience I believe the Subletting Act to be the curse of Ireland." Sir, without offence, let me say, what is the curse of Ireland? Sir, the curse of Ireland is an inexperienced Secretary. Is this my opinion alone? No, Sir, non hic sermo meus; look to Carte's life of the Duke of Ormonde; the evils of Ireland he attributes to the constant changes of the civil officers—men sent over ignorant of the state of that country, and recalled before they knew the wants and wishes of the people, and had time or knowledge sufficient to relieve them. Fraught with his official learning, and his historical advice, the right hon. Secretary proceeded, and observed, that the time had now arrived, in which we must—"teach a lesson to the people of Ireland," such were his words, and he added. "Ireland must no longer look to her turbulence and her agitation." Teach Ireland a lesson! Is this the language? Why, they have taught her nothing, nothing but lessons—lessons, too, that she sadly remembers. I pass over the Boyne, Aughrim—even the perjured faith of the treaty of Limerick; I lay aside that lesson—I turn to the books on your Table—I refer to the Acts of Elizabeth, and her proclamation enjoining torture to her president in Munster. What will the Secretary say of that lesson? I refer to the journals of this House: read the solemn vote of thanks to the Almighty, offered up to Heaven for the sacking and the three days massacre at Drogheda; here, was indeed a lesson, and under correction from the hon. Mem-

991
ber opposite, who invoked, the other night, repentance and a general fast—I say a most pious lesson this was, truly. I refer to the treaty of Charles, and his breach of faith towards the Irish people, and his infraction of their petition of right. I refer to the cowardly treachery of another King, the second James, who idler having embarked the Irish nation in his cause, basely fled from his own fire, and justified those words—"Put not your trust in Princes." I dwell not on the lesson taught by the Tories of old, or the Roundheads, or the Cavaliers—I come to 1779, and 1782, when, on these benches, sat my Lord North, deaf and insensible to the complaints of the people of Ireland. They asked for free trade and a free constitution, the people were patient—though they were starving—they were suppliants—they were but humble petitioners; but the Minister was deaf—he refused to yield—he talked, too, of "vindicating the law"—he, too, spoke of "mobs and insulted justice"—and he refused everything. But, in two years time, when the Irish nation had buckled on her armour, and the clang was heard from field to field—when there were 100,000 men in arms, and 300 pieces of cannon there—then the Minister came down to this House, granted everything, yielded everything, repeal of Poyning'slaw, independent legislation,even the restoration of the final judicature, which had not been originally demanded, and thus he yielded to violence that which he had before refused to justice. This was, indeed, a lesson, and it is treasured in the recollection of the nation—a lesson, however, to the minister as well as to the people; but later, in 1791–2, when the privileges then demanded were sternly refused; when the petitions of the people were not merely rejected, but actually kicked out of the House, how did the Minister act? He refused every thing to cairn request and sober petition, but, as soon as the battle of Jemappe had been lost, then he hurried down, and made a precipitate surrender. Here are lessons surely that we cannot forget; we cannot belie the history of our country, and though we may forgive our wrongs, we cannot forget our education. But I turn to the ex-Secretary opposite. Ireland need not go very far back. She need only look from the Secretary in to the Secretary out, from the right hon. Gentleman at this side of the Table to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Did not the right hon.
992
Baronet refuse the requests of the Irish people? their calm demands, and their just prayers; Session after Session, year after year; five years, ten years, twenty years—no concessions. Nay, the very reverse, for both those Irish ex-Secretaries declared that they opposed all concessions, because they wished to uphold the Church and the Constitution of the country; and I saw and heard them afterwards both declare, that they yielded what they before denied. The one said he did so to uphold the Church, and the other to preserve the Constitution!!! Do I blame them for thus retracting?—No. The feelings of humanity triumphed over the errors of an early education, and the precepts and principles of the Dublin Castle were for a moment forgotten. But when was this? Not until the public calamity had reached its height—not until the waters of bitterness had nigh overflowed the land—not until the hour of collision had almost arrived—not until violence and agitation had so increased that the very phrase became part of the viceregal phraseology—then, but not till then, you yielded. Here, then, is a lesson with a vengance! Here is your own lesson of twenty years' practice held up to your view. Is it then just, is it fair, is it prudent—nay, is it expedient, to turn upon us—thus to taunt—thus to upbraid the country? Teach Ireland lessons, truly! What extravagance!—what insanity of phrase! Talk not to her of vindicating justice. Read in your own lesson your own errors. 'Tis you, 'tis you, who have misled the people—'tis you who have brought them on to dangerous ways: and do you now not only desert, but upbraid them? This is another and an additional lesson. You have deceived the country—you have taught Ireland these dangerous practices, those fatal lessons of immorality—you have poisoned her with your deadly potions until the profligacy of the master has almost become the daily bread of his mistress—then you turn on the unfortunate victim of your bad passions, and, in the moment of her distraction, you recite the catalogue of her errors, (your own crimes) and preach to her a homily upon the doctrine of forbearance. Yes, Sir, Ireland has learnt a lesson. Ireland has dearly purchased it. Agitation is the price that Ireland has ever paid for liberty. I wish her laurels had worn well, for they were dearly earned. The right hon. Baronet objected to my friend, the member

993
for Kildare, on account of his expression that he considered tithes a badge of servitude. Sir, I adopt the phrase—it is a badge of servitude: and my hon. friend need only look to Scotland—there he finds a nation who considered it a badge of servitude to have imposed upon them as the religion of the state that which was not the religion of the people. They successfully resisted, and they succeeded. But my hon. friend did not object to pay that Church—for he pays now the Presbyterian. His objection was, to the abuse of the trust. The objection was, that the poor curate, who works, gets little, and the rector, who does not work, gets almost all. Look to the petitions on the Table. That from Gowran parish, where there are 2,700 Catholics, and only thirty-three Protestants, and the tithes are 550 l. Ballyconbeen, county Waterford, there are no Protestants, the tithes are 378 l. Aglis, county Cork, fourteen Protestants, 610 l. tithe; Monasterboyse, all Catholics except the curate and his wife, tithes 800 l. a-year; Cloney, no church, no resident clergyman, tithes 300 l. a-year; Kilcork, no Protestant, no church, no clergyman; Dungarvan, seventeen Protestants, tithe and cess 500 l. a-year; Monaniny, one Protestant family, tithes 400 l. a-year. These are just grounds of complaint. The people see no services performed, and pay heavy taxes notwithstanding. But is there no abuse besides this? I hold here a tithe-proctor's receipt. The tithe due was 5s. 3d and the costs of distress and sale, and proctor's fees, amounted to 13 s. 10 s.—For this the poor man's pig valued at two guineas was sold, and the change returned was ls. 11 d. I hold another receipt for 10 s. two years' tithe of an acre of bad meadow, demanded and paid seven years after it was alleged to be due—clearly an illegal demand. What is the case of turf or smoke-money, as it was called? This, too was clearly an illegal demand, and, so far back as the time of Lord Clare, he stated in Parliament that the demand for turf was an illegal demand. I contend the people pay more than the tenth if all costs and expenses are considered. The member for Preston said, in England the tithes were often one-fifth of the rent. I instanced the case of the parish of Timoleague, 2,800 acres, the rent-roll valued by Government valuation at 1,700 l. a-year, and the tithe 414 l. a-year, or near a fourth. And here the first quality of land I find
994
valued at 9s. an acre. What is the case of Kilbrue parish? There thirty-three acres were tithed at 36 l., or one guinea an acre. I conceive that was near one-third of the rent; and I would wish to ask, how much of the produce? In fact, if the case is closely examined, it will appear that the charges are not only unjust, but exorbitant. See the cases when tithe is thrown out and the party still proceeded against by bill in the Exchequer. Should not these grievances be remedied? And do the Resolutions go to any effectual remedy of these points? But, is there no other evil? What is the case of Church cess? Is this no complaint? See the occurrence that lately took place in the county of Monaghan, where an unfortunate man's goods were seized for Church cess, and the implements of his husbandry were taken. This was clearly illegal. He resisted, and was killed on the spot by the collector. The amount of the cess was only sevenpence. The man was tried at the last Assizes for murder. The warrant was declared to be illegal. The Jury were sent back to their room three times, and at length brought in a verdict of acquittal! These things naturally inflame and excite the people; the more so, when it appears that clerical Magistrates act in such cases, and when warrants for Church cess are ordered and signed by clergymen. This is another evil; and the Magistracy should in this instance be reformed. I say, that it is idle to think these Resolutions will afford a sufficient remedy. You must go to the root of the evil. You must reform so as to afford redress. The people, I am sure, will be tranquil. I am also sure they will not be denied. They see the whole of their case, and Session after Session will bring it before the Legislature; and, by persevering in a constitutional course, will finally procure redress. For my part, I do not stand in need of their instructions, or even of the requests of my constituents. Justice is on their side; and, in seeking for that, we seek not the spoliation of the Church, or the downfall of the Establishment. On the contrary, its fall is more to be apprehended from its overgrown wealth than from any lopping off of so gorgeous and superb a structure. Depend on it the question is more deeply rooted in the minds of the people than Gentlemen suppose. It is in vain to hope they will be satisfied with a mere change of name. The appropriation is what they look

995
to. I repeat it, that it is a question of life or death. I would not advise the Minister to go to war with the people of Ireland.
Mr. Lefroysaid, as a friend to the Church, to the law, to good order, and to the connexion of Ireland with this country, a connexion so important to the welfare of both, he could not sit silent, nor content himself by merely giving a vote on this question, without making some observations upon the doctrines which had just been advanced by the hon. Gentleman. He thanked the hon. member for Downpatrick, for having brought forward a distinct Resolution, which would at once give the House an opportunity of ascertaining whether the Church enjoyed its property by sufferance only, or by right and title. The Resolution, however, although professing to be one of peace, purported to refer to the original title of the Church, and to look back to the first application of Church property; but the hon. Member in the course of his speech abandoned altogether that ground. It was then taken up by the hon. Member who last addressed the House; for in the beginning of his speech, he insisted upon the right of the application of Church property after the manner he mentioned; and in the very concluding sentence of it he called upon the House to apply this property according to its original trust. It was, therefore, of importance that it should be ascertained whether there was any ground whatever for this claim now made—this obsolete and, as he had considered, abandoned claim with respect to the application of Church property to three or four specific objects. When, on a former occasion, an hon. Member quoted a passage from Blackstone in support of this claim, he (Mr. Lefroy) had taken the opportunity of saying, that if he had looked a little further into Blackstone, he would have found that the construction he put upon that quotation was totally unauthorized; and that Blackstone did not use the words in the sense in which the hon. Member had interpreted them. He had not heard from that hon. Member since, or of the doctrine which he founded upon that authority. He, therefore, took it for granted that he had given up a position so untenable. The hon. member for Meath had referred to a vast variety of continental authorities; but had he referred the House to any act of the King
996
in Council, to a single Act of Parliament, or to a single decision of any court of law, or to any dictum of any Judge, which maintained the doctrine, that Church property was originally applicable to the sustentation of the poor, of the Bishop, and the incumbent, and to the repairing of the Church? Had he mentioned a single trace or vestige of authority of any such right having been insisted upon or enforced? He should like to know what sort of right that was, for which no authority of law could be produced, and for the exercise of which no precedent could be found within legal memory, or even in the course of tradition. It had been said by the hon. Member, that the Church derived its title from an Act of Parliament, and that Parliament had a right to deal as it pleased with Church property, because it was originally given by Parliament. He would take leave to ask the hon. Member upon what he founded that position? The Church derived its property, not from the State, nor from Parliament, but from original endowments. She derived her property from the very same source, by grant and endowment—from which every hon. Member in that House, and every noble Peer in the other House, derived his estate. Those estates descended to them, charged with the payment of tithes, and the Church had the same qualification for enjoying them as those persons had to enjoy the remaining nine-tenths. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Reformation consisted in a transfer of Church property. The Church property at the Reformation remained in the hands of the Church, and had been transmitted to those who held it now. The Reformation consisted in the modification of the Established Church, in respect of doctrine, discipline, and supremacy. But the property of the Church at the time she, in convocation, made that change in doctrine and supremacy, and conformed her discipline to it, consisted of less than 200 livings, and these have been transmitted to her successors: it was a great mistake, therefore, to say that the Church derived her property from an Act of Parliament. The only property transferred by Act of Parliament, was property vested in the monasteries, and what was not transferred from the monasteries, vested in the Crown. In all those original endowments, of which there were many now forthcoming, there was not a single vestige of proof that any part of the pro-

997
perty was intended to be devoted to the poor, and to the repair of the Church. But if there were any foundation whatever for the claim to a third, or a fourth, in point of law, the fact could be established, that the Church of Ireland did not enjoy more than a third or a fourth of the tithe. According to the evidence before the Committee, it was quite plain that the clergy of the Church of Ireland did not levy for their tithe even so much as a third of their right: therefore, upon any hypothesis, the claim now made on the behalf of the poor was not sustainable. But it had been said, that in several parts of Ireland the proportion of the Catholics to the Protestants was so great, that it was most unreasonable that the tithes should be applied to the maintenance of the Church of Ireland. Then a claim was set up on behalf of the majority, for the maintenance of their Church. But the majority for this purpose must be, not a mere numerical majority, but a majority of those who paid tithes. Now of the property in Ireland seven-tenths belonged to the Protestants. When Gentlemen talked of levying a tax on the majority, for the maintenance of the minority, they used the word majority in a sense totally inapplicable to this purpose. The question was not a numerical majority, but a majority of those who had the property charged with tithe. But if the numerical majority had a right on that ground alone to the one-tenth, upon the same principle they would have a right to the other nine-tenths. There was no ground of distinction; nor could any such claim be sustainable to the one-tenth, which would not extend to the other nine-tenths. This doctrine, therefore, would go to the total subversion of all law, and of the constitution of society, when that claim, founded upon the entire subversion of the popular principle of law, was asserted and mainly rested upon by Gentlemen in that House. He rejoiced to find that a system of spoliation was disclaimed by his Majesty's Government. He trusted the declaration made by the noble Lord last night, namely, that the property of the Church was only to be applied to the purposes of the Church might be considered as a satisfactory assurance that his Majesty's Ministers were perfectly sincere in their desire of benefitting the Church by this measure: at the same time that they were endeavouring to afford relief to the people by altering
998
the mode of collecting the Church property. He felt that it was a measure which, as a friend to the Church, both of England and of Ireland, might be good, accompanied, as it had been, by the assurance, and by the recommendation of the Committee, that the rights of the Church should be preserved, he might well assent. If these pledges should be redeemed, and the Church property be put upon a footing that would hereafter advance the cause of religion, then would the change now proposed be beneficial. It was in the belief that such would be its result, that he gave it his support. But, on the other hand, if it was intended to take from the Church any part of its property, or to put the clergy in a condition of mere rent-chargers, then he considered himself bound, and trusted that every friend of the Church would feel bound, to oppose a measure of that sort. With respect to the Resolution for enabling his Majesty's Government to take effectual measures to recover the rents, he trusted it would not only have the sanction of that House, but that it would be put into execution by the Government with vigour and determination: for he was perfectly satisfied they must make up their mind either to govern Ireland effectually, or to lose it. That country was now in such a state, if it was to be left to accident and agitation, and to the power of those parties who had had possession and dominion over it for some time past, he was perfectly satisfied it would be lost—lost to England and lost to itself; because he was sure that the best interests of Ireland would always be maintained by its connexion with England; and that by a severance from England, Ireland must be lost.
Mr. Penrhynsaid, it was not his intention to trespass more than a few moments on the time of the House. He felt that this was an extremely important question, and trusted that, in approaching the discussion of it, he might be thought to do so with no other feeling, and no other wish, than to follow that course which appeared to him to be promotive of the best interests of Ireland. In his opinion those interests would be best promoted, by measures which should evince an anxious desire on the part of the Legislature to conciliate, and not provoke that hostility which, unfortunately, had reigned so long between that country and this, and which had checked the prosperity and growing interest that otherwise

999
would have taken place between countries so intimately connected. Looking at the state of Ireland generally, but more particularly looking at the state of that country in regard to the system of tithes, it was evident that the time was come when it was absolutely necessary for his Majesty's Government to take up that question with a view to its permanent settlement, and of putting an end, for all future time, to those evils which that question had produced. From the events which had recently occurred, it was obvious that any measure to be final and satisfactory must proceed from the Legislature. A question attended with so many difficulties, and involving so many vested interests, could not be satisfactorily settled by any Government, nor ought the Legislature to leave it to any Government to settle. No government could have, or would deserve to have, the confidence of the people, that did not enforce the law as long as it was the law of the country; while, at the same time, it was equally imperative that it should attend to the complaints of the people, and to provide such constitutional remedies for their grievances, as, by the aid of the wisdom of Parliament, might be thought most applicable to the case. Judging upon this principle, he was not aware that the present Government were open to the imputation of not having done their duty to the country. It did not appear that they had, on the one hand, omitted to exercise the powers of the law, wherever the exercise of them was demanded—or, on the other hand, neglected—to apply a remedy to the grievances of the people, when those grievances were made known to them. But it must be admitted that there existed in Ireland two very opposite parties, and that the difficulty of governing that country was considerably aggravated by the collision of those parties; and it was almost impossible for Government to adopt any course which should give satisfaction to both. He trusted that the Members of that House, whether from Ireland or not, would feel it to be their duty to legislate, not for a party, but for the nation at large. When the powers of the law were found insufficient to preserve the peace and to protect the property of the country, it became the duty of that House to support the Government in their application for additional powers; and, in the present case, his Majesty's Ministers had
1000
acted that part which was best adapted to promote the real interests of Ireland; while, by their determination to enforce the law for the upholding of the rights of the Church, they had given a most eloquent refutation to the charge that had been made against them of their being a popularity-hunting Government. The Resolutions appeared to him to contain in them all that was essential. First, it was proposed to provide for the immediate and pressing wants of the clergy; secondly, to vindicate the law so long as it was the law of the land; and, thirdly, to hold out to the people a promise that the more immediately urgent measures should be followed up by such other measures as should for ever put an end to the evils of which they complained. It had been said that the evidence upon which they were proceeding was insufficient. He readily admitted that it was insufficient to enable the House to determine what should be the remedy; but this was an extremely different thing from what they were now called upon to do. He did not believe anything would give more satisfaction to the people than to point out a remedy before the danger came; for what were the facts to which the attention of the House was called? First, that there was in Ireland a systematic resistance to the payment of tithes. Was there any person who had read the evidence before the Committee, that would not admit that such was the case? The next fact was, the insufficiency of the present law. To this fact they had the testimony of the men whose duty it was to carry that law into effect, and they all declared the impossibility of recovering tithes under the existing law. As to the next point, with regard to the necessity of some remedial measure, surely they had ample evidence. Ireland was now undergoing the fiery ordeal of Irish agitation. There were persons in Ireland who, by every means in their power, were exciting the hostility of the people to the system of tithes. The magic word had gone forth; and by means of public meetings, of political pamphlets, and pastoral letters, a system of resistance had been successfully established throughout many of the counties in Ireland. It would be sufficient for him to state that that feeling had begun to take possession of the minds of the peasantry of Ireland, and that it had caused them to offer no longer, even that passive resistance with which they com-

1001
menced. As a proof of this he would remind hon. Members of the occurrence at Bennett's Bridge; and only desire those who were incredulous on this point, to look into the daily papers of Ireland, where they would read of the constant and open resistance that was now made to the payment of tithes. When those pastoral mandates were issued, he was quite sure the parties had no idea of what the results would be: but this only shewed to what extremes the people would go in opposing what they conceived to be an unjust law. The consequence of all this had been, to reduce highly respectable clergymen from that station in life which, by their connexions, education, and calling, they were entitled to hold, to a condition in some cases, of the most distressing description. It had been said that this was mainly owing to their own exactions. Without pretending to deny that there were some instances in which this accusation might be properly brought, he would maintain that the clergy, as a body, were not liable to the charge. He did not believe that the Catholics themselves would make so sweeping an accusation. So far from this being the case, he could fairly assert that the clergy, in very few instances, had received anything equal to their legal rights, few indeed had exacted so much as they would have been entitled to, under the Composition Act. But if there were matters on which they might differ, there were other points on which they could not butagree. They might differ as to the paying collecting, and distributing of tithes, but it was impossible for them to entertain, different opinions as to the necessity of meeting the claims of the clergy, not only upon their humanity, but upon their sense of justice, in this, the hour of their adversity. His Majesty's Government, however, had another, and a very important, duty to perform, and that was, to support the laws so long as they were the laws of the land. No person who wished well to good order and to the very being of society, could permit the people to take the law into their own hands, and be themselves the arbiters of what should or should not be considered a lawful claim. It was quite evident, that if any Government once permitted this, as regarded one species of legal demand, the same popular doctrine might soon be made to apply to rents and debts of all descriptions, as well as to tithes. They were told to wait until they
1002
could bring forward this remedial measure; but were Gentlemen aware that the spirit of resistance was spreading itself day by day, and that if any delay was suffered to take place in checking its progress, the whole people of Ireland would be subject to the interdict of the agitators? No man entertained greater aversion to acts of severity than he did; but, at the same time, he felt it absolutely necessary that the authority of the law should be vindicated. It was most dangerous to allow the system of preventing those farmers, who thought they ought to pay the clergymen, from doing so, by the influence of terror. A similar system was pursued with regard to the clergyman, who was afraid to resort to that legal remedy which the law allowed him; and with regard to the Jurors, who were afraid to give a verdict against the defendant in tithe cases. Such was the state of things in Ireland, and it was one which required the strict attention of his Majesty's Government, and they ought to consider well whether the authority of the law should not be enforced, in order to put a stop to this system of terror. It was the bounden duty of Parliament to assist the clergy in the recovery of that to which, by law, they were entitled. The course recommended by his Majesty's Government was calculated for the attainment of this object; and, therefore, it had his cordial support. At the same time, he would not support the giving any authority of this nature, if it were not accompanied with such arrangements as would satisfy the people of Ireland, and the adoption of some general system of paying the clergy, in the place of the present obnoxious tithe system. He had observed with regret, that those who had influence over the public mind in Ireland had thought it right to oppose the Government, for if they had taken a different course the propositions would have received the willing assent of the people. All parties agreed that the clergy should be relieved, and no better course had been suggested than that laid down in these Resolutions. There was a systematic violation of the law in Ireland; measures had been employed to excite the people against it, and such power ought to be intrusted to his Majesty's Government as would enable it to enforce the law.
Mr. James Grattanwas very desirous to see peace and tranquillity restored in

1003
Ireland, but he confessed that he did not look upon the measure which the right hon. Secretary had it in contemplation to bring forward as calculated to still the agitation or to quell the unquiet feeling which was abroad in Ireland on the subject of tithes. There was not an Irish Member possessing a single acre of land in Ireland who was not affected by the question; and they owed it to themselves, and to their constituents, to sift the matter thoroughly, and prevent any renewed oppression. He must complain of the manner in which the Committee, to which the investigation of the question had been referred was constituted, and the consequence of which was, that, with the exception of a single witness, all the evidence was in favour of the tithe party. He deprecated all hurry in passing any measure on the subject. He wished to facilitate the settlement of the question, and would promote any measure which he thought would succeed; and he now advised delay, because he did not think that the Resolutions proposed would have that effect. He denied that the distress of the Protestant clergy in Ireland was so great as it had been represented to be. On referring to the evidence, it appeared that the rev. Mr. Butler said, that the whole of the composition for the rectorial and vicarial tithe in his parish amounted to about 570 l.; and between 300 l. and 400 l. of this was collected. This Gentleman collected his tithes to November, 1830; and no case of distress had been made out in that instance. The rev. Mr. Cotton, son-in-law of the Archbishop of Cashel, and Archdeacon of that diocese, rector of Thurles, and vicar of the union of four parishes, called Lismalin, stated, that his income was upwards of 2,000 l. a year, but that last year he could collect only 50 l., and that more than half the tithes of 1830 was unpaid. He had been able to collect less than any other person; but he could not be in great pecuniary distress, looking at his connection with the Archbishop of the diocese. Again, the rev. Mr. Roberts had not been able to collect more than a very small portion of his tithes. The rev. Mr. Dwyer held a living of 800 l. per annum, and had not been able to collect more than a portion of his tithes. It was given in evidence that the clergymen were obliged to lay down their horses and carriages, in consequence of the withholding the payment of
1004
tithes; but if that Was the extent of the distress, it did not require immediate parliamentary relief. He would not oppose the first Resolution; though it was not free from objection. He was convinced that the plan for collecting the arrears never could be acted upon, and that it would lead to the greatest mischief. It was said, if a man did net pay his arrears, he must go to gaol; but such a proceeding would kindle a flame throughout the country difficult or impossible to extinguish. It was said by the right hon. Member opposite, on a former occasion, that there was a precedent in 1532, for the present proceeding relative to tithes, when, in consequence of the payment having been resisted in some placed, a different appropriation of them was determined on, and provision was Made, for recovery of the arrears then due. The cases however, were essentially different, and the precedent quoted would not apply. The volume on the Table contained the examination of seventeen witnesses, whose evidence had, in many particulars, been controverted by that subsequently given, and, more especially by that of Dr. Doyle and Mr. Montgomery. The question was a great and an important one, and the House should not be called on to come to a decision until it was in full possession of all the information which could be collected. A Jury was not required to give in a verdict with only half the case before them; nor should the House of Commons, on half a report, decide on a question in which great and important interests are involved. He believed that the gentleman would undertake to pay the parochial clergy the full amount of their claims, if it was clearly understood that, on the death of the present incumbents, a different appropriation should be made of the tithes. He did not wish to withhold assistance from the clergy, but he recommended that the House should vote a sum of money on account, for the purpose of relieving them, and then postpone the collection of the arrears until all measures respecting tithes was completed. It appeared by evidence, that the annual amount of tithes in Ireland was 700,000 l.—a monstrous and intolerable sum. The annual amount of the Grand Jury presentments which had been so much calumniated, and out of which many poor establishments were maintained, the expense of which ought to be borne by the tithes, was only 850,000 l. He really believed

1005
that, in many cases, the occasional losses of the farmer, the fluctuations of different seasons, and other circumstances, being taken into account, the clergyman got more than a tenth—more than he was entitled to. He denied that tithes were property which could not be meddled with. The Protestants in the north of Ireland, who had established their own moduses at their own pleasure, were the most urgent for the general payment of tithes; thus throwing the principal burthen on the poor Catholic tiller. It was a wonder that such a system of diversity, confusion, and irritation, as the tithe system of Ireland, had gone on so long. The right hon. Secretary talked of vindicating the law, but he was not vindicating the law: he was bringing in a new law. Again, he must urge the postponement of the scheme, in order that they might all lay their heads together for the purpose of endeavouring to devise some plan that should be substantially beneficial. He was decidedly of opinion that a portion of the tithes should go to the poor; and that the Protestant clergy who did the duty of the Church should receive a greater share of the emoluments of that Church. Had such considerations as these been attended to, Ireland would not have been convulsed from north to south on the subject.
Mr. Huntsaid, that, at that late hour, as no doubt there was not a single Irish Member who was not anxious to give his opinion upon the subject, and as, therefore, it was hopeless to expect to finish the discussion that night, he would move as an amendment, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the Chairman had no progress to report. This was the third day of the discussion, and yet the Committee had not passed one single Resolution. If they went on in this manner, day after day, making speeches on all the Resolutions, and not agreeing to one, time would be wasted, and the public business Would be at a stand. He hoped that, after the long debate which had taken place, they would come to a decision on some of the Resolutions. To the first, second, and third, the objections seemed but slight; to the fourth and fifth they were more weighty. What he proposed was, first, to dispose of the Amendment of the hon. member for Downpatrick, and then to take the sense of the Committee on the first three Resolutions. He would
1006
afterwards have no objection to postpone, for a short time, the last two Resolutions,
Mr. Mullinswished the hon. member for Preston to withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Wysesaid, he could not allow the first three Resolutions to pass without opposition.
Mr. Lambertwished the Committee to proceed.
Mr. Huntsaid, that, if the Irish Members were content to put money into the pockets of the clergy, he was not, and, therefore, he would persist in his Motion.
Mr. Sheilsuggested that, as the hon Member had manifested his desire to press his praiseworthy Resolution, and as a division would merely excite delay, he should withdraw his Amendment. He believed no further debate would take place.
Mr. Hunt, on that understanding, would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Committee divided on Mr. Ruthven's Amendment: Ayes 27; Noes 123—Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Bainbridge, E. T.

*Lambert, H.

*Bellew, Sir E.

*Leader, N. P.

*Brownlow, C.

*Macnamara, W. N.

*Chapman, M. L.

*O'Farrell, H. M.

*Doyle, Sir J. M.

*O'Callaghan, D.

Duncombe, T. S.

*O'Connell, M.

*French, A.

*Power, R.

Gillon, W. D.

*Sheil, R. L.

*Grattan, H.

Torrens, Colonel

*Grattan, J.

*Walker, C. A.

Hunt, H.

*Wallace, T.

*Ingestrie, Lord

*Wyse, T.

*Jephson, C. D. O.

TELLER.

*Killeen, Lord

*Ruthven, E. S.

*Lambert, J.

Those marked thus * are Members for Ireland.
On the first Resolution being again put,
Mr. Wysesaid, he would place before the House, as briefly as he could, the motives which induced him to offer opposition to some of the statements contained in the three first Resolutions. Several of the Protestant clergy were stated to be in the utmost distress, owing to the existing combination and resistance to tithe; and the State was called upon to come forward to their assistance. This allegation was grounded, both on the Report and Resolutions, on the evidence before the House. As he had already observed, at an earlier period of the night, he did not think these

1007
allegations were borne out by the evidence adduced before the Committee, and, therefore, unless further proof of the fact was advanced, he could not assent to such statement, and, of course, could not vote for the grant of money now proposed. He begged to be distinctly understood—in his mind, there were two points, essentially different, to be considered. First, whether, if such a case as that which had been stated did exist, the clergy would be entitled to public relief; and, secondly, whether such case did or did not exist. To the first of these propositions he could not refuse his assent, because if the teachers of a Christian institution, the guardians of public morality, the salaried officers of the public were guaranteed by that public in the enjoyment of their offices or salaries, it must be admitted, that the public were bound, by the strictest ties which could bind nations or individuals, to fulfil the engagement, and to afford protection and security for their enjoyment until some new contract with the same or other individuals was entered into by the State. The State acted thus in all other cases; and if it did not act so, it would virtually be signing its own death-warrant, and would openly teach disaffection and disorganization, by taking away from property and personal rights security—the real essence of all social institutions. The case had been confounded with that of landlords; but it was widely different. Those, at least, who considered clergymen, not as landlords, but as servants of the State, for the uses of the State, could not object to this conclusion. Landlords, indeed, might be reduced to much the same position, by an act of the State itself—an improvident, fraudulent, or precipitate law—like too many of the financial laws, as they operated in Ireland; and, in such cases, perhaps, in strictness of justness the, State ought to intervene. But these cases were rare; and, as the State did not interfere with their profits, or claim a right to do so, so neither should it be called upon to redress or retrieve, by pecuniary relief, any loss they might sustain. He would not, then, refuse to the clergy, as such, any fair relief, provided the justifying case for such relief was first made out. Upon these premises he based his argument. It appeared to him, that two conditions were necessary for this purpose; first, that the individual was in a state of distress; and secondly, that he had not
1008
brought that distress upon himself. If these conditions really existed, he for one, would not hesitate an instant, but give cheerfully, not as charity, but as strict right. Then came the main question. Were these conditions fulfilled? He contended they were not. He grounded this assertion, not on vain hearsay, or vainer imagination, but on those documents, upon which the right hon. Secretary relied for the opposite conclusion. The complaint was, that the Protestant clergy were in the greatest suffering and distress. What was the evidence to bear this out? The first instance given by the right hon. Secretary was that of Dr. Butler. He stood at the head of the suffering clergy. The words of the complaint in his own letter were:—"I have been banished from my home and duty, a starving exile." Banished? Where, did the House think?—to Cheltenham; "from comfort to absolute poverty." This statement must be compared, however, with the assertion of his parishioners, and of hon. Members in that House. These assertions, it was true, had not been proved, but neither had the assertions of the reverend Doctor. Both should be inquired into, and both weighed by other evidence. One thing was certain, that Dr. Butler was in possession of the tithe-right of thirteen parishes, extending thirty-two miles, producing, with all deductions, a rental of 1,400 l., and he had been in possession of this income for thirty-six years; and he was stated to have purchased to the extent of 300 acres in the same county. Sir John Harvey had been quoted by the right hon. Secretary, in the next instance. The question, No. 113, was as follows; "A gentleman with whom I am well acquainted told me, he had just been sending a sheep and a few potatoes to a gentleman who was formerly in comparative affluence; and that he had neither a shilling, nor a pound of meat, nor bread in his house." So far the right hon. Secretary read, but why did he stop there? The next question and answer run thus:—"Can you give the name of the clergyman?"—"I do not know his name." And this was the evidence of the distress of the clergy given by Sir John Harvey! The hearsay distress of a gentleman of whom he literally knew nothing. Dr. Fitzgerald came next. He traced the sufferings of the starving clergy very perfectly to the right cause, Their conse-

1009
quences, however, did not appear to be quite so calamitous; not more than what many other "respectable" gentlemen had been obliged to submit to, without having had the good fortune to receive a single tear of compassion from this House, or any more substantial proof of sympathy from the Treasury. Great stress had been laid upon Dr. Fitzgerald's testimony; and it was worth while to attend to it. In reply to inquiries in this matter, he candidly answers to question 224, "that the Irish are rather an improvident race of people. They may live up to their incomes, and keep establishments of horses, carriages, and servants, and in the cases that I speak of, they have been obliged to lay them down." This, no doubt, was a great affliction, but hardly requiring legislative interference. The point was, were these gentlemen, as Dr. Butler stated, starving exiles from their duty and home? No such thing. Hear the evidence. "Have you known any case of distress in which clergymen have been in want of food?" Answer, "No; not to that extent," So that the clipping off of a lackey here and there, and some privations of a more serious nature, here and there, were all that Dr. Fitigerald was ready to assert. Dr. Hamilton was "another sufferer." He has been in possession of parishes, extending nine miles by six—had raised his tithes from 350 l. to 2,000 l, and now lowered them to 1,700 l., and out of that very large income, there had been no saving, no economy, no surplus whatever; but, it might be said, he had spent this money amongst his parishioners. Perhaps so; and so far he had acted as well as most curates. This, however, had not been thought good ground for raising their salaries from the 70 l. to 100 l.—they were allowed to starve on. The only grievance was, that the privation should come occasionally; but was this privation, after all, so great? Was it so common or general as to justify this super-abundant compassion of his Majesty's Treasury? Here was a testimony which neither Protestant nor clergyman could reject. The right hon. Secretary had not seen it, or, in his anxiety for impartial discussion, it would, no doubt, have been pressed upon the consideration of the House. Mr. Langrishe, son of a landed proprietor of the very same parish, a Protestant gentleman, a Protestant clergyman, to these very same inquiries answers thus;—'Is it within your knowledge
1010
that there are several clergymen, to whom there are two or three years' arrears due?—Yes, I have heard that Dr. Butler, and various others, have two or three years' rent due; but that is not 'uncommon where there is no forcible resistance. There is very often an arrear of that kind; the clergyman takes a little, and goes on with the account. Are greater arrears due now than under ordinary circumstances?—No; I conceive they are much less.' That was a point blank contradiction to the general pressure of this calamity; the very point upon which the entire application rested. If the right hon. Secretary rested upon his report, he could not take it without the evidence; and if he quoted the evidence on one side, quite as strong could be quoted on the other. But did these Gentlemen come into Court with pure hands? Supposing this distress was "generally" to exist, had it not been of their own creation? These gentlemen, indeed, had been set up, not merely as claimants, but as martyrs—not merely as innocent, but as meritorious. Some of the gloss of these eulogies would, however, wear off on a little nearer examination. Dr. Butler was a professed self-panegyrist; but he must oppose him a second time to his parishioners. The pastor, in such matters, had surely not a better right to be heard than his flock. Dr. Hamilton was represented as consideration and meekness itself. A Catholic and a layman gave suspicious testimony against the moderation of a Protestant clergyman in that House. Dr. Doyle was not to be named; but the same Mr. Langrishe, whom he had already mentioned—a neighbour—and, therefore, with opportunities of judging—a Protestant clergyman, honourably zealous for the character of his religion and profession—a gentleman, in fine, in every sense, his testimony must assuredly carry the same weight as that of Dr. Hamilton himself, says, "that the composition, was a very fair rate of composition, indeed, on the part of the parish, but that be thought it rather high;" and, on being asked, "if it was not considered extravagant, both by the gentry and tenantry," he answered, "that he did think it a great deal too high." In answer to another question, he answered, that, "had Dr. Hamilton got his composition at 3s. 10 d., it would have been double the amount of what was usual." He added, that Dr. Hamilton refused to

1011
produce his book, without alleging any reason for so doing; that he had had a long quarrel with his parishioners about the building of a new church, and high wall to prevent the windows (as Dr. Hamilton stated) from being broken—no great proof this of the perfect understanding existing between him and his flock. Another question put was this, "Had he accepted the offer made him, do you think the parish Would have remained without disturbance?"—"I think that no disturbance whatever would have taken place." That testimony showed that the clergy were neither meritorious nor innocent. There was another case, which could only be approached with reluctance and deep regret—the lamentable murder of Mr. Whitty; It had been, was, and ought to be, deplored and reprobated in the strongest language by all good men. He was conciliatory and kind in his individual capacity; but he fell a victim to the system, and to what the system had produced. His predecessor, Mr. Hare, had raised the tithe from 800 l. to 2,000 l. Mr. Whitty was called upon to reduce it. He was willing to do so, and did reduce it to 1,300 l.; but there were grounds for further reducing it to 1,100 l. The Archbishop refused to assent to this. New quarrels arose, and, in the interval, exactions, to a considerable extent, were made by his proctor. In some cases it was stated, that land valued formerly at 6l. was raised to 21 l. The exasperation of the people burst out into open violence, and a most atrocious deed was perpetrated. The fault was not in the man, but in the system, and this system they were called upon to relieve. He thought he had stated enough to justify the course he intended to take. Hon. Gentlemen might say that cases of a very different nature could be produced. He was anxious to hear them, but they could not be produced from the evidence. If new evidence could be offered, it was the best reason that could be advanced for deferring the grant. If the clergy could show, by any additional testimony, that they were reduced to want, and were free from blame, he should be ready to adopt the Resolutions; but, until such evidence was furnished, he could not vote for the Resolution.
Mr. James E. Gordonfelt himself called upon to defend the conduct of the clergy a the Established Church in Ireland: he denied entirely the charge made by the
1012
hon. member for Tipperary, that their conduct had led to the aggression against tithe; he particularly alluded to the rev. Dr. Hamilton, who had been examined, and had been included in the sweeping charge made by the hon. member for Tipperary, than whom a more pious, charitable, and exemplary man, did not exist.
First Resolution agreed to.
On the second Resolution being put by the Chairman,
Mr. Huntsaid, that it was especially to this Resolution that he was opposed, for he did not think the sufferings of the clergy of Ireland were such as to induce him to consent to money being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country for their relief. The Church of Ireland was rich, and well able to afford relief from its own resources, as the emergency of the case might demand. He should not propose any amendment, but he would divide the House, even if he stood alone.
The Committee divided on the Resolution, when there appeared—Ayes 86; Noes 11—Majority 75.

List of the NOES.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Boldero, Captain

Sibthorp, Colonel

Duncombe, T. S.

Shiel, R. L.

Gillon, W. D.

Torrens, Colonel

Hunt, H.

Wyse, T.

O'Connell, M.

Third Resolution agreed to.
The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord KING, from the Parish of Stoke Damarel, Devon, for an alteration of the Law relative to the purchase of Lands for Burial Grounds, from the Landholders of Drumconrath, Ardagh, Zouchbracan and Rower, for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Cess:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Gormanstown, for the Abolition of Tithes:—By the Bishop of EXETER, from Dorkington, against the New Irish Education System:—By the Earl of ERROL, from Freeholders of the County of Aberdeen, in favour of the Reform Bill:—By the Earl of RODEN, from Sherborne, Market Raisin, Brigg, Barton, Castor, Kirtin, and Winterton, against the New System of Education in Ireland:—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from Canterbury and its vicinity, against Overworking of Children in Factories.

PLURALITIES BILL.
On the Motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Pluralities Bill.
The first clause having been agreed to, on the question of the second clause, which enacts, "that no person shall hold together two Deaneries, Prebends, Canonties, or other dignities, &c."
Lord Suffieldsaid, he objected to the clause, because it left a door open to great abuses, which existed at present and would be left untouched by the Bill, and which might for all its enactments increase hereafter, he meant the power to grant livings in commendam. He begged to assure their Lordships that, while he made these objections his only object was to cleanse the Church from abuses, and not to prevent the ministers of that Church having a fair, ample, and liberal remuneration for their services. He wished that the right Reverend Prelates should enjoy all those comforts, which from their situations in life, and their high stations in the Church and in society, they were fully entitled to; but he objected to the practice of making their revenues adequate by granting livings in commendam, to be holden with their sees—a practice which though it had prevailed hitherto, was in his opinion so great an abuse, that it ought not to be tolerated in future. Means ought to be taken for making a due and proper provision for right Reverend persons, without their being permitted to hold livings, with the cure of souls attached to them. As an illustration of his present argument he would state a case:—There was at that moment a right Reverend Prelate, who in addition to his bishopric, held a deanery—the vicarage of a very populous parish, comprising two districts—a rectory—and a perpetual curacy; and yet, with all these advantages, he was
932
said to be a poor Bishop. For that individual he entertained the highest possible respect and regard. He put it to their Lordships, whether this was a proper way of providing for the higher dignitaries of the Church—to admit of a right Reverend Prelate's being, at one and the same time, a Bishop, dean, rector, vicar, and perpetual citrate? Was it possible, that he could discharge all the duties of these various capacities? He adduced this case, for the purpose of showing the ground on which he objected to livings being held in commendam; and his objection to this clause was, that it said nothing about the practice—it did not prohibit, it rather permitted livings to be held in commendam, because, in point of fact, it was a general restraining clause in all other cases, reserving only, in the certain exceptions set forth, a power to the Archbishop to dispense with the operation of the Bill to a certain extent. He would trouble their Lordships with the recital of one other case of abuse, arising from the circumstance of a dignitary of the Church being permitted to hold a living with the cure of souls. The case occurred within the diocese of a right Reverend Prelate whom he had now the pleasure to see in the House, and he appealed to him for the correctness of the statement. A Reverend Doctor of Divinity was in possession of a living, with a cure of souls; the population of his parish was 120,000. He was appointed prebendary of a cathedral, by the late Lord Liverpool; and in 1829, he resorted to his prebendal stall for eighteen months, leaving his 120,000 parishioners to take care of themselves. During the whole of that eighteen months, be resided in his parish for three days only. He believed, indeed, that he had more than his regular duty to perform while he was absent from his living, because he understood that he acted as dean, in consequence of the continued indisposition of that functionary; but that circumstance had nothing to do with his objection to the principle of this practice; for here was a prebend of a cathedral neglecting his more important duties as rector of a parish, comprising a population of 120,000 souls, for no less a period than eighteen months. Finally, he objected to this clause, because it did not notice commendams, which he considered a most objectionable mode of payment to those right Reverend Prelates who were in possession of them. He should move the Amendments which he on a

933
former occasion submitted to their Lordships.
The Bishop of Londonthought he had it in his power to offer a satisfactory explanation of the case referred to by the noble Lord. The clergyman in question was preferred to the parish of Marylebone by the late Lord Liverpool, and, after discharging his duty there most faithfully for some years, another Minister of the Crown presented to him a prebend's stall in Canterbury. It appeared that the prebends in that see were compelled to discharge certain duties which required their constant residence in Canterbury during one year; and it was true that the clergyman alluded to did find himself obliged to absent himself from his large benefice in London for more than twelve months. He was ready to admit that there was a great deal of inconvenience in such cases, and he was not one to sanction a clergyman having the cure of souls absenting himself from his parish for any other duty or dignity which called for his residence for so long a period. But, at the same time, he wished to state that the incumbent had the charge not of 120,000 souls, nor of more than one-fifth of that number—five churches being now in that district; and that while he was absent he took care to supply his place by two or three most efficient and worthy clergymen. As he said before he did not approve of cases like this; and he agreed with the noble Lord that such anomalies in the Church should be corrected. Some regulations might, he thought be made, which, though not going the length of altering the law with respect to the holding of livings in commendam, would get rid of inconveniences in other respects. While he was on his legs, he would wish to reply to a remark made by a noble Baron on a former occasion, in which it was insinuated that the Bishops were doing nothing for the smaller clergy, while they were pressing on them by this Bill, and in other shapes. The noble Baron forgot that a Bill was introduced last year for the augmentation of small livings, and he knew that the best effects were experienced from it, and he could point out Reverend Prelates who since the Bill, had increased all the small benefices in their dioceses.
Lord Suffieldhad heard with satisfaction the explanation given by the right Reverend Prelate. He gave the right Reverend Prelate credit for his declaration that commendams or other privileges which were permitted by this Bill should not be
934
abused. But this was a Bill which, professing to destroy pluralities, and going forth to the public as an Act for that especial purpose, would, in point of fact, permit their continuance. He was convinced the right Reverend Prelates would not abuse the extensive power vested in them; but he was afraid, that the Bill would create doubts in the public mind, as to the sincerity of the promoters of the measure; and it was from an anxious wish to uphold and support the character of the Church with the public, that he called upon the right Reverend Bench to adopt the Amendments which he had considered it his duty to propose.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that the circumstance alluded to took place after he ceased to be Bishop of London, but he thought he might throw some additional light on the subject. The clergyman in question was a man of the highest character, who had been loved and respected at Birmingham, where he acted as Minister for some years. The Earl of Liverpool, without any knowledge of Dr. Spry, and merely from the report of his excellent qualities, after a consultation with him (the Archbishop of Canterbury), who also knew Dr. Spry only by reputation, presented him with the living of Marylebone. He could only say that it could not be better bestowed. Soon after, the successor of the Earl, a noble Duke opposite, bestowed on the Reverend gentleman a prebend's stall in Canterbury, and here he also thought that the dignity could not be better conferred. Such were the facts; and if any clergyman's merit claimed an exemption from the strict rule, it was that of the Reverend gentleman. He wished now to say one or two words with regard to the Bill. The noble Lord said, that as cases of livings held in commendam were not included within the Bill, it was a deception on the public, and only opened the door to fresh abuses; but, in reply, he would only repeat that it left the law in the same state as it found it, and that, in his opinion, it was not worth while legislating for four or five benefices. Besides, the bestowing of livings in commendam was the King's prerogative, and he was not the person, in any bill introduced by him, to attempt to abridge it; and some livings were, by immemorial custom and Act of Parliament, given to poor dignitaries.
Lord Suffieldtrusted their Lordships would permit him to observe, that he had no intention whatever that his amendments

935
should operate ex: post facto. He begged to read that which related to the incomes of the Bishops—'Provided always, and be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any Archbishop or Bishop—the revenue of whose diocese shall not exceed 3,500 l. per annum, to hold, in commendam, any dignity, or ecclesiastical preferment, without cure of souls, provided the gross annual value thereof, together with the revenues of his diocese, shall not amount to more than 4,000 l. annually, or that he shall collect the surplus, if any, and pay it over to the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, to be by them appropriated, with the sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the augmentation of bishoprics under the annual value of 3,500 l.' He begged further to remark, that he had no desire to limit the incomes of the Bishops to the sum he had mentioned. He had merely used it as an illustration of his meaning, he was quite ready to leave a blank for the sum, to be filled up at the discretion of their Lordships.
Lord Kingthought it no palliation of the abuse that it was old and customary. The law gave the power to Bishops to compel rectors to make a reasonable allowance to the clergymen who officiated for them; but that did not extend to collegiate bodies. If the right Reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London) admitted that the case of the metropolitan rector was a gross one, which was not likely to occur again, he would discuss that point no further. It appeared that there were two sorts of livings held by Bishops—one kind in commendam; the other was attached to sees, and held by immemorial usage. He thought the latter equally objectionable with the former. He must complain of the mode in which curates were paid by collegiate and other ecclesiastical bodies. When they performed the duty for such bodies, in rich livings, they were worse paid than by individual rectors. As an illustration of the system, he might revert to the petition he had presented in behalf of a curate in a parish belonging to the vicars-choral of Exeter, from whence they drew an income of 600 l. or 700 l. a-year, and allowed the officiating clergyman only 50 l. or 60 l. a-year. He must further express his surprise at an objection of the most Reverend Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) on the score of the royal prerogative in the matter of commendams. Such an objection, he
936
contended, could only be based upon the principle that the King could do no wrong.
The Bishop of Exeterwas glad that the noble Baron had made an allusion to the petition, relative to the vicars-choral of Exeter as it enabled him to state the real facts of the case. The petition, if he recollected right, stated that, in a parish held by the vicars-choral of Exeter, the revenue of which was 600 l. a-year, the officiating clergyman only received 50 l. a-year. It was evident, when the noble Lord made that statement from the petition, that he had not taken the trouble to inquire into its truth. He had, however, taken some pains to ascertain the facts, and he was prepared at the close of the last Session with an explanatory petition from the persons whose characters were attacked, but was prevented from presenting it by the sudden termination of the Session. In it the vicars-choral alleged that they received but one-third of the sum stated, and that the clergyman received double what was named as the extent of his remuneration. It was also alleged that the clergyman made no complaint; and he wrote a letter to the vicars-choral, stating that he was not aware of the petition that had been sent forward, and that he was no party to it. He was sure it would give their Lordships pleasure to hear that the amount received by the clergyman was double the sum stated in the petition. Though he received but 50 l. or 60 l. from the Choral Fund, the parish made up his salary to 100 l. and the vicars-choral had since raised it to 150 l. This, he thought, was quite right, as in his opinion it would be wrong if the clergyman who did the duty did not receive as much at least as the stipendiary clergyman to whom the living belonged.
Lord Kingsaid, that the evil of the case was evident. If there had been no Choral Fund, and if the parish had been held by a rector, the officiating clergyman would have the power of enforcing a suitable remuneration. What were the facts? Why, the Reverend Prelate made out no better case than that the clergyman received 50 l. or 60 l. from the Choral Fund, and that the rest was made up by the parish. This he supposed was the case in many other instances. It proved very little for these public bodies, and the best defence which the Reverend Prelate offered for the vicars-choral was, that after the matter was exposed they thought proper to advance the scale of remuneration. He did not say

937
when he presented the petition, that he appeared on behalf of the clergyman, it was the parishioners who sent forward the petition, and who complained that the large sum taken from them in tithes did not go to the officiating minister. Instead of having been answered by the Reverend Prelate, he felt that he could not have had a better or a stronger case.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to set the noble Lord right. The person on whose account the noble Baron spoke did not receive one shilling from the tithes.
The Bishop of Londonmust protest against its being imputed that he said the case of Dr. Spry was a gross one. He did not state any such thing, as it was a case of only one year's continuance, which was not likely to happen again.
Lord Kingsaid, it was true that the case would not occur again to Dr. Spry, but it was possible that it might to the next rector. He again repeated, with regard to the Exeter case, that he was not the advocate of the clergyman, but of the parish, who complained that they paid tithes which were not given to the officiating minister.
The Earl of Harrowbythought it extremely premature for noble Lords to go further than the particular point to which this Bill was directed. They would hereafter have a full opportunity of considering further regulations for the management of the revenues of the Church. There were upwards of 2,200 places deprived of the benefit of resident incumbents in consequence of the system of pluralities. That evil would be very much diminished by this Bill, though not, he feared, to the extent which the right Reverend Prelate who had brought forward the measure anticipated. With respect to the dignitaries of the Church holding livings, nothing, in his opinion, would be more injurious to the Church than the prohibition of this description of pluralities. At present he objected to all the amendments proposed by the noble Baron. Some of them might, perhaps, be entertained by the House at a future period, but they could not with propriety be incorporated in the present Bill. He must further observe that in his opinion, the persons who enjoyed the great tithes ought to make due provision for the performance of the parochial duties; and with regard to pluralities in general, he thought it would be a great improvement upon the present system, or even upon that which the noble Lord intended to introduce, if certain small Church
938
preferments, without cure of souls, were permanently added to extensive parishes in which there were heavy duties to perform.
The Archbishop of Canterburyadmitted that there were great abuses on the part of impropriate rectors, both lay and ecclesiastical; and, he should certainly not be opposed to any reasonable plan for remedying those abuses.
Lord Suffieldcontended, that they were proceeding to legislate upon very imperfect information, and that, therefore, their legislation must be imperfect and insufficient. He should be quite ready, then, to give up his amendments if he could look forward to any assignable period at which a remedy might be introduced for the evils acknowledged to exist. He really thought that, without that knowledge which the House ought to have upon such a subject, it would be in the highest degree unwise on their part to proceed further; and he, therefore, recommended the most rev. Prelate to withdraw his Bill for the present, and bring it forward again in a more complete shape, when sufficient information was before the House.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the present measure well deserving of support, and that it went as far as any measure of the description ought to go, under the present circumstances. The Church, it must be remembered, was in a very anomalous situation. There were some Bishops who had not above 800 l. a-year, and he believed he might name one whose bishopric was not worth more than 500 l. a-year. It was the object of one of the noble Lord's Amendments to make the incomes of the Bishops 3,500 l. a-year. He wished to know whether this was to be the maximum or the minimum of the Bishops' incomes? The Bishops had many heavy expenses; and, it was necessary, for the dignity of the national Establishment, that they and their families should be supported in a state of respectability. Some discretion, therefore, should be left in the Crown as to the disposal of Church patronage. He, therefore, entirely dissented from the noble Lord in thinking that the House could, with propriety, fix the amount which a Bishop should enjoy. Their Lordships could not undertake to say, that 3,500 l. would be too much or too little for a Bishop—the Crown alone was the fitting judge. As to a Bishop's holding a living, with the cure of souls attached, in commendam, he was not prepared to advocate the practice but, he

939
believed, it would be impossible to provide adequately for those holding poor bishoprics, unless they were allowed to hold livings in commendam. The object of the most rev. Prelate in this Bill, if he understood it rightly, was, to put under strict regulations the grant of pluralities. Under those circumstances, he hoped the noble Lords opposite would allow the Bill to go through the Committee, which need not prevent them from bringing forward other propositions connected with the subject hereafter.
The Earl of Winchilseasupported the Bill, and took this opportunity of returning thanks to the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) for the liberality which he had evinced by the sacrifice of his own patronage for the purpose of augmenting the incomes of the poorer class of incumbents. He was himself lay impropriator of a parish which contained nearly 2,000 inhabitants, and extended over 8,000 or 10,000 acres of land, and yet the stipend of the parochial clergyman was only 20 l. a-year He should be very glad to follow the most rev. Prelate's example, and to support any measure which would compel lay impropriators to provide adequate incomes for those who performed the ecclesiastical duties in those parishes, the tithes of which were payable to laymen.
Earl Greydeprecated the discussing in Committee the general principle of the measure. It was expedient to confine the discussion as much as possible to the clauses before the House. He proposed to follow that course, and would, therefore, say that, in his opinion, the Bill related to a subject of great importance, and that the most rev. Prelate was deserving of thanks for introducing a measure which every one must admit to be an improvement, although some of his noble friends did not think it went far enough. Be this as it might, he agreed with those who thought that the present was not a convenient opportunity to introduce more extensive alterations; and, believing the Bill to be useful, as far as it went, it should have his support. He hoped, under those circumstances, that his noble friend (Lord Suffield) would reserve his Amendments until the whole subject came to be considered. As something had been said as to the prerogative of the Crown in reference to this subject, he thought it his duty to state, that his Majesty had given his assent to the measure now proposed; but his Majesty's pleasure had not been taken on the amendments suggested by his
940
noble friend: some technical difficulty would arise, therefore, if they should be pressed.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that, after the technical difficulty which the noble Earl had stated stood in his way, he felt himself relieved from the duty he had imposed on himself of bringing forward certain of the amendments to which he had previously referred. He had two objects in view—and if the most rev. Prelate would have acquiesced in his suggestions on those two points, he should most willingly have withdrawn his amendments. The first object which he wished to effect was, the removal of that part of the Bill which allowed pluralities to be held by new holders; and the second object was, to throw the whole responsibility of granting dispensations to hold pluralities on the Archbishop, as the Bill went to divide the responsibility—and every one knew that divided responsibility was never good for much. After the objection stated by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he should not trouble their Lordships with the amendments he had intended to bring forward.
Lord Kingthought this measure so very imperfect that it would be better to stop it than allow it to go on. He sincerely believed that the minimum of improvement which this Bill could effect would rather be injurious to the interests of the Church, and that it would be more advantageous, upon every ground, that the Bill should be withdrawn, and a measure of more extensive improvement substituted. Having said so much on the general question, he should only observe, in reference to the details, that, as it was said there must be great prizes in the Church, it would be much better that those prizes should be bestowed on persons of great merit. He should, therefore, suggest, that the Archbishops should have the right to bestow those prizes on persons who had obtained, not merely the highest degrees in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but also the highest honours—such as that of Senior Wrangler, for instance.
The original clause was then agreed to, as were the three next clauses.
On the clause enacting that clergymen might hold two livings conjointly, provided they were not distant more than thirty miles from each other,
Lord Kingproposed the omission of the whole clause. The holding more livings than one by the same incumbent was an abuse introduced by the Church of Rome, and it

941
was a disgrace to the Church of England to have followed so bad an example. His object was, to revert to the old canon law, which prohibited pluralities altogether.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that holding benefices together, within a distance of thirty miles, was just as objectionable, in point of principle, as holding them within a distance of 100 miles. He moved, that no two benefices should be held together, unless they were contiguous to each other.
Lord Kenyonwould support the noble Lord's proposition, in preference to the original clause, because he thought it more consistent with principle and common sense. He recommended the most rev. Prelate to withdraw the Bill.
Lord Wynfordthought it would be better to postpone this Bill until the whole question with respect to the distribution of Church property was brought before the House. He objected to the Bill, because the right of private property was affected by it.
Lord Harrowbysupported the Bill. He thought that it would be productive of advantage to the Church, and that it in no degree encroached on private property.
The Lord Chancellorconcurred in the opinion of the noble Earl, that there was no ground for stating that the Bill was an encroachment on private property.
Lord Tenterdenwould vote for the clause as it stood in the original Bill.
Lord Kingsaid, that the object of all the alterations in the law respecting Church affairs appeared to be, to provide well for the higher dignitaries of the Church, and to make their life as comfortable and easy as possible. The Legislature felt great compassion for the well-paid rectors, but seemed to care little or nothing about the poor curates; doubtless regulating its conduct according to the maxim, "de minimis non curat lex."
Lord Suffieldmoved, as an Amendment to the clause enabling incumbents to hold pluralities under certain circumstances, that the "benefices to be so held should be contiguous to the resident incumbency of the pluralist."
The Earl of Carnarvon supported the Amendment.
The Bishop of Llandaffdid not object to its principle, but thought it too violent a remedy for the abuse complained of.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas free to admit the force of Lord Wynford's objection of the tendency of the clause to affect the rights of private property, but
942
saw not how it could be remedied. No public improvement ever could be made if the rights of private property were not in a degree violated.
The Marquis of Butecontended, that pluralities were an essential and beneficial feature of the Church Establishment.
Lord Suffieldwould rest his Amendment on this plain principle or question—was it the object of the Bill to provide for the advantages of the clergy, or of those parishioners who were without the benefit of Spiritual instruction? To judge by the tone of the right rev. Bench, it would seem that the interests of the flock were of no moment, while those of the Clergy were every thing. He thought it useless to press his Amendment, though convinced of its propriety, as, in the then state of the House, he was sure to be defeated: more than two-thirds of his auditors were Bishops, and of the other one-third not more than two or three were friends to any Reform, ecclesiastical or otherwise, deserving the name.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Kenyonmoved that "forty-five miles" be substituted for "thirty miles," as the extent beyond which an additional living should not be distant from the residence of the incumbent.
Negatived.
The same noble Lord moved, that the additional living should be contingent on the circumstance of the first living's being valued at not more than 8l. in the King's Books.
Negatived.
Lord Kinghad an Amendment to move to the clause of exception for holding pluralities, which he feared would be treated as revolutionary by the right rev. defenders of the good old abuses of mother Church. He confessed that his Amendment was rather a violent innovation on the established system of Church discipline, for it went to make merit a condition of Church preferment. This, he need not say, was no part of the present immaculate system, and would, no doubt, excite the pious horror of the right rev. defenders of ancient orthodoxy, so that it put money in their pockets. The clause made the degree of Master of Arts a ground of exception. He would propose instead, that only those graduates who had obtained the distinction of First Classmen at Oxford, and Wranglers and Optime men at Cambridge, should be exceptions to the rule of the Bill.
Lord Tenterdenwas one who had been for-

943
tunate enough to obtain, at a very early period of life, almost all the honours which the University of Oxford could bestow, and could take it upon him to say, after forty-six years' subsequent experience in the world, that no more uncertain—indeed worse—criterion could be selected of general intellectual competency or fitness for the office of pastor than the circumstance of a candidate's having obtained honours at the University.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas glad that his own conviction was corroborated by that of the noble and learned Lord, who was so high an authority on such matters. He must say, that, if any criterion of merit could be established, no persons would be more delighted at it than the Bench of Bishops; but there could be no worse criterion of merit than the honours thus obtained at the Universities.
Lord Suffieldthought that his noble friend's (Lord King) object might be obtained, in some measure, by moving, that such dispensations be granted to no persons under thirty-five years of age.
Lord Kingsaid, that its effect would be precisely the reverse. He wished to establish merit as the criterion of promotion, but this would make seniority the criterion. Patronage was the power of giving certain favours to any person, and his Amendment would be a check to indiscriminate patronage, for it would secure its being exercised in favour of those only who had merit.
Amendments negatived, and the original clause agreed to.
The other clauses agreed to. The House resumed.