Sitting of 8 May 1832

MINUTES.
Bill brought in.—By Mr. MACKINNON, to Re peal the Usury Laws.
Committee appointed.—On the Motion of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, to Inquire into the State of the Library of the House of Commons.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GOULBURN, from Colgrave, Hicking, and Overbroughton, Notts;—by Mr. J. E. GORDON, from Temple Michael, and six other Places in Ireland;—and by Mr.ANDREW JOHNSTON, from Stirling,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education in Ireland.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Balmahony, and Donamine,—for the Abolition of Tithes in Ireland; from the Political Union, Birmingham, to postpone the Consideration of the subject of Irish Tithes, and of all other Subjects, until the meeting of a new Parliament under the Reform Bill; from Einley, for an Investigation into the Conduct of Dr. Fitzgerald; and from the Royal College of Surgeons (Dublin), not to extend the Anatomy Bill to Ireland.—By Lord SANDON, from J. Todd Naylor, Deputy Chairman of the Mexican and South American Association at Liverpool, complaining of the recent Directions to demand the South-Sea Duty, and for Relief.—By Mr. PIGOTT, from Quainton, Dinton, and Marston, to enable a certain Majority of the Ratepayers of ally Parish to adopt Plans for the Employment of the Able-bodied Poor.—By Sir JOHN NEWPORT, from Waterford, to Abolish the New Vestries Act; from Harbour Grace, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, for a Representative Local Legislature for that Island.—By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from Port Glasgow, to be joined to Greenock in sending a Member to Parliament under the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill;—and from Kirkudbright, against the Hypothec (Scotland), Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from the Parish of St. Pancras (Middlesex), to include the whole Parish in the proposed Borough of Marylebone; from Walsall, against any Grant to the Irish Clergy; from the Crape Manufacturers of Great Yarmouth, against the Factories Regulations Bill; from the Wick and Pulteney-town Subscription Library, against all Taxes on Knowledge; from the Protestant Dissenters of Beominster, against Tithes; from certain
752
Booksellers, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers, &c.; and from William Carpenter, against the Act of 60 George 3rd, cap. 9.—By Mr. FYSHE PALMER, from the Congregation of Castle Street Chapel, Reading, against the Punishment of Death for Crimes against Property.—By LORD NUGENT, from Horsham;—and by Mr. THICKNESSE, from Blackburn, and Ampthill,—for the same object.—By Mr. WARBURTON, from the National Political Union, in favour of the Anatomy Bill.—By Mr. JOHN WYNN, from Galway, for a Provision in the Reform Bill to secure the Peculiar Franchise of Galway.—By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the Parishes of St. Edmund and St. David, Exeter, against the Exeter and Crediton Railway Bill.

COURTS OF REQUEST.
Mr. Huntmoved for certain papers relating to the Courts of Request held in and for London, Westminster, and Southwark, and for Middlesex and Surrey. The papers he wished for, were Returns of the number of cases decided in these Courts within one month. He should have extended the period for the Returns still further, but that he understood there would be some difficulty in making the Returns, on account of the number of cases decided. His object in moving for them was, to show how the power of arrest for debt was abused in this country, and how much injustice was committed on the poor man by means of these Courts. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a "Return of all cases heard and determined in the several Courts of Request in the cities of London and Westminster, in the borough of Southwark and parts adjacent, in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, including the Palace Court and that of the Tower Hamlets, for one month, ending the 31st of December, 1831, specifying all the judgments made in each Court, the amount of each claim, the sum awarded, and stating whether paid, whether the party was distrained upon, or sent to prison; stating the amount of fees paid in each case, and the length of imprisonment adjudged in each case; also stating what salaries are paid to each of the officers, and the amount in hand, if any."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, it was impossible for any one to object to the Motion of the hon. Member, except that it was confined to too short a space of time. There could be no doubt, that the greatest injustice was often practised through the means of the power of imprisoning for debt; and, for his part, he wished, that the hon. Member had extended his Motion to returns of this sort from all the Courts in the country.
Mr. Lennardperfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Member, that the Returns ought to be general, and that the House should determine what was the number of

753
persons throughout the country liable to be imprisoned for small debts. He had, some years ago, brought this subject under their consideration; and, from Returns then made, it appeared, that, in one of the chief Courts of this kind, the number of cases decided in a single year amounted to above 18,000, although the Court only sat two days in a week; thus giving an average of between 170 and 180 for each day. It was quite impossible to believe, that these cases could be at all considered with care, and he had no doubt, that great injustice was often done to parties in these Courts. Indeed, he believed he might refer to the right hon. Baronet opposite for a confirmation of his opinion, since, if he recollected rightly, that right hon. Baronet had said, in a speech connected with this subject, that a prudent man would not go into these Courts as a suitor. He trusted, that the subject would be speedily investigated, and some remedy proposed for the abuses that were universally admitted to exist.
Sir Robert Peelwas much inclined to believe, that great abuses did exist in these Courts; but the fact was, on the occasion alluded to by the hon. Member, as it was generally found with regard to questions relating to the reform of abuses, that the further he advanced, the more extended his horizon became, and the greater appeared the necessity for an extensive Reform. The subject of imprisonment for debt on mesne process was then before the House; but it was said, that it would be in vain to abolish that, while the power of imprisoning in execution for small debts continued to exist, since a litigious creditor could easily avail himself of the latter mode to punish and oppress his debtor. He thought, that the whole question of imprisonment for debt ought to be taken into consideration at the same time. That portion of it which related to imprisonment for debt on mesne process had been referred to the Law Commissioners, who, he believed, had but recently made their Report.
Lord Althorpagreed with the right hon. Baronet that the whole subject had better be discussed at one time, and, in his opinion, there ought to be, as early as convenient, some inquiry instituted into the matter, as the power of imprisonment for small debts Was liable to many great objections.
Mr. Humerecommended, that the Returns, instead of being for one month, should be for one year.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should gladly accede to this recommendation. He had already
754
mentioned the reason of his having at first introduced his Motion in so limited a shape. As a proof of the sort of abuses to which the power of imprisonment gave rise, he mentioned that, a short time since, a man had been committed to prison for not paying a sum of 1s. for debt and 8s. costs, and that the man was so poor he must have starved, if his fellow-prisoners had not made a subscription for his relief.
Motion agreed to.

PLURALITIES—CHURCH REFORM.
Mr. Humemoved for a Return of the "name of every person holding more than one dignity, benefice, church, or chapel, of the Established Church in England and Wales; stating how many, and the name of each such dignity, benefice, church, and chapelry, and the gross and nett annual value of all such, upon the average of the last three years for which the account can be made out; stating also the number of years the incumbent has held each preferment or benefice, what duties are performed by him, what curates are employed under him, and the amount of stipends actually paid to each curate, in each of these three years."
Sir Robert Inglisthought the hon. Member was bound to show cause for his Motion before it was adopted, the rather, as it was one which could not be acted upon without an exercise of inquisitorial power hardly compatible with the liberty of the subject.
Mr. Goulburnfelt himself inclined to oppose the Motion; but, certainly, he wished, that some grounds should be laid for granting it. He would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question concerning the deaneries of Downe and Raphoe. Had they been bestowed on the present incumbents, on any understanding similar to that entered into with the present Bishop of Derry?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that, with respect to the deanery of Downe, he had no information at present what were its revenues. With regard to the deanery of Raphoe, he believed them to have been about 2,500 l. a-year. The present incumbent had accepted it on condition that he should receive the tithes of the parish of Raphoe alone, and the four parishes that had before been united with it, were, in future, to go to four different incumbents.
Mr. Humesaid, his object was, to direct the attention of the House to the monstrous abuses of the present Church Establishment, ere it sanctioned the Archbishop of

755
Canterbury's pseudo pluralities' abuse reform bill. Having been, from early youth, an eye-witness of the admirable results of the system of the Church of Scotland, and knowing, that non-residence was not possible under that system, and knowing, that the reward of the pastor was made to depend on his efficiency, it might be, that the plurality non-resident system of the Church of England, which made the emolument, in most instances, be in the inverse ratio of the service rendered—assumed an exaggerated form in his eyes; and, accordingly, he was anxious that his views should rest upon incontrovertible facts, and was also anxious, that the House should be in possession of those facts previous to the discussion of the merits of the Archbishop of Canterbury's mock reform bill. Hence his present Motion, the necessity of which perhaps, would be more apparent from a simple statement of the number of nonresident incumbents in England, in one year, 1831. It appeared, from papers on the Table of the House, that, in that year, the number of benefices, held under the Church of England was 10,532. He had the authority, indeed, of an intelligent clergyman to fix the number at 12,600 but would take the lower number. Of that number, there were 2,619 incumbents exempt from residence, from various causes, 2,147 exempt with licence, and 1,354 nonresident, without any exemption licence; making, altogether, 6,120 non-resident, out of a total of 10,532. Of these 6,120 nonresident, 1,590 were reported as doing duty elsewhere; but, deducting them, there remained but 4,413 clergymen resident in the parishes whence they derived large emoluments. Was not this monstrous? He would take it upon himself to assert, that such abuses were unknown in any other church in Europe. Then let them consider the disgraceful manner in which so many of the bonâfide working clergy were paid, while the bloated non-resident pluralists were lording it in stately chariots and fine linen. He knew of at least 100 such clergymen, who did not receive as much in the year for their exertions as journeymen carpenters; but even the evils of non-residence were not confined to sleek vicars and well-fed rectors, who did nothing but spend large revenues in the most approved manner of fashion. The total number of curates of the Church of England, in 1831, was 4,254; of these, 1,393 resided in glebe houses, and 805 in private residences in their respective parishes; that
756
is, there were only 2,198 actual residents; in other words, there were at least 2,000 parishes in England without a resident curate or rector of its established and enormously overpaid Church. And how did the most reverend head of that Church propose to remedy the evils of non-residence and pluralities? Why, by preventing pluralities, with endless exceptions, from being held, if distant more than thirty miles from the resident living. He might as well, so far as any practical benefit was concerned, have fixed the limit at 300 miles. He had found, that, of individuals holding Church preferment in this country, 162 were in receipt of less than 160 l. per annum, and that, in the whole Church of England, there were only 84 curates who received that sum. In the diocese of Lincoln, there were 440 persons holding one benefice each, 256 persons who held each two benefices, while, in the same diocese, there were 76 individuals who were in the enjoyment of 304 benefices. From the result of the inquiries he had made, he was led to believe, that much of the fearful increase of crime of late in the remote districts, was to be attributed to the non-residence of the clergy. Under all these circumstances, he hoped he had laid sufficient grounds before the House to induce it to grant the Motion. He had carefully avoided the mention of names; but when the proper time arrived, he was fully prepared to go at length into the subject.
Mr. Trevoragreed with the hon. member for Middlesex in thinking that the curates of the Church of England were inadequately paid. He also concurred in the, most part of the hon. Member's Motion, but he would suggest the propriety of withdrawing that part which required returns of the amount of the income of the Church.
Mr. Hudson Gurneythought the Returns went too far, inasmuch as they meddled with the incomes of individuals. The hon. Member might as well move for a return of the income of the country gentlemen as of the clergy.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he could see no reason why returns of the Church revenues should not be made. He felt, that every man who received an income for the discharge of particular duties should not only fulfil those duties, but also should not hesitate to afford every information as to the amount of income he received.
Mr. Weylandwas ready to agree in the Motion for returns of the gross amount of the value of all livings where the incum-

757
bent was non-resident, and in which the duties were performed by curates, and also of the amount of the stipends paid such curates. But he did not think the House ought to extend such inquiry to livings where the incumbents were resident.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the object of the hon. member for Middlesex was, to obtain returns of all pluralists—a piece of information which he (Mr. Campbell) conceived to be indispensable when the House came to take into consideration and to deal with a bill which had been sent down from the other House of Parliament, and which had been introduced by the head of the Church, relative to pluralities. This information could only be learnt from the Returns now sought for by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Sheilsaw nothing objectionable in the Motion. The Returns were analogous to the returns made by the Irish clergy of the amount of their incomes, and he thought them necessary to the due consideration of the Pluralities Bill.
Dr. Lushingtondid not see any great objection to the Motion, and, in some respects, he thought it desirable, as it would tend to elucidate the value of Church livings, which he knew was greatly exaggerated. He, for one, would never bring himself to think, that Church property was, in any respect, less sacred than private property, though, perhaps, the former, under peculiar circumstances, might be a fairer subject of investigation. He believed the Church of England would benefit by this inquiry; for he knew, that circumstances favourable to that establishment, and which were not known to the House, would be elicited in the inquiry.
Mr. Trevorwished to know whether the hon. member for Middlesex would consent to the proposed verbal amendment in his Motion?
Mr. Humedeclined making any change.
Sir Thomas Baringhad not intended to make a single observation, and should have remained silent, if it had not been for a remark which had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, who appeared to attribute the increase of crime in England to the state of the Church. Now, he (Sir Thomas Baring) should rather attribute the increase of crime to Parliament, and some of their pernicious enactments. Such, for instance, as the Beer Bill, and many others of equally mischievous tendency. He must say, that the grossest exaggerations were circulated respecting the value of Church livings.
Mr. Ruthvensuggested the propriety of extending the Returns sought for to Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that, if the hon. Member who had just sat down would take the trouble to look back to the minutes of the day before the recess, he would find, that the hon. member for Middlesex had moved for and obtained returns from Ireland, far more extensive than those which were the object of the hon. Member's present Motion; indeed, so extensive were they, that he (Mr. Stanley), had he been in the House at the time they were moved for, should have felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. He, however, saw no objection to the present Motion, and he thought it was one of the greatest mistakes of the friends of the Established Church to oppose making returns of its revenues, under the supposition that they were sought with a view to reduction.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyconceived the Returns were necessary, to enable the House to form a correct judgment on the very important Bill which had been alluded to by the hon. and learned member for Stafford, and which would require the greatest attention from every true friend of the Church.
Returns ordered.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Lewis Bundle of Sticks Society;—by the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Freemen of the Seven Incorporated Trades of Dumfries;—by Lord KING, from Clonnoulty and Rossmore,—in favour of Parliamentary Reform.—By the Earl of HARKEWOOD, from Northallerton, that that Place might be substituted for York as the Place for holding, in future, the Elections for the North Riding of Yorkshire.—By Lord KING, from Dumfries;—and by the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Derby,—in favour of Education (Ireland) Bill.—By the Earl of RODEN, from Kilnagross;—by the Earl of ABERDEEN, from the Presbytery of Aberdeen;—by a NOBLE LORD, from the Synod of Galloway;—and by the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Norwich,—against the Bill.—By Lord KING, from Kilconley, Kilbannon, Crossboyne, Kilvine, Armagh, and Tagheen; from Lanesborough; from the Tithe-Payers of the Barony of Bargy; the Inhabitants of Clondalkin, Lukan, Palmerstown, Shrule, Loughmore; and from the Political Union of Waterford; from the Inhabitants of Mallyfarnham, Leany, and Lacken,—for the Abolition of Tithes, and the Repeal of the Vestry Laws;—from the Inhabitants of Leapatrick, expressing their satisfaction that Tithes are to be Abolished in Ireland, and praying the House to pass the English Reform Bill as speedily as possible.—By Lord DACRE, from the Inhabitants of Hemel, Hempstead, and St. Alban's, for the immediate Abolition of Negro Slavery; and from Shipsea and Beaford, in favour of the Bill for Ameliorating the Condition of the Agricultural Poor; and also for speedily passing the Bill to Regulate the Hours of Employing Children in Factories:—By Lord KING, from the Inhabitants of Newtownsmith, to be heard by Council against the Indemnity Bill; and from Tullamore, Clara, and Maale, for a Revision of the Criminal Law.—By the Bishop of BRISTOL, from the Society against Cruelty to Animals of Saffron Walden, for devising such Regulations as will prevent unnecessary Cruelty.

ARREARS OF TITHES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourneproposed that the Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill should be postponed till Thursday.
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, my Lords as the Bill before your Lordships was read a second time at so late an hour that I was unable to make any observations upon it, I must request your Lordships' permission to state the view which is taken of it by myself, and I believe I may say by the Irish branch of the united church. I am anxious to declare that I regard it as a seasonable, necessary, and I may add, just measure of relief to the sufferings of an unoffending, meritorious, and most loyal class of his Majesty's subjects—themselves the steady advocates of peace and good order, but now the victims of unprovoked outrage and general insubordination. What-
746
ever the original impolicy may have been or the alleged grievance, whether real or imaginary, and in my conscience I believe it is more fictitious and imaginary than real, put forward rather for factious than religious purposes—but I say whatever may have been the original impolicy of the ancient provision for the clergy, they are not chargeable with any of the evils which arise out of this species of property. Their title to it is as unquestionable as that by which your Lordships hold your own estates. If that title be disputed let the opposite claim be made good before the legal tribunals of the country, and we are content to abide by their decision, but until such a decision is obtained, we may well expect from your Lordships' justice, that the private opinions and gratuitous assumptions of interested individuals will not he sufficient to disturb rights founded upon ancient grants recognised by express statutes, and devised as an undoubted part of the common law, and the established practice of the land. If bold assertion, unsupported by any show of authority, be sufficient to shake the property of the Church—if such sophistry as that which was used before the Committee be countenanced, or even heard with complacency in this House—if its motives and its tendency be not seen through and justly estimated—nay, if it be not repelled by your Lordships with suitable indignation and scorn—I shall lament, not only for the inevitable destruction of the rights of my own order, but much more for that blindness and infatuation which are unable to discover that by the same or similar pretences of factious and artful men, the foundations of all property, lay as well as ecclesiastical, and the stability of all rights will be speedily subverted, and public security involved in one common ruin. I trust, my Lords, that I am not going out of my way in thus asserting the rights of the clergy to the property of tithe, because it is only on the validity of those rights that the measure of relief proposed by this Bill can be supported—or that they wish it to be supported. Their just and legal claims have been defeated by means of illegal combination, and in consequence of a disorganised state of society, provoked by no exorbitancy of demand on their part, and by no injudicious severity in the mode of enforcing that demand, but by a system of continued agitation, and by the artful suggestion of those from whose spiritual character less pernicious counsels might have been expected. Instead of one-tenth of

747
the produce subject to the payment of which your Lordships hold, and all others have purchased their titheable property—the calumniated clergy of Ireland have been contented to receive less than a fifteenth of the rent, or from a fiftieth to a sixtieth part of the produce. This has been satisfactorily proved by a variety of witnesses before the Committee of your Lordships' House, and it is confirmed by the compositions already entered into by more than 1,500 of the parishes in Ireland—the amount of which averages less than 1s. per English acre. Such is that grievous impost on the industry and agricultural improvement of Ireland to which it has been said its poverty and its distractions are to be attributed. But, my Lords, small as this sum may appear in amount, it may be thought that the mode of collecting it has been vexatious. I do not deny that in a few instances which the industry of our opponents may have raked out, causes of complaint may have arisen, but these are generally to be traced not to the incumbent himself but to those to whom he has been compelled, by the refractoriness of the people, to commit the collection of his tithes. This, however, is never done without serious loss of income to the incumbent himself. In all cases in which no perverse opposition is given it is manifestly the incumbent's interest to enter into a moderate and amicable arrangement with his parishioners—both for the amount and the mode of collecting his tithes. And the best proof of his willingness to do this is to be found in the terms of the compositions already entered into, in which the clergyman has been generally willing to take not only far less than his legal demand—more he cannot take—but farless than hiscustomary receipts, and which, although he is authorised to demand payment twice a-year, as in case of rent, he generally applies for it only once—at the time most convenient for the people to pay it, and not unfrequently a year after it is due. But, my Lords, this may not be the most fitting occasion for vindicating the moderation and forbearance of the Irish clergy both as to the amount of their demands, and as to the mode of enforcing them—since their conduct will be seen in the evidence already laid upon your Lordships' Table. To your Lordships' can-dour and justice I fearlessly commit their case, and not only to your Lordships judgment, but to that of an impartial and discriminating public. With respect to the sufferings of the clergy of the disturbed
748
districts, amounting, I fear, to the utter ruin of many, and the great embarrassment of all, I must say a few words. I hold in my hand letters which fully justify me in stating that men brought up in decent and easy circumstances have been suddenly reduced to the greatest privations—and in some cases their families would have suffered under absolute want, had they not been relieved by the charitable aid of their friends and brethren. I could mention the names of the sufferers, and of their generous benefactors, if it were necessary. Others have been driven from their homes by threats which were too certain of being executed—and those who have had the courage to remain have been obliged, at serious expense, to send away their families to places of greater security. If it be asked why did not the clergy seek that timely assistance from the Government which they professed themselves ready to afford, and thus prevent the growth of this now extended mischief? I will tell your Lordships from conversations which I have had with many of the sufferers. The direct application to Government for military aid was the last remedy to which they chose to resort. Many of the ruined clergy have told me that, rather than risk the shedding of blood they would prefer the abandonment of their claims, however disastrous the consequences might be to themselves and families. In some instances the early interposition of Government produced the desired effect of bringing back the people to a sense of their duty, and I am bound to say, that if it had been more generally sought for and afforded, it would have produced the same effect in all. But I believe the fact to be, that the Government was unequal to afford the requisite assistance in the numerous and harassing cases in which it might have been called for—and the clergy still cling to the hope of the general enforcement of the ordinary, or the enactment of some extraordinary, law by which peace and good order may be restored, and their rights established, without being made themselves the objects of popular indignation and the victims of confederated assassins. Whether such a line of conduct, proceeding from such motives, be viewed by your Lordships with that admiration of which I think it to be deserving—whether it is to be designated as weak and faulty, or as kind and forbearing, it is certain that the existing state of things has reduced many worthy families to actual want, and to all it has produced distress—the greater

749
because it was unexpected, and, therefore, unprovided for. In several letters which I have in my possession from clergymen in the disturbed districts, they describe themselves as having had no controversy with their parishioners on the subject of tithes for twenty years, as not having had occasion during that time to levy a single distress. In other parishes the people acknowledged the moderation of the settlement under the Composition Act, begged the clergyman himself to become one of the commissioners for applotting the amount, and in some cases they have admitted that if they did not pay him what was due to him in the shape of tithes, to pay a larger sum in the shape of rent. Such was the state of things in many of the now disturbed parishes until the system of perpetual agitation commenced, until a frightful tyranny of fear and force was exercised by the lawless and desperate, over the peaceable and well-intentioned, above all, until tithes were denounced by spiritual authority and the people were exhorted in pastorals and from the altars to resist the payment of them by every means that wit and talent could devise with an artful reservation, indeed not likely to be much heeded by an irritable and thoughtless people, of not carrying their resistance to the open violation of the law. I need not tell your Lordships that the natural effects of such a mockery of moderation followed, and if it be a matter of satisfaction to such advisers to know it, they may learn that they have gained their ends in the utter destitution of the greater part of the Protestant clergy of Ireland. But I should hope that no good man will envy them their triumph. The only possible objection I think remains to be guarded against. It may be said, why is not the clergyman provided against the hour of need? My Lords, the beneficed clergyman, whatever has been industriously circulated to the contrary, is seldom rich. His income is always exaggerated, and he generally obtains it at an advanced time of life; his habits, his associations, and his pursuits impose upon him, without fault of his, the necessity of an expenditure that might be avoided in other stations. The demands upon him for public and private charities, and for contributions for various useful undertakings, are not inconsiderable: his children are to be educated, and placed in suitable ways of life. You require of him no common attainments as a qualification for his profession; and by so doing you
750
have engendered in his bosom the honest pride of accustoming himself and his offspring to what is seemly and liberal. All this may be now thought wrong and uncalled for; but time was when it was not thought so. If he be accounted rich in comparison with many of those around him, by reason of the superior decency of his mode of living, in almost every instance except where he is possessed of private fortune he dies poor. This simple statement will sufficiently explain to your Lordships why clergymen in the enjoyment of what is called, and often falsely called, a good preferment, may without the imputation of improvident expenditure, be reduced to great necessity by the subtraction of a single year's income. In the present case the loss was frequently extended to that of two, three, and even four years. The noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government will do the clergy the justice to admit that they have not been importunate in their claims for relief, nor unreasonable in their expectations of its amount; and I am bound to do him the justice to say, that the proposal of relief originated with himself in the Committee, and I am confident that even an increased amount would have been cheerfully acceded to by him had it been asked for; my Lords I have nothing more to add except to express my thanks to his Majesty's Ministers, and especially to the right hon. the secretary for Ireland, for having proposed this measure, and for having urged its adoption so warmly; and I leave it with your Lordships to be dealt with now as the exigency or the justice of the case may require.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that it was not his intention, as the noble viscount proposed to defer the commitment of the Bill, to go fully into the subject at present; at the same time he could not avoid observing that the second reading had taken place without due notice, and before the printed Bill even was in the possession of their Lordships, so that up to the present time no opportunity of discussion had been afforded. He hoped, therefore, the noble Viscount would instead of Thursday, fix some more distant period for the Committee, when the subject could be fully discussed. On Thursday the House was to go into Committee on the Reform Bill, which would fully occupy their attention. He hoped, therefore, some other day would be fixed for the present measure, which he did not intend to oppose, although he thought it required numerous and considerable Amendments.
Viscount Melbournedid not intend to deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing the measure, and the second reading had been hastened only because they thought it expedient to proceed with as much despatch as possible to relieve the urgent distress of the excellent body of persons whose relief the Bill had in view. It was desirable that the redress should be speedy, and that redress depended entirely upon the speed with which the Bill passed that House. Any delay of the Bill would delay the relief of the meritorious class of persons to whom relief was to be extended. He had no objection to any day which might be convenient to the noble Lord, but for the reasons he had stated he hoped there would not be any unnecessary delay.
The Earl of Wicklowhad no disposition to retard the progress of the measure. But perhaps a delay of two or three days might expedite the Bill by affording time for the necessary amendments to be proposed and introduced. On the Motion of Viscount Melbourne, the Bill was then ordered to be committed on Friday.