Sitting of 26 August 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord AUCKLAND, a Copy of a Despatch, dated 9th April, 1832, by the Earl of BELMORE, Governor of Jamaica, to Viscount GODERICH.—On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Number of Ship-Letter Bags despatched from the General Post Office, &c.
Bills. Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund.—Read a third time:—Court of Exchequer; Bank Notes; Stamp Duties; Land Tax Commissioners; Chancery Offices; Inheritance; Dower; Roman Catholic Marriages (Ireland); Factories' Regulations; Tea Duties,
Petitions presented. By Lord WESTERN, from several Places, in favour of the Tithes Stay of Suits Bill.

RENEWAL OF THE BANK CHARTER.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland moved the Third Reading of the Bank Charter Bill.
The Duke of Wellington,objected to the legal-tender clause. He expressed his opinion, that it would have the effect of improperly increasing the amount of country bank notes in circulation. He did not understand why the country banks had required such a boon at the hands of the Bank of England. He thought, that the result of this measure would be to establish an agio that would be anything but beneficial to this country. He thought that the words "ten pounds" should be inserted instead of "five pounds" in the clause.
The Earl of Ripondid not apprehend the danger from the establishment of an agio which seemed to alarm the noble Duke. This clause had not been asked for as a boon, nor was it given with that intent. It was thought, that it would be for the advantage of country banks, and likewise for the accommodation of the Bank of England itself. If he (the Earl of Ripon) could think, that it would unduly increase the amount of paper in circulation, he should be opposed to it. He said unduly increase, because if the amount in circulation was not increased in such a manner as to bring down the exchanges, the fuller it was, the better. Up to the point of affecting the exchanges, a large circulation was more convenient than a small one, but it must not go beyond that point. He, therefore, thought it better to retain the sum of 5l. than to insert 10 l., as proposed by the noble Duke.
The Duke of Wellingtonbelieved, that as the clause now stood it would have the effect of reducing the exchanges, and he should, therefore, put his opinion on record by moving that 10 l. be inserted for 5l.
The Amendment negatived, and the Bill read a third time and passed.
Against the third reading of this Bill, the following Protest was entered.
DISSENTIENT,
1st. Because no subject who is in possession of a valuable privilege ought to be deprived of it, except by the judgment of a Court of; Justice, after a patient hearing of his case, and by an impartial decision upon it, uninfluenced by party or popular feeling. The taking from any one a right or privilege by a declaratory law, supported only by an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown (which opinion has never been laid before this House), and without the authority of the sanction of the Judges, I is an arbitrary and oppressive proceeding, and contrary to the uniform practice of Parliament.
2. Because the clause which it was proposed to substitute for the declaratory clause contained in this Bill would have afforded all the protection to the public which they have ever had, and have prevented the Bank from enjoying any exclusive privilege which it does not at present legally possess. The clause in the Bill takes from the Bank a privilege it has always enjoyed, and which privilege, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case, it was agreed by the promoters of the Bill, and the Governor and Directors to continue to the Bank. The altering of this bargain exposes the proceedings of the Legislature to the imputation of a breach of faith.
3. Because, although the preamble of the declaratory clause itself expressly states, that it is the intention of the Legislature that the Governor and Company of the Bank of England shall continue to hold and enjoy all the exclusive privileges of banking given them by any Act of Parliament, and although by the letter and spirit of all the statutes relating to that Corporation, the exclusive privilege of banking, which includes the receiving of deposits as well as the issuing of bills or notes, is secured to the Governor and Company, so that no Corporation or Company consisting of more than six partners can carry on a bank of deposit or issue in London, or within sixty-five miles thereof, this clause, under the pretence of removing doubts as to the construction of these Acts, enables Corporations and Companies composed of an unlimited number of partners to open banks of deposit in any part of England. It has been repeatedly judicially declared by the late Lord KENYON, Mr. Justice GROSE, and other eminent Judges, that, if doubts arise as to the true construction of an Act of Parliament, such doubts may be removed by contemporaneous usage. There has been an uniform usage in favour of this exclusive privilege from the passing of the first statute relating to the Bank down to the present time.
4th. Because, by giving a right to open banks of deposit to Corporations and Companies with an unlimited number of partners, a spirit of speculation will be encouraged, which will endanger our commercial interests.
878
If banks possessing the immense capitals which the proposed new banks will possess, succeed, they will destroy the long-established and highly beneficial system of banking now existing in the metropolis. If they fail, their failure will ruin many unwary persons who may become partners, or who may have dealings with them. The great capital which they will hold will enable them to embarrass the Bank of England in the discharge of its most important duties. The banks which this Bill directly sanctions must produce injury to great numbers of individuals, and must endanger the public interest; and on these accounts it was not long since declared by the highest legal authority in this House, with reference to the statute of the 6th of Geo. 1st c. 18, that the establishment of such companies was contrary to the common law.
5th. Because the provision which makes the promissory notes of the Bank of England a legal tender in all cases except when they shall be presented for payment at the Bank, or one of its branches, has a tendency to introduce, without any alleged necessity, and in time of profound peace, the dangerous principle of a compulsory paper currency.
WYNFORD
BEXLEY
CARRINGTON (for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reasons)
ERNEST.

WARWICK ELECTION—EXPLANATION.
The Earl of Warwickwished to take that opportunity of making some observations upon the charges which had been brought against him. He regretted, that circumstances would delay a full investigation into this matter, as it was his wish to meet these charges as soon as possible. He had received a letter from the noble Lord opposite on the subject of these charges, and he had at once returned to this country. He most positively denied the truth of these charges. He was perfectly ignorant of having been guilty of any illegal or improper conduct on the subject. He denied altogether that he had interfered with the election. He declared most positively, that he believed there was no Peer of the realm who had personally interfered in elections less than he had. He knew no more of this matter than any of their Lordships. He denied having furnished money improperly, for the purposes of the election. He understood that there were expenses justified by law, such as those relating to the registration and the scrutiny attendant upon it; and with regard to them he had stated, that as far as it was proper, he should be happy to assist his relative, but he had done nothing more. He had not interfered

879
during the election, and he had not gone down after the election, but had, at some inconvenience to himself, remained away because he would not do anything which might appear to be likely to create excitement. Yet, notwithstanding all these things, attacks had been made on him in the newspapers, and not only in the newspapers here, but in foreign journals. He noticed these attacks thus publicly, because they had been publicly made. He had been charged with personal interference in the election, and he came before their Lordships to meet these charges. He was sorry that they could not now be examined into, for as to himself he was perfectly ready to meet them. He should say no more than to express his obligations to the noble Lord opposite for writing to him and enabling him to come over at once, and declare that the attacks which had been made on him were unfounded.

TITHES—STAY OF SUITS.
Lord Westernpresented Petitions from Cumberland and Yorkshire, in favour of this Bill.
The Bishop of Londonavailed himself of the opportunity offered by the presentation of these petitions to say a few words on the subject of this Bill. This was a Bill avowedly intended to stay certain tithe suits till the next Session of Parliament, but which, besides, contained a direct censure on all the clerical owners of tithes in the kingdom. If it should pass into a law, it would put most of them to considerable expense, and the claims of some it might defeat altogether. With respect to the principle of the Bill, he must say, that, in his opinion, a more unjust measure had never been sent up to their Lordships from the other House of Parliament, and he could not but feel some surprise at the commendations it had received from one of the Law Officers of the Crown. It had been stated that Lord Tenterden had been compelled to introduce into his Bill the clause under which the actions now attempted to be stayed had been brought. That was not the case. He could assert, from his own personal knowledge, that a longer term than three years having been mentioned. Lord Tenterden said, that he was willing to grant the clergy a longer term, but that he did not think the House of Commons would assent to it. He had in his hand the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on referring to the clause in question. The noble and learned Lord said—"The first proviso in that Bill
880
was, that it should not affect the right of the clergy to institute suits for the space of three years under the provisions of the old law. He doubted not but that that period would be found satisfactory, except in some cases, perhaps, of tithes belonging to the clergy. He did not think that the door ought at once to be closed upon claims of this sort, or great injustice might be done." These were the sentiments of Lord Tenterden The noble and learned Lord who now occupied the Woolsack had said on the same occasion, that—"It was fitting that clerical incumbents should have ample notice and time given them to claim what they considered justly their due." The Bishops and others in that House had asked for longer time, but their request was refused, and they acquiesced in the refusal. That having been done, it was too much now to introduce this Bill to deprive the owners of tithes of those means of enforcing their rights which, after so much consideration, had been accorded them. He wished now to make a few observations with regard to the particular case on which this Bill was specially founded. They related chiefly to a body to whom he was deeply indebted, for whom he felt the most lasting gratitude, and on whose behalf it was his duty to stand up in that House. The greatest number of suits in Kendal were said to have been brought by that body—he meant the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge. He mentioned these cases in order to call the attention of their Lordships to circumstances which showed most strongly the injustice of this Bill. The rectory of Kendal had been granted by Queen Elizabeth to Trinity College, and that body had been in the habit of granting leases of the tithes to some of the neighbouring landholders. These various leases had recently been united in the hands of one person. Great confusion had occurred in settling the claims of the various parties interested in so large a parish. Some years ago the College filed a bill against a few of the parishioners for the purpose of ascertaining what were the claims of exemption existing in the parish. The cause came on for hearing before the Vice-Chancellor, who made a decree in favour of the College. An appeal was brought against that decree, and the cause was carried before the Lord Chancellor. It did not come on for hearing till after the present noble and learned Lord had taken his seat upon the Woolsack, and his Lordship had only varied the decree in some slight manner, and directed certain

881
issues of fact to be tried before a Jury. All these proceedings took place before Lord Tenterden's Bill was introduced. The cause came on at the last Spring Assizes, and the Jury found the issues in favour of the College. The solicitor for the College had proposed to the inhabitants, that there should be an arrangement entered into by which all parties should bind themselves to abide the event of the suits then pending. No answer was at first given, but, after the verdict on the issues had been returned in favour of the College, there was a meeting of the parishioners, and they came to a determination not to bind themselves to abide by the result of the suits then pending. Looking at this Bill, and supposing that the judgment of the Lord Chancellor upon the issues should be the same as it had been before, what would be the situation of the College? The solicitor had, by virtue of this clause in Lord Tenterden's Bill, been compelled to issue subpœnas against those who were not parties to the original suits, and who would not enter into the agreement proposed by him. Then came this Bill, sanctioned by the Law Officer of the Crown. The defendants, in the original suits, would have to pay their tithes in kind, but the greater portion of the parish would be enabled to retain their tithes, which properly belonged to Trinity College, unless that House would allow all tithe owners to vindicate their rights according to the law as it now stood. He thought this was a complete justification of the conduct of the College in this matter, and he trusted that their Lordships would not sanction a Bill which went, as this did, to work a heavy injustice on parties who had been guilty of no offence but that of attempting to enforce their rights according to law.
The Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Westernrose to move that the Bill to which the right reverend Prelate had objected should be read a second time. He was convinced that it would be useful in putting an end to the litigation which had commenced between the clergy and their parishioners, and in suspending the progress of that excitement against the Church, which, if continued, must be pregnant with danger not only to the interests of the Church, but also to the interests of religion itself. He understood that suits had been instituted already against 9,000 persons, and to put a stop to their further progress, this Bill ought to receive their Lordships approbation.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that there was a wide difference between this Bill and Lord Tenterden's Bill, of which it professed to be an improvement. That Bill was a Bill for the regulation of a certain species of property; this Bill was a Bill which singled out one species of property, and prevented the owners of it from exercising that control over it, which they could exercise over every other species of property to which they were entitled. The objections to passing this Bill were much stronger than he had imagined them to be when it was first submitted to his consideration, for if so many suits were commenced as his noble friend alleged there was a chance that the plaintiffs in many of them would die before the suspension of these suits terminated. The suits would then abate, and to recover the tithes due, the suits would have to be commenced de novo by their heirs or executors, who, in all probability, would know nothing at all about the matter. Considering that there were upwards of 10,000 benefices in. England, he really thought it strange that the number of suits commenced was not greater than the number stated by the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London). He contended that their Lordships had no right to single out individuals of a certain class, and to say to them, "The suits which you have instituted for the recovery of what you consider your just rights you shall not be permitted to proceed further with." As an argument for passing this measure, their Lordships had been told, that it had been carried through the other House of Parliament by a large majority. Whether it had been so carried or not, was not the point to which their Lordships ought to attend, but to the intrinsic merits of the Bill itself. Admitting, that the majority in its favour was so large as had been represented, how did it happen that that large majority had not brought in a Bill of this importance at an earlier period of the Session, when their Lordships might have had time to consider it in all its details? As it was framed at present, it appeared to him to be inefficient for the object which it was intended to accomplish; but, independently of that objection, it appeared to him to inflict upon the clergy various hardships from which it was the duty of the Legislature to protect them. For instance, some of them had gone to all the expense of getting their causes ready for trial, and now they were informed that the decisions on those causes were to be indefinitely

883
postponed. He felt himself bound, out of gratitude to the clergy for the benefits which they had conferred upon the country, to protect their interests to the utmost of his ability, and with that view, he should now move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted that this was an extraordinary Bill, and liable to many of the objections which had been urged against it by the noble and learned Lord, and more particularly to the objection which had been taken to it by the right reverend Prelate. It was impossible, on the other hand, to deny, if the accounts were not strangely exaggerated, that there bad been a great amount of Bills filed (or of proceedings taken preliminary to the filing of Bills), and a great number of suits commenced, to escape the operation of Lord Tenterden's Act. By that Act a year had been given for the commencement of proceedings in these lithe cases; but suppose that, in every case of modus, throughout the kingdom, proceedings had been instituted, not to set aside the modus but to save the time mentioned in Lord Tenterden's Act, and to give the parties the option of continuing those proceedings at a future period, if they thought it advisable; it was clear, that in that case. Lord Tenterden's Act would become inoperative, and that its object would be altogether defeated. Now, that would be a grievous injury both to the Church and to the State—for the Bill was intended to be a Bill of quiet to the State, and a Bill of goodwill and security to the Church; whereas, if it were to be converted to the purposes to which some persons imagined that it was converted, it would be neither the one nor the other. He was far from saying that it was easy to see the way through the difficulties of this question, supposing that their Lordships acted with a strict regard to justice. It appeared to him, that the House was comparatively in a state of ignorance as to the circumstances which were urged as the reason for passing this measure. If the number of suits did not amount to more than the number stated by the right reverend Prelate, then he should say, that there were no grounds for passing this Bill; but if the number extended to the enormous amount mentioned by his noble friend, then he should say some legislative measure must be resorted to. But would there be any great mischief in allowing the matter to stand as it was at present? Having brought in the
884
Bill, would any harm result from postponing any further proceeding with respect to it until the next Session of Parliament? Those who were apprehensive that in the five or six intervening months the suits in question might be brought to a close, knew very little of the nature of our laws, or of the cumbrous proceedings which must be necessary. Nothing could be done before Michaelmas Term (the 2nd of November,) and between that and the probable opening of the next Session, very slender progress could be made in any suit; so that, although he by no means regretted that the subject had attracted the attention of Parliament, he thought it might perhaps be as well to wait, in order to see whether any legislative interference was advisable; and, if advisable, what course it would be most expedient to pursue.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that the number of clergymen who had instituted suits was not as great as the number of suits instituted; for a large proportion of the suits had been brought by lay-impropriators. He did not believe, that the number of suits brought by clergymen was a tenth of what had been represented.
Lord Wynford's Amendment agreed to.
The Bill postponed.

TITHE ARREARS (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the Order of the Day for their Lordships to go into a Committee on the Tithe Arrears (Ireland) Bill. Their Lordships had heard so much about Irish tithes in the course of the present Session, that he would not trouble them with many observations on the present occasion. He must, however, advert to a declaration of the noble Duke opposite, in which he had stated that the resistance to the payment of tithes in Ireland was the result of an organized conspiracy. Now, whether it was the result of an organized correspondence among the different classes of society in Ireland—which he should call a conspiracy—or whether it was the simultaneous result of the spontaneous feelings of the people in that country, he was not prepared to say. In either case the result was the same, though the criminality might be different. It became also the more dangerous on account of the minute subdivision of property in Ireland, which led to a multiplicity of claims for small sums due to the clergy in the first instance, and, where those claims were refused payment, to a multiplicity of suits to recover

885
them in the second. It was in consequence of this subdivision of property, and of the difficulty of recovering the small sums which were due to the clergy for tithes, that the former measure of Government for the collection of tithes had failed. He had heard it stated that the measure had not failed, but that it was on the very point of succeeding, when Government ordered the operation of it to be stopped. He did not believe such to be the case; but even if it were, it would not alter the circumstances in which the clergy of the Established Church of Ireland were now placed, though it might afford ground of inculpation against the Government. It was to remedy those circumstances—it was to relieve the clergy of the Established Church of Ireland from the distress in which so many of them were now plunged, that he moved their Lordships to consent to the committal of this Bill. He would not delay them with any general remarks on the nature of tithes, but would proceed to describe to them the objects and details of this Bill as succinctly as the nature of it would allow. The noble Viscount proceeded to describe the terms upon which 1,000,000 l. sterling was to be granted to the Irish clergy for arrears of tithes, and the provisions by which the repayment of that sum was to be secured to this country, and concluded by stating, that this Bill had been acceded to by the Representatives of the landlords of Ireland, who thought it for their interest to take upon themselves this burthen.
The Duke of Wellingtonexpressed his approbation of the measure. It was one of charity and benevolence, and so far as it proposed to relieve a very meritorious and distressed class of men, he would give it his support, but he thought many of the details were objectionable. He was opposed, for instance, to the condition on which the relief was granted. The Bill imposed upon the tithe-owner the condition of renouncing his property for 1829 and 1830, in order to obtain an advance of 75 per cent, on the same description of property for 1831, and 1832. Such a condition he thought their Lordships had no right to impose. With respect also to the clause which remitted 25 per cent, of the tithe to be collected for the years 1831 and 1832, this clause extended not only to the landlords, but to the occupiers of lands, and thus it would operate as a bonus for default in payment of tithes. He should not, however, at the present stage, move any Amendment.
Lord Plunkettsaid, it was proposed to insert a clause in the Bill, to prevent the 25 per cent clause from operating as a bounty on default, as the noble Duke anticipated, when such default took place, the allowance of 25 per cent would not be made.
The Earl of Wicklowhad come down to the House with the intention of supporting the Bill, understanding that his so doing would not be inconsistent with the Motion which he had the honour of submitting to their Lordships, when the Resolutions on which this Bill was framed passed the other House of Parliament. As far as he understood the Bill, there was no security in it for repayment of the advance proposed to be made. His approbation was founded on this—that the sum to be given was to be considered as a grant, and that whatever shadow of security the Bill might profess to give, in reality it gave none. In considering it as a grant, however, he would not treat it either as a boon or a favour, but as a mere act of justice to the clerical and lay impropriators of tithes. The necessity which compelled the Government to adopt this measure was a just retribution; for he considered the course of policy pursued by the present Government as the sole cause of that necessity. Everybody knew that, from the passing of the Coercion Bill, there was a disposition on the part of the people of Ireland to return to the payment of tithes, and to a state of obedience to the law. This was not attributable to the Coercive powers of the Bill, but to the disposition of the people, of which disposition he could give the most incontestible proofs. But, at an unfortunate moment, a noble Lord highly connected with the Government, chose to put an extinguisher on the collection of tithes in that country. He knew why that noble Lord did so. It was because in the course of the debate on the Coercion Bill he pledged himself that it should not be applied to the collection of tithes in Ireland; and when, in consequence of the altered disposition of the people, after the passing of that Bill, tithes in Ireland became more easy of collection, the noble Lord seemed to fear, that by some misconstruction, he might be thought to have violated his pledge, and therefore he put a total stop to the collection of tithe arrears. The noble Earl then referred to a letter, written by Major Miller to a person who, having reason to apprehend violent resistance, had requested the assistance

887
of the military and police in distraining for arrears of tithe, in which that gentleman stated he was prohibited by the Government from giving the aid either of the military or the police force. He (the Earl of Wicklow) wished to know what right the Government had to refuse the aid of the police? They were perhaps entitled to control the military; but the police were paid by the county, and their services ought to be available when required. He had already stated, that he should support the Bill as a grant, and as a grant alone; and believing it to be simply an act of retributive justice, and no favour to those whom it was intended to relieve. But, in thus consenting to pass this Bill into a law, he must observe, that it left entirely open the question as to what footing tithes should stand upon in future. Nor was there anything at all in this Bill to render it probable that a similar measure would not be required next Session. He had no doubt that similar distress would prevail—that similar resistance would take place—and that a similar necessity would occur. Indeed the whole proceeding was of a nature to encourage resistance, and to render it almost miraculous if the same system should not again be followed up. It might be said, that the time for compounding for tithes had been prolonged, but it should be remembered how few contracts had been entered into in consequence of that measure, and that under existing circumstances there was still less probability that such contracts would be made. At this late period of the Session, feeling as he did the necessity of some grant to the clergy, he should be exceedingly sorry to give any opposition to the Bill; he objected, however, to some of the details, and would bring forward his objections in Committee.
The Archbishop of Dublinintended to detain their Lordships but a very short time, though, as he was the sole Representative of the Irish Church present, they would excuse his troubling them with a few words. He should not enter into the particulars of the Bill, because that would be best done in Committee, and because when he was examined before a Committee of their Lordships' House, the substance of the present Bill had then been suggested by him. This, however, he would say, that from all he could collect from the clergy and friends of the Church in Ireland, he had reason to believe, that some measure of this kind would now prove much
888
more satisfactory to them than when he first proposed it; that was, if injudicious means were not used, and intemperate expressions were not resorted to, for the purpose of keeping up the alarm which prevailed in Ireland on this subject. He had consulted with many of the clergy when he first proposed this measure, but they generally treated it as one pregnant with difficulties, and seemed inclined to think that things would come right of themselves. He contended, however, that some measure of the kind was then necessary, and that the difficulties of the question would increase by delay. He was the last person in the world to cast reproach on the clergy or indeed on any person belonging to any political party. But if he were inclined to enter into the controversy, he might say, that when he first suggested this measure it was not supported. He would not, however, enter into any unpleasant retrospects, but he wished to impress on their Lordships and on the public the necessity of making the best of existing circumstances, and of taking the best precautions for the future, and more especially of not exposing the Church to unnecessary danger by holding out such language as had formerly been held out, and which had created great excitement and alarm. He trusted also he might be permitted to remark on the impropriety of indulging in prophecies which, as had already been the case, but too frequently led to their own fulfilment. Those who had professed themselves to be the friends of the Church had strengthened the agitators by the intemperate expressions in which they had indulged. They had repeatedly asserted, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to put down the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. He could assure their Lordships that the various prophecies which had been indulged in had tended in the greatest possible degree to bring about their own fulfilment. He could mention to their Lordships, one case, which was but a type of many others. The parishioners of a clergyman whose parish was so distracted by these various reports, and by the declarations that the Protestant religion was put an end to by the Government, that they really knew not what was or what was not the law; and it was not till after an application to him, and an assurance from him that Government had no intention of the kind, that they consented to pay their tithes. This would illustrate to their Lordships

889
the importance of conducting their discussions with calmness and temperance, and of avoiding those rash prophecies which were calculated only to create alarm and excitement, and, in the result, to work their own fulfilment.
Earl Greyhad hoped, after the temperate speech of the noble Duke opposite, that there would have been no necessity for him to address their Lordships on this Bill. It was, however, impossible to pass over in silence what had fallen from the noble Earl. He agreed with the most reverend Prelate, that much mischief had arisen from the declaration of those who, doubtless, in the sincerity of their belief (though in that belief they did great injustice to his Majesty's Government), had represented his Majesty's Government as hostile to the Protestant Establishment. It had more than once fallen to his lot to disclaim any such hostility, and to state, that it was his most earnest wish and sincere endeavour to do every thing in his power to support its interests. If their Lordships looked candidly at the situation of his Majesty's Government, they must admit that it was one of considerable difficulty. The noble Earl had said that the difficulties of the Government were of their own making, but he would ask the noble Earl to point out any course that might have been pursued which would have been free from difficulty. The most reverend Prelate had said truly that those misrepresentations of the intentions of Government had tended materially to increase those difficulties. A new example of the danger to which the most reverend Prelate had alluded, was exhibited in the speech of the noble Earl, who alleged as his great inducement to support this Bill, that he considered it as a grant. It must have been known to the noble Earl, that it was not on this principle that the Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House. It must have been known to the noble Earl, that if it had been so introduced in another place, he believed that such an interpretation was put upon it by those with whom the noble Earl would not be well pleased to be considered as united in opinions—but to return, the noble Earl knew that if it had been so introduced in another place, it would never have reached their Lordships' House. He would tell the noble Earl what the principle of the Bill was. It was founded on the principle of relief to the Clergy. As the noble Duke had truly stated, it was founded on a charitable
890
and benevolent intention, but in the full confidence that the people of England would not be called on to submit to a burthen which, under the circumstances, ought not to fall upon them. The noble Earl said, it was a just retribution, that a grant should be made to the Irish clergy, and that Englishmen should be called on to pay a sum which they never expected to be returned to them. But if the noble Earl looked to the provisions of the Bill, he would see that the return was provided for, though if the noble Earl thought proper to indulge in such language, it was not impossible that it might produce the effect which had been adverted to by the right reverend Prelate. What a justification would it not be for such conduct that it had been stated in Parliament, particularly in that House, that no such return was ever expected. He, therefore, felt it incumbent upon him to contradict the assertion of the effect of this measure, and to state most distinctly, that he thought full security was provided by this Bill for the repayment of the temporary relief which it afforded to the Clergy, and for securing the people of England from the imposition of a burthen which ought not in justice, to fall on them. The noble Earl had also stated, that after the passing of the Coercion Bill, there would have been no difficulty in collecting tithes, had not the Government put a stop to it. That certainly was not the case, for the Government, with all the power of military and police which it had at command, was able to collect but a very small proportion indeed of the arrears of tithe which were due to them. Certainly it was contemplated to afford relief to the Clergy by enabling them to collect their tithes, if upon experience it had been found that there were less objections to that proceeding than was actually the case. It was easy to say, that the tithes ought to have been levied, but he had shown that in practice, that was not the case. Scenes of outrage and violence had followed the attempt to collect tithes. That was particularly the case in Cork, and in other places, where the Magistrates had refused to act, and altogether a lamentable state of things was produced which nobody could say it was not the duty of the Government to put an end to. That was done from no desire to relax the authority of the law; and he could assure their Lordships, that the Government did not yield to the noble Earl opposite, or to

891
any noble Lords in their desire and determination to support the authority of the law. The Government, however, felt called upon to see if other means of relief might not be afforded. Meeting the difficulties of the present case, and endeavouring to avoid such obstacles for the future, it was not for him to say that the Government had been successful in this endeavour, but he wished again to say that this was not a grant, which was not to be repaid, but a loan, otherwise it would throw a burthen on the people of England which they had no right to bear. He admitted that there were many difficulties in the matter; and if any amendments could be proposed calculated to make the measure more efficacious, as his noble friend had signified his intention to propose one, the noble Lord would find that the Government was ready to take them into its most favourable consideration. With reference to the measure of last year, which the noble Earl had alluded to, it was not yet sufficiently understood, nor were its advantages sufficiently appreciated. It certainly was intended that that measure should be accompanied by a measure for a commutation of tithes. That was recommended by the Committee; and their Lordships might rest assured that this object was not lost sight of. He hoped it might be accomplished in another Session; and then, to use a word which had been much misunderstood, but which the noble Earl knew was not the word of the Government—he did hope that at length tithes might be extinguished; not with any diminution of the rights of the Clergy, but by a commutation which would enable them to exercise those rights in a less obnoxious manner than at present, and avoid all the evils of the present system. Those evils were not of modern origin. Seventy years ago the Parliament of Ireland had passed a law to relieve the clergy, in consequence of the non-payment of tithes. Then there were scenes of violence and bloodshed, such as had lately been complained of; and certainly he had to regret that no measures had been taken since that period to put this matter on a footing more congenial to the feelings of the people. He would not enter into any present circumstances; he would only say that, after what had occurred of late years, it was not to be wondered at that the difficulties of the subject were now very great. He trusted, however, that they would now surmount some of those difficulties by agreeing to the present measure, laying a
892
foundation of a better state of things, and avoiding the necessity for ever again having recourse to a similar measure. He acknowledged that there were objections to the measure, some of which might be obviated in Committee; and he trusted that their Lordships would then suffer the Bill to go into a Committee, when noble Lords would have an opportunity of offering any Amendment which would conduce to remove those objections.
Their Lordships resolved themselves into a Committee on the Bill.
The Clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed. Report to be received.