Sitting of 14 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PEASE, an Account of the Number and Value of Country Bankers Notes Stamped in each quarter of a year, from January, 1826, to January, 1833—On the Motion of Mr. RUTHVAN, an Account of the Amount of Grand Jury Cess of each Parish in the City of Dublin, during the last seven years.—On the Motion of Mr. HUTT, an Account of all the Sums received and disbursed by the Trinity House of Hull, during the last ten years.
Bills. Read a second time:—National Debt; Parish Apprenticeship; Drainage Rates Recovery; Parochial Hates Exemption.
Petitions presented. By Captain CHETWYND, from Stafford, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. PEASE, from Malbridge, Durham, against the General Register Bill,

INQUEST ON CULLEY—ADJOURED DEBATE.
The Speakersaid, that the question before the House was, that the Petition presented by the hon. member for Bath do lie upon the Table.
Mr. Macleodsaid, that he had not the benefit of much parliamentary experience, but from the little he knew, he should infer that it was not at all the practice of the House to receive such petitions as the one under discussion. If the House countenanced the reception of a petition from Jurors, complaining that their verdict had been set aside by a superior Court, it might next expect to be addressed by the Master of the Rolls, complaining that a decree of his Court had been reversed by the decision of a superior Court upon appeal. It had been argued that there was nothing to identify the parties assembled in Calthorpe-street, with those who issued the placard calling the meeting together; but he was of opinion, that the Government was bound to believe, that the intentions of the meeting, and the feeling of the meeting, were to be found in that placard. What was Government to do then, knowing as it did that the meeting would take place? It might be said, that Government could have taken
798
one of several courses, and one course was, to do nothing at all. [Cheers] Was he to understand by those cheers that Government should have done nothing? But then, supposing that no notice had been taken of the meeting—supposing an immense multitude of people had assembled—supposing it had then been found necessary to call out a large military force—and supposing the military had come into contact with the people, and that much blood had been shed and many lives lost—who would have been so loud in condemning the inactivity of Government us the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House? It was said the meeting was contemptible, so was the conspiracy of Thistlewood contemptible; but it was not the less proper that such conspiracies and meetings should be suppressed, and not the less just that such men should be punished. If Government had taken no steps to prevent or disperse the meeting, one of two opinions would have been adopted by the people—either that the meeting was legal, or that the Government was too weak to prevent the meeting from taking place; either of which would have had a lamentable effect. If the ground had been pre-occupied by the police, what would have prevented the advanced guard of the meeting from taking another position, for choosing another open piece of ground? It was, he contended, not only the duty of the Government to disperse the meeting, but to take the ringleaders into custody; and he was convinced, from all he had heard, that the interference of the policemen had prevented much mischief. The blow which killed Culley was struck with a deadly weapon, while that man was discharging his duty. He lamented that the eloquence of the hon. member for Dublin had been exercised in justifying the verdict of justifiable homicide which had been given by the jury. It was clear to him, from the evidence, that Culley had not exercised any unbecoming violence in the discharge of his duty. Being of that opinion, he concurred entirely with the line of conduct adopted by his Majesty's Ministers in taking proceedings to set aside the verdict.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, the greater part of the Jury were personally known to him, and he felt confident they were men who would act conscientiously upon their oath, and that they had given in this Verdict simply upon the evidence laid before them. If, however, it was possible to believe that the verdict was against evidence,

799
it still appeared to him that Government ought to act with caution in any attempt to set that verdict aside, after the deliberation that had been given to the subject by the Jury. He thought no defence could be set up for the course which Government had pursued, and therefore thought himself justified in impugning it. He was as anxious as any man could be to preserve the institutions and peace of the country; but in his opinion the conduct of Ministers was more calculated to increase disquiet than insure peace. The meeting was contemptible in every point of view, and was convened by only a very few individuals; and therefore the Government was not, in his opinion, justified in taking alarm, and calling out the military and police. It was really giving a greater importance to the proceedings than they deserved; for he was sure that the people—now that they had a House of Commons over which they could exercise some control—would never think of having recourse to the establishment of a national convention. He could not believe—looking at the placard by which the meeting was called—that the parties had the object in view which some persons attributed to them. As to that part which stated that the meeting was for the purpose of considering the propriety of having a national convention, they all new that a national convention had been formed in one country, from whose proceedings he would say, "God forbid he should ever see it established in this country." A society had also been formed in the sister country for the same object, but its proceedings were not only most peaceable but beneficial; therefore, the meaning of the words "national convention," was in fact very dubious, and it ought not to have created so much alarm. The placard also stated as another object, that they should endeavour to secure the rights of the people, and those were words that had often been repeated without objection at various public meetings, but he had never heard that they implied a subversion of the Government. He thought his Majesty's Ministers had acted very prejudicially; they should have treated the meeting with contempt, or at most have provided a force which would have prevented a great number of persons from assembling. Some time ago he had presented a petition from an individual who was wholly unconnected with the proceedings; but who, in returning home from his labour, was knocked down, and had his head cut open. He would ask the legal
800
Gentlemen on the Treasury Benches, what would have been the verdict if that man had been killed under such circumstances? The Jury, as it appeared to him, could have returned no other verdict than murder. Then, was it prudent, was it right, was it sensible, of the Government to place themselves in that position when their acts were liable to such misinterpretation. He could not silently allow the privileges of Englishmen, the rights of the people, to be interfered with; but in this case not only was the Coroner's Inquisition set aside, but the Government took upon themselves to impugn the verdict of the Jury. At least they ought to take measures to have another inquest, so that, at all events, the cause of the death of the policeman should not be left in doubt, and the people be ignorant whether to call it murder or manslaughter. He believed that upon the occasion the Coroner had not acted in the manner in which a Coroner ought to act. His duty was to have pointed out to the Jury the law of the case. In place of doing so, he throughout showed a strong party feeling in suppressing part of the evidence which was brought before him. Even Colonel de Roos said, the people were very quiet, with the exception of a few stones being thrown, and in his opinion, there would have been no disturbance had the police not made an attack upon the people. Now, if the Coroner had acted properly, he would have explained to the Jury the difference of the law, as applied to the various degrees of guilt, in the case, and the verdict which the evidence would bear out. So far from attempting that, he wished to throw out a part of the verdict. He might have drawn it up in such a way as would have defied the Court of King's Bench to have set it aside. He had considered it his duty to say so much in vindication of the Jury, some of whom he knew to be most honourable men, and in his opinion they had acted most conscientiously.
Mr. Prymedid not consider that the question now was, whether the Coroner had done his duty or not; and, though he was to admit that Government had not taken the proper steps to prevent the meeting, still, he thought it was their duty to disabuse the public mind of the idea that a policeman, acting in the discharge of his duty, might be slain with impunity, even though he had exceeded the line of that duty. At all events the killing of Culley amounted to manslaughter, as was proved by the judgment of Chief Justice Best, in

801
a case at Hertford, where a police officer had a warrant against an individual for a misdemeanor, and mistaking his duty, broke open a door and was shot. There Mr. Justice Best said, though a charge of murder could not be supported, it was a clear case of manslaughter. Under those circumstances it was clearly the duty of Government to have acted as they had done, and by applying to the Court of King's Bench have the verdict set aside. As the matter had already obtained so much publicity, he did not see any reason for summoning a new Jury. It was perfectly unnecessary. With regard to the finding of the inquisition, every body knew that a person guilty of such an offence as this never was tried upon that inquisition.
Mr. Hardyrose rather to put it to the House than for any other purpose, whether it could be useful and profitable to proceed with the discussion? The proceeding principally complained of was not a proceeding that tended to destroy Trial by Jury—it was merely the setting aside of an illegal verdict, which the Court of King's Bench was bound to do upon its being brought before it. The petitioners stated, that the proceeding was calculated to bring Trial by Jury into discredit, and they prayed that steps might be taken to prevent that. He knew not what steps could be taken, even if the petitioners' premises were right. The House had now been discussing this subject for nearly two days, and he was quite sure that, after all, it could only lead to a most fruitless result, if the conduct of Government, on this occasion, was to he called into question, that ought to be done on a specific motion, of which due notice ought to be given. It would not do at all times to treat such a meeting as this with contempt. Every one must know, that the meeting of 1780 was too long treated with contempt. If the conduct of the Coroner was to be impugned, it ought also to be by a specific motion. The Jury had committed an error, in consequence of which the verdict had been set aside ["No, no, it was the Coroner's error"]. He could not allow it to be said it was the Coroner's error. The Jury had subscribed to the verdict, that the policeman was in the peace of God and the King, that no breach of the peace had been committed, and that no offence had taken place; and the Jury were intelligent enough to have seen the discrepancy of this if they had chosen to look; and having made a trip, the Government were perfectly right in taking advantage of it; and
802
he hoped the regular business of the House would now be suffered to proceed.
Mr. Finnsaid, the hon. Member who spoke last had asserted that there was no imputation cast upon the Jury; but how could such a statement be made, when it was notorious, that the Secretary of State had issued a Proclamation offering a reward for the conviction of the murderer of Culley—thus stamping the name of murderer on a man whom the Jury had declared, to have been justified in what he had done? He thought that the conduct of the Corner throughout the whole transaction was extremely culpable. The Coroner had attempted to influence the decision of the Jury, and during the inquest he had done all in his power to promote the selection of such evidence as would be likely to lead to a verdict of murder. In fact, it was evident that the Coroner was grossly partial, and no doubt, in preparing the verdict, he had kept back the first part from the Jury. The House should remember that it had been called upon to enact despotism in Ireland upon the verdict of the Jury at Carrickshock; and yet an hon. friend of his, who was present at that inquest, declared, that upon the same evidence, he should have brought in the same verdict. He admitted the general praiseworthy conduct of the police, and regretted that they should have been brought into disrepute by the Government. It seemed as if the Government set their faces against popular verdicts, and would only maintain such as were in accordance with their own views; but he implored Ministers to take a different course, and at least not fall into the errors and vices which had been committed in Ireland for the mere purpose of upholding their subordinates in the false steps they had taken.
Colonel Evansquite agreed with the hon. member for Bradford in the impolicy of the House entering into a legal or judicial discussion on the subject at the present moment; but with respect to the conduct of the Executive Government, he must confess he thought it a fair subject for discussion. There was a disposition in the other side of the House to throw blame on the Jury, for the purpose of removing it from the Coroner; now, in his opinion, if any blame was to be attached to either party, it was most decidedly upon the Coroner, and not upon the Jury. Whatever the results of the trial might be against the different parties who had taken part in the meeting, he thought the House ought

803
to take the conduct of the Executive Government into consideration, and give its opinion upon it.
Mr. Rotchdeprecated the attack that had been made upon the Coroner, without any notice whatever having been given to that individual or his friends. With regard to Ministers, the thing stood upon a different footing; the present discussion having been brought forward upon an understanding with them. With respect to the Coroner, he never could believe, that the charges which had been made against him were true. He had the honour of knowing him personally, and he would take upon himself to assert, that a more honest, conscientious, and upright man did not exist. He could not for his life see anything more in his conduct, than that he was astounded at the illegal conduct of the July, and had endeavoured, if possible, to prevail upon them to record a legal verdict. Hon. Members, instead of making these side-wind sort of charges against the Coroner, should come forward with a specific charge against him, as that would put the Coroner upon his defence; and he could assure the House, that he would be the last man to defend the Coroner if he thought that officer had acted improperly. In conclusion, the hon. Member deprecated such a discussion at the present moment, however much some hon. Members might feel gratified in making long speeches on the subject.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, with respect to impugning the conduct of the Coroner, he begged to remark, that it was not the fault of the hon. member for Bath that that Gentleman's conduct had come before the House; the Jury had petitioned the House in their own defence, and in the defence of their own character; and they prayed the House not to suffer a precedent to be laid down which would be injurious to the Trial by Jury. In defence of the Government and of his own conduct in applying to quash the inquisition, the learned Solicitor General had produced the inquisition of the Coroner to justify the steps he had taken. If he had not done that, the Coroner's conduct would never have been brought in question. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rotch), who was a friend of the Coroner's, wished to take his part, he must throw the blame on the Solicitor General, and not on the hon. member for Bath. If the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Pryime) had been in the House yesterday, he would have
804
heard the clear and satisfactory statement of the hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Godson), whose argument was the most convincing that the conduct of the Jury and their verdict were proper, and that it was the fault of the Coroner, in not drawing the inquisition in a proper form; therefore it was, that the Court of King's Bench had been called on to quash it. He (Mr. Cobbett) confessed that he did not perfectly understand the subject until he heard that hon. Member's speech. He wished now to observe upon what the learned Solicitor General said about the people, and he regretted that that Gentleman was not present. He had the greatest respect for that hon. and learned Gentleman, because he believed him to be a humane and just man. He had yesterday stated, that the mischief of that verdict was, that it would fill the people's minds with notions destructive of the peace of society—that it would tend to make the people ferocious, and make them believe that they might, whenever they chose, kill a policeman with perfect impunity; and he also said the consequences had been seen already, for he had observed it recommended in the public papers, that when the people went to attend public meetings, they should go armed with knives in their pockets—the description of knife being what he (Mr. Cobbett) understood a stiletto to be, and he observed, also, that this was the first time such things had been ever heard of in England. Certainly it was the first time they were ever heard of in England, and. Indeed, never till now had they heard of police officers in England with daggers to their thighs, and pistols in their belts [Mr. Lamb: "No, no!"]. perhaps not on the present occasion, but they had certainly been armed with pistols and swords once within the last twelve months [Mr. Lamb: "Not pistols!"]. He believed it was so, although the hon. Gentleman might not have been aware of the circumstance. However, it was something new in England to see peace-officers in uniform, embodied in companies and battalions, marching in rank and file, commanded by Serjeants and colonels—under the mock name of superintendents. It was once the boast of Englishmen that we had no gens d'armes and no mouchards. Get rid of the gendarmerie, and let us have peace-officers of our own choosing, as formerly; if not, the people must arm themselves. They might say, that that would be destroying part of the institutions

805
of the country, but were these policemen any part of the Constitution of England? Why, he was a grown up and a married man before ever the word "Police" was applied to a body of men in England; even the Attorney General might well recollect the time when there were a few—a very few police Magistrates with their 300 l. a-year, and their few Bow-street Runners, as they were called in those days; but now there was a host of Magistrates, with salaries of 800 l., and whole regiments at their beck. Yes, whole regiments of policemen were supported by the parishes of London—there was the parish of Mary-la-bonne, which was taxed to the amount of 27,000 l. a-year for the support of these troops, and yet they were taken away from the parish, and sent down to guard the gentry at Epsom Races. Oh, in fact, as he had often said, it was altogether an abuse from beginning to end. He had told the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lamb), that he knew it was the intention of Government to introduce the system in every village in England, and he would now say, that he was very much mistaken if a plan of that kind was not now before them. The fact was, and the intention was, that it allowed the Government to levy more taxes than they otherwise could do. Then, as to the illegality of the meeting—he did not yet know that it was illegal—he had not yet heard one single proof to convince him that the people had not a perfect right to have met on that occasion. These police troops had been complimented, and complimented too, as it appeared to him, in fear. He would allow, that there was cause for terror, fur in fact they were now like the mouchards—the mouchards of Paris—half a dozen men, or even half a dozen of the Members of that House, could scarcely stand in the street now, but one of them reared his long blue body over them, peering into their faces, and trying to make out what they were talking about. He would tell the House some of their exploits, certainly not from personal experience, but it happened to a servant of his. He sent a servant of his from Kensington to Fleet-street, on a message. He got there, and was returning with a packet of letters, and it happened that a turkey had come from the country, and he was bringing it home only a little before dusk. Well, the police saw the man with the turkey, and one of them said to himself: "What! a poor man with a turkey!—a man in England with a turkey—and he not a gentleman—he must
806
be a thief!" And had England really come so low, that a man, with a jacket, could not carry a turkey, but it was primâ facie evidence that he was a thief? Well, the policeman took hold of him when he was within the distance of 200 yards of his master's door; he instantly told the name of his master too; but no, that would not do, he must go back nearly half a mile, to what they called their station-house, he was kept there for a considerable time, when one of what they called their Serjeants came in and broke open his parcel, when he found that the man's story was true, and they then let him go—sent him off with a sort of permit, stating to his master that he had been detained by them for so long a time. Oh, how had England fallen when such things were permitted! Now he would tell them another instance [No, no!]. "Oh yes (said the hon. Member) but I will though." He had been in seaports, in barracks, and at many of what were called low meetings, but he had never seen such a rude assembly as that; but he would tell them the story, and they must hear it. Well, then, he had two farm servants, whom he ordered to come to him early in the morning; they were doing so, each with a basket swung behind him over a stick. Well, they were jogging along, when one of these policemen came up and said: "You must come along with me to the station, house;" they rather demurred to that, and the fellow sprung his rattle, when six more of these "gendarmerie" came up, but the two men were stout, strong countrymen, and they drew their sticks out of the baskets, and laid about them with good effect; they laid three or four of the police on the ground, and the others made the best of their way off, like prudent men, or like cowards. He would warn the Government, that that was the way they would be served if they were sent into the villages of England. But now supposing, that one of the policemen had been killed, would any man have dared to say, that he was murdered in the discharge of his duty? What business had they to meddle with the men, who were only obeying the orders of their master? It might be said: "Oh, it was early in the morning." So it was, but that was what he had ordered them to do. Now, was it not humiliating to live in a country where you might be, and where you were, watched and dogged about—to have a fellow menacing you and looking after you wherever you go? He again called upon

807
the Government to take a lesson by what he had told them, and be content with having their force in the metropolis.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he owed an apology to the House for his absence yesterday—he would certainly have been in his place when the matter was brought forward, but he had two reasons to state for his absence. In the first place, he was yesterday engaged in the Court of Exchequer in his professional capacity, and in the next, he was not at all aware of the intention of the hon. Member to present the petition on that day. Much had been said by hon. Members about the weight which should be given to the verdict of a Jury—no man had more veneration for such decisions than himself, but much must depend on the temper and judgment with which the Jury were actuated. He agreed with all those hon. Gentlemen who urged, that the doors of that House should be open to all petitioners; but it was not a question as to who had a right to petition that House, but what could with propriety be done by the House. In order to go into the merits of the case, it was necessary to trace the proceedings. It appeared that a placard was first issued calling upon the people to assemble and form a national convention. Now, no man could shut his eyes to the fact, that the forming of a national convention would be to supersede the legislative functions of that House. He thought it quite unnecessary to go into any argument upon this question, and he declined contending against the assumptions of the hon. Members who led the House to infer, that they were better acquainted with the intentions of those who called the meeting than others were. Besides this placard there were other papers published, to which the placard might be taken as the text, and it was only fair to take those in Connexion. It was necessary that the Government should be upon its guard to preserve the peace, but not necessary that it should swell the matter into undue importance by the issuing of a solemn Proclamation. A meeting being held, he would appeal to the plain sense and reason of those who heard him, whether it was not reasonable to infer, that the large meeting so assembled had been brought together by the placard, or was, in other words, the meeting intended to be held? What, then, ensued as respected the question before the House." Why, it was found, that the policeman was killed with a single blow by a weapon. And
808
here he must differ entirely from the hon. member for Oldham, who supposed, that it was the habit of the people of this country, when pursuing their ordinary avocations, to be armed with such a weapon as that used to inflict on the policeman a mortal wound. It could not be credited, that the man who killed Culley was engaged in his ordinary occupation, but that he went armed to the meeting for the purpose expressed in the placard. It was a great mistake for Gentlemen who talked about this inquest to confine themselves to one side of the question. The Jury had found, that the death of Culley took place without any previous violence whatever. It was impossible for him, then, to remove from his mind the full conviction, that to say the death of that man, under such circumstances, was justifiable homicide—was, undoubtedly, against the law of England, and against the plain sense of every man. Gentlemen said, this verdict was an important document—he thought so too, and it was on that account it had been submitted to the high authority before which it had been laid. If Government had permitted this document, which had attracted the attention of all the people of England, to remain unquestioned, containing, as it did, not merely the assertion of a simple fact, but the proposition of law, that a policeman in the King's peace, and in the discharge of his duty at a meeting to which he had been called, was to be killed by any man without having offered a shadow of provocation, was justifiable homicide, the Government would have neglected their duty in a most essential point. Had the verdict been quashed by any illegal means? Was there any Gentleman in that house would say the Court of King's Bench was not the proper tribunal into which it ought to have been carried? And would any Gentleman deny the propriety of bringing it forward there [hear, hear]? A Gentleman opposite said "hear, hear.' It might have been improper to have taken it into the Court of King's Bench, if that Court had refused the application made to it; but the very interference of the Court in quashing the verdict showed it to have been an illegal verdict, and that it was the duty of those who brought it there so to have done. For his part, he was a very humble individual, and his opinion entitled to very little respect; but he did conceive, in consequence of the reports he heard throughout the town of the nature of that inquisition, it to be his duty to call for the document, and

809
having received it, upon a consultation with his hon. and learned colleague, they had come to the conclusion, that it was their bounden duty, unless they meant entirely to slumber in their legal office, to bring the subject before the Court of King's Bench. Government had taken that course which the law pointed out, and the consequence was, that the King's Bench had quashed the verdict. With respect to the finding of the Jury, he would assert, that he had come to the conclusion he had arrived at with no hostile feeling towards them, nor had he adopted that course, thinking that the Jury had intentionally misconducted themselves; he did not believe they had intentionally erred; and he very much mistook the feeling which actuated the Juries of England if he did not feel certain that they would be gratified by having any mistaken judgment of theirs set right by the highest legal authority in the country; and he thought he should belie the Jury if he did not say, that he felt thoroughly convinced, that after the feelings that at present existed were gone by, they would feel grateful for the course Government had adopted. No man in that House reverenced Juries more than he did; but in the same pro-portion as he reverenced, he would importune every Jury to take great care that they did not yield to the impression of the moment, to prejudice, or to passion, but would remember, that their jurisdiction had been given unto them by the laws of England to protect life and property, and that no men could exercise the awful responsibility intrusted to Juries, if they allowed themselves to be swayed by feelings and prejudice.
Mr. Ruthventhought the whole proceedings on the part of the coroner most disgraceful and scandalous, and deserved the reprobation of that House. He thought, that in bringing the subject forward in the Court of King's Bench, it had a tendency to induce a belief, that from the great array of legal knowledge against the unfortunate man who was to be tried for his life, he would not have a fair and impartial trial; and if he were convicted and executed, he would be considered merely as the victim of the despotic application of the law. He could instance some great cases in which a similar feeling had been manifested—viz. Lord William Russell, Sir Thomas More, and Sir Walter Raleigh, all of whom were certainly executed according to law, but certainly not according to justice. He would not
810
further ransack the pages of history for instances, especially as an hon. Member near him had a petition to present; but, he believed, that it was not of much importance. The Under Secretary opposite had yesterday called the mob that broke the Duke of Wellington's windows, last year, a loyal mob; but, for his own part, he could only look on it as an outrageous mob.
Mr. Lambhad only used the word loyal from the circumstance of its having been an assemblage going up to address the King.
Mr. Petrewas decidedly of opinion, that the Government could have acted in this affair in no other way than that in which they had. To say, that the death which had taken place in this instance was an act of justifiable homicide was to hold oat a premium to riot and murder. As to the force which had been sent down to the meeting, was it legal or illegal." There could be no doubt of its legality, and, as one of the best lawyers whom this country had ever seen had said, it was the most likely force to get rid of, and would be the best mode of getting rid, of military power in this country.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that his reason for bringing forward this petition at this time was, lest the proceedings which had been had recourse to should be regarded as a precedent hereafter; and he wished the country as strongly as possible to mark its disapproval of such a proceeding. There were three distinct points involved on this occasion'—the conduct of the government—of the police—and of the law officers of the Crown. As regarded the conduct of the police, no one in that House had risen up to attempt to defend it, except the Under Secretary opposite. Their conduct was highly impolitic and illegal. Admitting it to have been an illegal meeting, no breach of the peace had taken place, until a violent, unauthorized, attack was made by that force. The hon. Under Secretary shook his head at this, but that shake was opposed to the verdict, and to all the evidence given upon the inquest. The police had no right to make an unprovoked attack on his Majesty's peaceable subjects. The people cherished an inbred obedience to the law; that feeling would continue to grow until improper physical force was resorted to, and when Government could resort to that, instead of depending on their moral strength, resulting from the integrity of their course, and good feeling of the country,

811
they might rest assured upon going to the wall. As regarded the police, he had formed a favourable opinion of them; but he was for putting down any improper expressions of public feeling—not by physical power—but by moral force. He felt the seriousness of the subject in all its bearings, and he could not but condemn part of the propositions of the hon. member for Oldham. The Government was not justified in issuing a Proclamation for the arrest of the man who killed Culley, as if he were a murderer. He complained of the manner in which the Solicitor General had spoken of his (Mr. Roebuck's) setting his opinion up in opposition to that of the four Judges, whilst he had abstained from mixing any personal observations—for which there was such a rich field—in his introduction of the petition. He understood the widow of the policeman was to receive a pension. [Mr. Lamb said, such was not the case. The Government regretted that it could not do so.] The law officers, and, in particular, the Attorney General, had avoided meeting what had been so ably said by the hon. member for Kidderminster, which drew such an able distinction between the verdict of the Jury, and that part of the inquisition drawn up by the Coroner. Indeed, as was shown by that hon. Member, the King's Bench had done more to impugn the conduct of the Coroner than he (Mr. Roebuck) had himself done. He had not set himself up in opposition to the four Judges of the King's Bench; but he had a right to say, that it had always been the case that four Judges could be found ready to support the Crown. From ship-money downwards, they had always been ranged on the side of despotism. He hoped that nothing that had now taken place would debar him from taking any further steps he might deem necessary.
The Petition was laid on the Table.

ARREARS OF TITHES (IRELAND).
The Order of the Day was read for going into Committee on the subject of Arrears of Tithes (Ireland).
Mr. Sinclairwished to ask his noble friend whether he really thought, that the money about to be voted for defraying the arrears due to the Irish clergy would ever be reimbursed? He was inclined to think, that, in this instance, as well as in many others, a loan was synonymous with a gift, and that it would turn out so in the end, when the period for repayment arrived. If the landlord was to submit to this burthen, he
812
would, of course, raise it at the expense of the tenant, and would thus be placed in the invidious situation of a tithe proctor. He was not prepared to contend, that there might not be reasons to justify the payment of the sum asked for as a donation—but still he should be glad to know, if it seemed probable to his noble friend, that the whole, or any part of the money, would find its way back into this Exchequer of this country?
Lord Althorphad no doubt but it would be paid into the Exchequer, as it would be levied in the shape of a general land-tax.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he understood only such land as had not paid tithe should be subject to the proposed tax.
Lord Althorp: The plan Was to have all tithe able land taxed, but to allow receipts for tithes to be given in payment of the tax.
Mr. Humesaid, it would be satisfactory to know if any of the money advanced last year to the Irish clergy had been recovered?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the amount recovered was very small.
Mr. Barronmust take that opportunity of complaining of the extraordinary measures which had been lately used for collecting tithes. He had, that day, received a letter from the county of Waterford representing those measures as extremely harsh. That letter was from the inhabitants of a parish in the county, stating that the costs of tithe-prosecutions were enormous. He had a question to put to the noble Lord—how were the costs to be provided for? He advised that a total stop should be put to those proceedings; if not, Ireland would soon be in a worse state than she was in in the year 1798. His county was proverbially a quiet one, but now it was in the most dreadful state of disturbance, owing to the way in which tithes were exacted.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the power of Government extended only to the debts due to it, and not to those due to individuals. With those debts, therefore, the Government could not interfere. He hoped that Gentlemen would find, that it would not be necessary for the future to have recourse to the proceedings already so much complained of.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that on a former evening, the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) had said, that, if he (Mr. Henry Grattan) was not greatly belied, he was one of the worst landlords in Ireland. Now, when he was

813
about to make a statement as to a police outrage which had been committed on some of his own tenants—a statement, too, which would show, that he was not the bad laud-lord the hon. Member represented him to be—the hon. Member at once got up and interrupted him. Such conduct on the part of the hon. Member was anything but candid. The statement which he should now read to the House would show the absolute necessity there was for Government at once issuing positive orders to stop the police from interfering in the collection of tithes. The hon. Member here read a statement as to certain tithe proceedings in a parish in Mohaghan under the incumbency of Dean Roper. It stated, amongst other instances, that the House of one of the tenants of the hon. Member was broken into by the police in enforcing an execution for tithes—that the owner of the house was assaulted by them, and one of his eyes almost knocked out—that his daughter was knocked down, and, in short, that the whole family was subjected to the most outrageous attack on the part of the police. It further staled, that in another instance, where a man was dragged to gaol, the chief constable of police refused to let him go unless he would give bail for the payment of 4½d., which was the amount of tithe alleged to be due by him. If such proceedings were allowed to go on, the Government in Ireland, he must say, would be worse than no Government. If such tyranny was to be inflicted on the people there, it mattered little whether it was inflicted by Whigs or Tories, and he declared to God that he thought the Tories would have acted better had they been in power. The recent case of Mr. Walsh in Dublin, he was of opinion, reflected indelible disgrace upon the Irish government. He had never read of any thing more tyrannical under the sway of Buonaparte than was now practised, with the permission of Ministers, in Ireland. The tyranny of which he spoke was exercised by men employed under the Irish government—men whom that government had not the courage to dismiss, though it knew, as well as he knew, that they were doing all they could to undermine it. Such proceedings had spread universal discontent and dissatisfaction throughout Ireland. For his part, he thought that domestic tyranny was preferable to foreign tyranny at all events; and if ever the day should come that it would be necessary to fight the battle, he would be one that would be most ready to join in the ranks. Was it to be endured that, as
814
was the case in the instance of his tenants, the houses of men should be broken into during the night, and their wives and daughters insulted and attacked? Let the House only refer to the case of Serjeant Shaw, and see the libidinous answer which was in that instance given by a police-officer to a man who was taking care of his daughter. Some check should be at once imposed upon those instruments of injustice and of vengeance. He thought that his Majesty's Ministers should not lose a moment in declaring that those proceedings were unconstitutional—no, not unconstitutional, for they had no constitution in Ireland—but that they were illegal, and that they should cease directly. If the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, did not give a decided opinion to that effect, he should feel it his duty to move, as an amendment on the Motion of the noble Lord, the Resolution which had been brought forward by his hon. friend, the member for Waterford, the other night, and which, while it was not a censure on Government, would pass a censure upon the conduct of all those who had taken part in proceedings such as he had described.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he was sure the House would pardon him for not entering into arguments and topics that might add to the excitement which already prevailed on this subject. He must say, that he had his doubts as to whether the statement which the hon. Member had read to the House with regard to recent occurrences in Monaghan would turn out to be a correct account. He had frequently heard statements of a similar description made in that House, and on reference to the Irish office, he did not find that they were at all borne out by the information that had been received there. With regard to the two cases adverted to by the hon. member for Kildare—namely, the cases of Sub-inspector Flinter and Serjeant Shaw—what was the course which had boon pursued in those instances by the Irish government? He would tell the House what it had been. Sub-inspector Flinter had been dismissed; and the moment that the Lord-lieutenant heard of the case of Serjeant Shaw, his Excellency ordered that Serjeant Shaw should be brought to trial. There had been two distinct charges against Serjeant Shaw. The decision to which the Magistrates came on the first inquiry, lie was ready to admit, surprised him as much when he first read it as it did any hon. Member in that House. He thought that the opinion

815
which the Magistrates then pronounced—namely, that the conduct of Serjeant Shaw had been injudicious—was, to say the least of it, an extremely lenient sentence. That inquiry was followed in a few days after by another investigation into the conduct of Serjeant Shaw, and the result of that investigation was, as he had already stated, that Serjeant Shaw was ordered for trial. That fact he trusted would prove the determination of the Irish government to do its duty. With respect to his illustrious friend now at the head of the Irish government, he was enabled, not only from his long personal intimacy with him, but from the correspondence which had taken place between them since he had entered his present office, to say this of him—that he was persuaded there did not exist an individual who had witnessed with greater pain than his illustrious friend had, the transactions which had recently occurred in that country with regard to tithes. It was only that day in a communication which he received from the noble Marquess, that his Excellency called his attention to the fact that in no case should military aid be granted unless where there was an affidavit made, that the life of the tithe-proctor or process-server, as the case might be, should be in danger. Of course when such an affidavit was made, it would be impossible for the Government to refuse the aid required. It was the obvious duty of Government to afford protection to property; and he could not allow it to be said, that tithe property was not entitled to the same protection as any other description of property. He would not go further into this subject on the present occasion. He trusted, that the statement which he had made with reference to the two cases adverted to by the hon. member for Kildare, namely, that of Sub-inspector Flinter who had been dismissed, and that of Serjeant Shaw who had been ordered for trial, would prove satisfactory to the House.
Mr. O'Connellwas certain that he was expressing the sense of that House, as well as his own, when he declared that the explanation of the right hon. Secretary was satisfactory. Nothing could be more proper than to put Shaw on his trial; and the Kildare Inspector, though he had heard his conduct on former occasions was praiseworthy, deserved for this last act of his to be dismissed. He and all the House must be satisfied with what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary respecting those two cases.
Mr. Fergus O'Connorsaid, that nothing
816
could be more satisfactory than the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as to the cases of Sub-inspector Flinter and Serjeant Shaw; but there was another part of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman which, in his opinion, was anything but satisfactory. With regard to the statement which had been made by the hon. member for Meath, the right hon. Gentleman said, in reply, that he had frequently heard similar statements, which, on referring to the information received at the Government offices, he had discovered to be unfounded. Now, that was what the Irish Members had to complain of. They complained that the Government received its information from corrupt sources—sources that were calculated to mislead it, and to conceal the truth. The case which had been mentioned to the House by the hon. member for Meath had not been contradicted, and the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, so far from being satisfactory, appeared to him to hold out the most gloomy prospects for the future.
Mr. Litlletonsaid, that the statement of such cases, instead of being delayed, as was generally the case, for two or three weeks, for the purpose of being mentioned in that House, should be brought at once under the notice of Government, by laying them before the Irish-office, and redress would be granted, if it should be proved that the parties complaining were entitled to it. If the hon. Gentleman would move for an inquiry on the subject, it should be granted; and if he would give him (Mr. Littleton) a statement with regard to it, he would himself institute an inquiry into it, and he would subsequently state to the House what had been the result of an inquiry which should be conducted without favour or affection.
Mr. O'Ferrallobserved, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, acted up to the professions which he had made since he had been in office, Ireland would have reason to rejoice at the change which had placed him in the situation which he now held.
Mr. Ronayneagreed with the hon. member for Kildare, who had just sat down, that they had reason to congratulate themselves upon the tone of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, so altered and so different as it was from the tone of his immediate predecessor in that office. It had been stated by the noble Lord, the member for Nottingham (Lord Duncannon), on a former evening, that the case of Captain,

817
Gunn was the only which had occurred in the province of Munster. Now, he (Mr. Ronayne) had that morning received a letter from Tipperary, which proved that such was not the case, and which, indeed, showed that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nearly as much reason to complain of the conduct of the police in this instance as the people of Ireland had. The writer stated, that the police in that part of the province of Munster were at this moment actively employed by night, as well as by day, in hunting and driving the people for tithes; that the writer having asked a constable of police how he could act so, in the teeth of Lord Althorp's declaration in the House of Commons, his reply was, that they had received no orders to desist from such proceedings, and that they would not desist from them until they had received orders to do so: and the writer concluded by stating that the police had been much more active in those proceedings since the noble Lord's declaration had appeared in the papers. It was satisfactory to find, that the sub-inspector Flinter had been dismissed. Yet it was strange enough, that within the last forty-eight hours a letter from that officer had been triumphantly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, amongst other documents in the course of a speech which he addressed to the House.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that he had certainly quoted the letter of Captain Flinter, but he had likewise quoted the answer sent to it by the Irish Government; and it was because the explanation given by Captain Flinter, in reply to that answer, was not satisfactory that he was dismissed.
Lord Duncannonsaid, that he had not said that the case of Captain Gunn was the only one which had occurred in Munster, but that it was the only one mentioned in the House.
Mr. Shawsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Littleton) had already learned from his short experience in Irish affairs how little reliance was to be placed on such exaggerated statements as the House had heard that evening. The charge of costs being vexatiously put by the clergy on their parishioners was very easily answered. With regard to those arising out of the arrears of 1831, they were by Act of Parliament vested in the Crown. Sums large and small, returned as they must be on oath in the schedules of the clergy, were included in one order, but the people had abundant notice, that unless the
818
money was paid, they would be proceeded against, and the smallness of the sum was an additional proof of the combination against the payment. That arose from no inability to pay—if it did there might be some reason to feel for those persons—but the very basis of the Resolutions now about to come before the House—and the same fact was recited in the Act of last year—was, that a general combination against the payment of tithes existed, and that thereby the clergy had been reduced to extreme distress. The same cause prevented the clergy themselves from proceeding for the other arrears in the ordinary and cheapest way before Local Courts, for the processes issuing from these Courts could not be served, nor the decrees executed, unless at the risk of the lives of the subordinate officers of the law who undertook them. The hon. member for Meath (Mr. Grattan) would scarcely venture to affirm as a lawyer that there was no power to break open houses in case of debts due to the Crown. The question was not whether it would be wise, or politic, or expedient, but whether, in strictness, he was correct in stating that it was illegal. And suppose a single constable did transgress his duty, would that be a sufficient reason that the hon. member should so vehemently evoke the shade of Napoleon? He did not say that the hon. Member was the worst landlord in Ireland, but at the moment that the hon. Member was so violently attacking the clergy of the Established Church, he (Mr. Shaw) could not avoid mentioning a conversation that he casually had with one of them the same morning, in which he stated that no person's tenants were more hard driven than those of the hon. Member, and that he did not think if the hon. Member had been for three years deprived of his income that he would treat his tenants with one-tenth of the forbearance and lenity the clergy did their parishioners. It was really intolerable to hear a body of men whoso conduct was above all praise, thus spoken ill of in that House. If tithes as a system were to be assailed—if the Established Church was to be overthrown, let that be done in an open and manly manner, as some hon. Members, he would admit, had done, by candidly avowing in that House, that they had advised and would advise the law to be violated in this respect; but what he protested against was, the mean, petty, paltry, pitiful, personal abuse of individuals who, suffering under this very violation of the law, were seeking.

819
after having endured with unexampled patience three years' privation of their legal maintenance, to recover some portion of their just rights. He was sorry to have been a party to this irregular discussion; but he did not commence it, and could never hear these unjust accusations brought against the much-maligned and oppressed clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, without indignantly refuting them.
Mr. Ruthvenwas disposed to recommend the House to proceed at once to the other Orders of the Day, rather than that it should prolong one of those desultory debates upon this question, which daily led to more altercation than beneficial discussion. His Majesty's Ministers were deluding themselves, and following an ignis fatuus, if they imagined that they would satisfy the people of Ireland by the course they were pursuing on the subject of tithes. If they laid on a land-tax, and had still a race of proctors to collect it, they might depend upon it that their measure would not at all satisfy the people of Ireland. He would advise hon. Members to take advice from the Commander of the Forces (Sir Hussey Vivian) on this subject, who had stated that the abolition of the tithe system was absolutely necessary for the tranquillity of Ireland. It was vain to expect peace, or harmony, or good feeling in Ireland, until the present justly obnoxious system of tithes Was abolished.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee upon the Arrears of Tithes' (Ireland) Bill.
The Chairman read the Resolution, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that an advance of money should be made to the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, to relieve the occupying tenantry from the payment of the arrears due for tithes, and composition for tithes, during the years 1831 and 1832, and from the payment of the tithes and composition for tithes of 1833; that such an advance shall be repaid, in a limited time, by a land-tax in Ireland, chargeable upon all the land liable to the payment of tithes, the owners, or occupiers of which shall not have paid the tithes, or composition for tithes, which shall have become due from them for such years."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he differed from some Gentlemen with whom he generally agreed upon this subject. He took those Resolutions as a proof of a disposition on the part of Government to put an end to the bad system under which tithes were
820
levied, and to the civil war which they occasioned. If there was anything to which he objected in the plan, it was the manner in which the land-tax was to be raised. One of the great grievances attending the tithe system had always been, that they were raised by distraint. Under the present plan, the same system of distraint, and all the distress which usually accompanied it, would continue. A great deal had been said upon the subject of breaking open houses in order to distrain for goods. He did not believe that under the Act of last year there was any such power given. His opinion was, that the clergy had done injury to themselves by their late conduct: they were very indiscreet in carrying the measures for the recovery of their tithes so far. They had broken doors in order to distrain, and that he would contend, was illegal. He thanked his Majesty's Ministers for those Resolutions, for he took them as a virtual extinction of tithes in Ireland. That was as it ought to be; and the only difference between his Majesty's Ministers and him on the subject was as to the amount of the land-tax or quit rent to be levied. He felt certain, that if some measures of this kind had not been resorted to, there would have been a civil war throughout Ireland in three weeks. The whole country had been racked from one side to the other by the exaction of tithes, and the distress occasioned by them had become quite intolerable. He was satisfied, that his Majesty's Ministers had done well and wisely in bringing forward that Resolution. Such a state of affairs had never been known before. The clergy, irritated by being deprived of their tithes for three years, had proceeded to recover them in the harshest (and he would say on their own account) most imprudent manner. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought, that the Government ought to interfere to prevent them from pursuing the present system. They had proceeded harshly, and he (Mr. O'Connell) thought that they ought in their turn to be harshly dealt with. He denied that there was any law which obliged the Government to send soldiers out to collect tithes. Such a system was not only improper, but it was unnecessary, as the clergy had a remedy by applying to the High-Sheriff who could recover their tithes by the ordinary course of law. With regard to the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, he observed, that the noble Lord stopped with the ecclesiastical tithes. Was the noble Lord right in that? Was

821
he not aware that the lay tithes were fully as bad and fully as obnoxious, as the ecclesiastical tithes? He (Mr. O'Connell) had a letter in his possession, in which it was said truly: "The lay tithes are the worst of all, and the most oppressive." The system of tithes was not confined to the clergy, and he would ask why the assistance was given by this Resolution to the proprietors of ecclesiastical tithes, and not to the proprietors of lay tithes? He would answer the question. This assistance was given to the clergy because by their harsh conduct they had created excitement in the country. He thought that this was a species of bounty to the lay impropriators to follow the same course. It was as if the Government said to them: "If you succeed in bringing the country to the state in which the clergy have brought it, you will then get your money comfortably." He would therefore press on his Majesty's Government the propriety of extending this Resolution to lay impropriators. What the Irish people complained of was, that when a measure was proposed which was intended to benefit them, it was frittered away till it was not worth the having; but when a measure of coercion was intended, they got too much of it. It would be better and more genial to them if the Ministers only bestowed on them the fragment of coercion, but the full measure of the benefit. He was happy to think that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland (perhaps he would allow him to call him his hon. friend) had commenced his career in that country in a way which was likely to give satisfaction. The first act done by him was the dismissal of Capt. Flinter, and the second was to order Serjeant Shaw upon his trial. No two acts could gain the right hon. Gentleman greater popularity. His conduct was evidently dictated by a spirit of conciliation, and the Resolution before them was in the same spirit. He did not, however, see why one parish in which the tithes were ecclesiastical should be relieved, while the neighbouring parish remained subject to the oppression of the present system merely because the tithes happened to belong to a lay impropriator.
Lord Althorpsaid, that as the hon. and learned Member called upon him to say to what extent he meant to carry those Resolutions, he thought it necessary to answer him. With respect to the lay impropriators, the hon. and learned Member would Bee that the Resolution then before the
822
Committee was not meant to extend to them; it was only meant to extend to ecclesiastical holders of tithes. He (Lord Althorp) did not mean to pledge himself whether he should extend the measure or not; but he would say, that the Government would take the point into their consideration. It was true, as stated by the hon. and learned Member, that the course pursued by the Government in this instance, might be an encouragement to lay impropriators to follow the same course which had been followed by the clergy; but whatever was done—whether they continued the present system, or attempted a remedy, they ran some hazard; and he (Lord Althorp) was satisfied that there was less hazard in the plan now proposed, than in continuing in their present state. It was on that ground his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward the Resolution under consideration, and he was glad to find that it appeared to give satisfaction. Their object was, to restore the country to quiet and peace, and he felt confident that the clergy would meet them half way in that endeavour, by not persevering in their attempts to recover the tithes at present due, especially as they would not be in a worse situation by desisting. He hoped and trusted that the measure would have the effect anticipated from it.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that the question which he took the liberty of putting to the Noble Lord the other night, with respect to the lay impropriators, was put, not with a view of embarrassing his Majesty's Ministers, but in the hope, that, following up his suggestions, the noble Lord would render the measure so complete as to secure the peace of the country. It was broadly stated that night, by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that oppression was carried to a much greater extent by the lay impropriators than the clergy. [" Hear."] Those cheers were a justification of the clergy of Ireland from the aspersions which had been so unjustly cast upon them. It was well known, that the lay impropriators were not confined, except in a very few instances, to that species of income; whereas, if tithe were withheld from the clergy, having no other resources, they must be reduced to a state of utter destitution—and yet, notwithstanding all the privations which they had endured, scarecely a solitary instance of harshness on their parts could be adduced. The grant of last year enabled the clergy to receive half their incomes for 1831, but up to this moment,

823
except in a few instances, they had been unable to recover a shilling of their tithes due since that period. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, did not state the case fairly when he said, as he formerly did say, that the clergy in many instances were suing for tithe due the 1st of May. The fact was, that in these instances three years' tithe was due to the clergy, and it was a well-known fact, that when a landlord handed over his arrears of rent to be recovered, he invariably made out the account against the tenant up to the last gale day. And so it was with the clergy, although the account was made up to the 1st of May, there was, in point of fact, three years' tithe due. He, however, would take upon himself to say, on the part of the clergy, that the moment they were made aware of the intentions of the Government, a total cessation of the collection of tithe would take place. He merely rose for the purpose of shielding the clergy from the unjust aspersions which had been cast upon them. There never was a body of men who exhibited so much forbearance. This did not rest merely on his statement; he was fully borne out in it by the resolution of the tithe Committee, which described their forbearance as beyond belief. The Resolutions should have his cordial support.
Lord Ebringtonhoped that an arrangement might be made by which the claims of the lay impropriators would be taken into consideration, because he was persuaded that the work of conciliation, of which he trusted in God the present measure was the commencement, would be inadequate and incomplete unless the terms of the Resolution was extended to the lay impropriators. He, however, rejoiced at the satisfaction which had been expressed on the Resolution before the House, and he trusted that the able talents of the hon. and learned member for Dublin would be directed in aid of the Government in this work of the pacification and conciliation of Ireland.
Mr. Harveycould not look at the terms of the Resolution with the narrow view under which it had as yet been contemplated. He objected, in the first place, that the people should be called upon to make up a deficiency which had been occasioned by, and which flowed out of, lawless violence.
Lord Althorpintimated that those who had paid their tithes would be allowed to put in the receipt in payment of the tax.
Mr. Harveyresumed, and contended, that the proposition amounted to a premium to lawless violence, and an invitation to resistance to tithes, because it could not be supposed that the tithe-payers in England, who paid 7 s. or 8s. an acre, would remain satisfied when the tithe-payers in Ireland, who paid only at the rate of 1s. 3d. an acre, by resistance, obtained the relief now proposed. He did not rise to oppose the Resolution, but to express a hope that in the present critical situation of the Government, they would assume the spirit of this Resolution as the basis of their future measures; and he regretted that the noble Lord opposite was not prepared to carry that principle at present into effect as regarded the United Kingdom. He was convinced that nothing would satisfy the expectations of the people, both of England and of Ireland, but the total extinction of tithes; he would raise a tax in any way to supply their place, and deal out the revenue to national purposes and the support of the Church. By such a policy he maintained, that the stability of the Government would be secured, and the duration of the Church establishment extended. The Government had difficulties to meet with in the Church question in another place; and of this they might be assured, that if the Resolution was not extended to this country, they would not only be defeated, but defeated with the execration of the people. On the other hand, he was satisfied that if the Government would come forward with any measure in this respect to meet the existing feeling in the public mind, if beaten elsewhere, they would fall regretted by the people. The great complaint, however, he had to urge was, that money was the source by which the Government relieved itself of all its difficulties. It was adopted to call in aid the support of tardy friends, or to quiet determined enemies. It had been stated, that with reference to the West India colonies, a loan of 15,000,000 l. was to be granted, but that loan subsequently turned out to be a gift of 20,000,000 l. He knew not how far this might be followed in the present case, but he objected to the taxation of the people for this purpose. If funds were wanting, he would suggest to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, to resort to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, who had 1,500,000 l. of "cash in hand." The only certain thing in the present Resolution was, that it inflicted taxation upon the people, and the only good he saw was, that it issued a proclamation

825
to the farmers in all the counties in England and Ireland, that to avoid the payment of tithes they had only to say they did not relish them, and join in the Irish agitation to get rid of them. Reverting to the great principles involved in the terms of the Resolution now before the Committee, he could not but express a wish that the Government might have the firmness and fortitude to speak out boldly to the people of England on the subject of Church Reform and the abolition of tithes: if the Government should do so, they would secure a permanent hold on the affections of the country, and it would signify nothing what might be done in another place. Let the Government only do that much, and the support of the people would follow, and the same result be attained as when the Reform Bill was thrown out elsewhere. If the Government was to be defeated, let them be so on some specific and tangible question. To the Government he would say, now was their time or never; let them take their firm stand upon the great principle of ecclesiastical reform, and save themselves by saving the Church
Mr. Fergus O'Connorsaid, that the Resolution would not give satisfaction unless altered according to the suggestion of the hon and learned member for Dublin—namely, by the extension of its provisions to the lay impropriators, who, the noble Lord must be aware, were the great cause of the Tithe Commutation in Ireland. If the same compensation was not extended to both the clerical and lay impropriators, an invidious distinction would be created between the tenants under each, and the agitation would still continue. He felt that he had been justified in advising the people not to pay tithes, because he was convinced that, but for the refusal, even this reduction of the immense taxation under which the people laboured would not be now proposed. He would himself resist the payment of tithes so long as they were so unjustly collected. Without the extension of the terms of the Resolution in the manner which had been suggested, no real benefit would be conferred, nor would the proposition answer the expectations of the people—expectations raised upon the pledges of the Government. Those pledges had not been fulfilled. True it was, that the Irish Church Temporalities Rill had passed, but the Government were afraid to carry it up to the other House; a Grand Jury Bill had been brought forward more complicated than all which had
826
preceded it, and though measures of conciliation had been promised at the commencement of the session by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, to go pari passu with the Coercion Bill, yet all the pledges merged now in the present proposition. The Irish Members ought no longer to be duped or smiled out of the discharge of their duty by the noble Lord opposite. He conceived the country could only be benefited in this respect by the extinction of tithes, and the application of a land-tax for the national purposes, and the fair and equitable maintenance of the clergy. He should be glad to hear the noble Lord's explanation of the object of the Resolution before the House.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the object of his Resolutions was precisely a land-tax; for the purpose of relieving the tenantry from the pressure of the arrears of tithe for the last three years, as well as for preceding periods. The proposed mode of effecting it was, that each parish should be applotted for the amount of tithe due, and that the parish should then have the power of applotting upon each individual in possession to the amount of his debt. And as it would of course be a great hardship that those who had paid their tithe should be subject to this tax, it was proposed to relieve them from it, and the receipts for the payment of their tithe would be a quittance in full. The object proposed to be attained by Government would be this; by the law, as it at present stood, after November next, the occupying tenant at will would be freed from the obligation to pay tithe, and the impost would tall upon the landlord. The Government intended to propose, that in every case where the landlord had not compounded, he might, within a certain time, come in and compound at a reduction of fifteen per cent. This would effect a great removal of pressure from the poorer classes in Ireland, from a body almost exclusively Catholics; while the landlords were almost as exclusively Protestants; and, therefore, the proposed relief would exactly apply to that part of the population most entitled to it. He hoped this explanation would suffice for the hon. member who spoke last, and he must now refer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey), whose support he was certainly glad to have; but he must confess, that had the hon. Gentleman not expressly promised his support, he should, from the apparent tendency of his observations, have antici-

827
pated a decided opposition. The hon. Gentleman animadverted upon the Government for an alleged readiness to lavish money on every occasion. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman went much further than this in its apparent tendency—for he could not suppose he meant seriously to make such a proposal—for the apparent tendency of it was spoliation, for he advised them to take Queen Anne's bounty. [Mr. Harvey: As a loan.] Very well it might be so ostensibly; but the hon. Gentleman prefaced his proposition by saying that the money would never be repaid, and he (Lord Althorp) could not but think that borrowing without an intention of repayment amounted almost to spoliation. [Mr. Harvey: The Directors of the Bounty would take care of themselves.] He thought Government would take equal care in providing good security, and he considered that the land in Ireland would be quite sufficient. The hon. Gentleman said, that the present proposal would only induce the people of England to refuse to pay tithes; but he had such confidence in the good sense of the people of England, that he did not expect that it would lead to any such refusal. He was satisfied, whatever the hon. Gentleman might say, that the people of England, the great mass of the community, were attached to the Church of England. The hon. Gentleman was like other persons, he kept company with a particular class of persons, and he fancied that their opinions were the opinions of the whole community. If the hon. Gentleman expected that the Church could be destroyed he was mistaken, and he was sure if the Ministers were to bring forward any plan to injure the Church of England, that such a proposal would destroy the Ministry. He felt confident that in making this statement he was speaking the sentiments of the people of England. The hon. Gentleman, and those who thought like the hon. Gentleman, were, he believed, utterly mistaken. The measure, if it were adopted, would do good to Ireland, and he hoped the House would express the same opinion as the hon. Gentleman meant to express by his vote, and not follow what the hon. Gentleman had aid in his speech.
Sir Robert Inglisthought that the House might have been spared much acrimonious animadversion on the character of the clergy of Ireland, had the Irish Members formerly made the admissions
828
which had this night been made by some of their most violent opponents. It was admitted, that they had not exacted their dues with as much rigour as the landlords. Dr. Hall, he recollected, slated, for a piece of ground of 600 acres, a landlord gave him 40 s. for tithes, which showed the character of landlords as payers; and what had been stated to-night showed their characters as receivers. He would not however, make any comparisons—he only rose to say that it was not fair to the clergy to speak of the tithes as connected with spiritual duties. He denied that they were. From the instant the tithes were separated from the Church nine centuries ago by law, they ceased to be given for any spiritual duties whatever. He believed that the noble Lord was correct as to what he said of the feelings of the people of England, in opposition to the member for Colchester, and that opinion would, he also believed be confirmed, when the experiment of attacking the Church of England was made. Admitting, (which, however, he denied,) that some clergymen had demanded more than their due, was that a reason why the imperial and supreme power of the realm should punish the whole body of the clergy, or even the same clergyman a year or two after he had made an improper demand? He would state, for the information of the hon. member for Colchester, that Queen Anne's Bounty could not supply a sure sufficient for the purpose of the Resolution. With respect to payments, he was sure that all payments were ultimately made by the landlord, and came out of land. He could not, therefore, admit that anything was or could be paid by the tenants. The hon. Baronet concluded by expressing his satisfaction at the measure.
Mr. O'Ferralldid not see how any English Member could feel himself justified in opposing the grant of money proposed by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was by the votes of English Members that the Church Establishment in Ireland was maintained. If Englishmen wished to enjoy the luxury of a sinecure Church, be had no objection; but they must expect to pay for it. He had no objection to the vote; but he hoped the amount of tithes due upon the land would be ascertained by a fair valuation. Not such as the average valuation of the last seven years, which would be anything but a fair one. The noble Lord must be well aware that the last seven years had exhibited a greater variation in the price of wheat and

829
oats than at similar periods during the last thirty years. It should be recollected, also, that the clergy had, in some parishes, conducted themselves with great liberality; whilst, in others, they had disturbed the tranquillity of the country by the severity of their exactions. Would it then be fair, that the former should suffer for their liberality, and the latter benefit by their rapacity? He hoped that some mode of valuation would be devised by which these anomalies would be avoided. He must allude to another circumstance in connexion with this subject. The Bill of the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge left it to the option of parishes to enter into a composition for tithes, but the Bill of last Session rendered it compulsory upon them to do so; and it also provided that if its provisions were not complied with at a stated time, the Lord-lieutenant should have the power of appointing valuators of his own. This provision had given rise to much abuse; for, as it was impossible that the Lord-lieutenant should know anything of the qualifications of the persons whom he appointed, the appointments had generally taken place as a matter of favour. He knew an instance of a person having applied to the late right hon. Secretary for Ireland to be appointed a valuator; and the right hon. Gentleman, after proper inquiry, promised him the appointment, but the Lord-lieutenant set this promise aside, and appointed an incompetent person. It must be evident that a stranger to the neighbourhood in which he came to make a valuation would not make so good a one as a person who resided on the spot, and was acquainted with the land. When a gentleman wished to have his estate valued, he always employed a person acquainted with it to execute the task. Notwithstanding the declaration of the hon Baronet, the mender for the University of Oxford, he thought it would be the tenant, and not the landlord, who would pay the tax which the noble Lord proposed to establish on the land. It was most unlikely that landlords would tell their tenants-at-will that if they did not pay the tax they must quit, and thus the noble Lord would have only transferred the tithes from the Church to the landlords. He was most desirous that some amicable arrangement should be come to on this subject, and it would very much facilitatt: the progress of the measure now proposed if the noble Lord would allow the Act of last Session to be sent to a Select Committee, with a
830
view of having some of its objectionable parts expunged.
Mr. Finnsaid, that the whole system of tithes in Ireland roust he altered. The Established Church in Ireland, received from 17 s. to 20 s. annually, from each Protestant. In England, the Established Church received 10 s. per head, from each Protestant; in Scotland, the established religion was much cheaper; in France, the Established Church got no more than 10 d. per head from its members; and in America—the country which he approved of most—people paid what they pleased to their religious instructors, and went to heaven the best way they could find out. He begged to ask the noble Lord, whether it was intended that the ingoing tenant should be compelled to pay the tax. It might happen, that a man who had paid his own tithes, would take land on which arrears were due; in that case, it would be monstrously unjust to make him pay them.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the tax would be fixed upon the land; and, therefore, in the case put by the hon. Member, the person who took the land would be compelled to pay. So far, injustice would be done, but it could not be avoided.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, it was clear that the Government, by their scheme, would merely shift the tithes from those who ought to pay it to the owners of the land, or, if it did not do that, it would merely make them the collectors of tithes instead of the clergymen. Last year, the House were told, that when the collectors of the tithes was transferred from the clergy to the Crown, all irritation would cease, and that they would, henceforth, be obtained with the utmost facility; but no one would venture to assert that this prediction had been verified; indeed, it was notorious, that it was more difficult to collect tithes now, than it had ever been before. Was it fair to put the landlords in the unenviable situation of collectors of tithes He disliked all this juggling—first, transferring the collection of tithes from the clergyman to the Crown, and then from the Crown to the landowner, whilst the substatitial grievance was allowed to remain behind. The real and substantial grievance was, that the people of Ireland were compelled to pay their money, to support a Church of which they did not approve, and that grievance, the present measure would not cure in the slightest degree. The proposition of Government was merely a miserable temporary palliative. He would other a single observation upon

831
the remarks, which the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer had made upon the speech of the hon. member for Colchester. The latter hon. Member had, perhaps, rather over-rated the feeling in this country against the Church; but he was sure, that the noble Lord had gone as much beyond the mark on the other side. On the whole, however, he had no doubt, that the Church Establishment in this country was approved of by the great majority of the people. With respect to the Church in Ireland, the case was very different. He was not in the habit of participating in the festivities of deans and chapters, nor of mixing in extravagantly Conservative societies, but in those societies to which he was admitted out of that House, it was generally acknowledged that the Irish Church could not, and all agreed that it ought not, to be maintained. When this was the general feeling, why did not Ministers speak out boldly? It was related of Dr. Johnson, that after he became eminent in the world, he always, when in presence of his first master, exhibited the greatest deference to his opinions, although there was no comparison between the intellectual powers of the two men. Johnson accounted for this by saying, that he never could divest himself of the feeling that his old master ought to have the same control over him, that he possessed when he was but a boy. He believed, that Ministers laboured under some involuntary feelings of that kind towards the Tories. They had been so long under the domination of their opponents, that they had acquired a feeling of deference for Tory opinions. Whenever they were about to propose a great measure, the first question which suggested itself to their minds was: "What will the Tories say to this."" He did not wish to see a collision between the two branches of the Legislature—he deprecated it as much as any man; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that, do what they might, they were not likely to avoid it. He hoped, that when the collision did take place, the House would act with firmness and temperance. Nothing but the feeling which he had referred to, could have induced the Government to bring forward such a measure as that, relating to the Irish Church, and to recommend it upon such grounds. They said it was a measure which would confirm and consolidate the Irish Church. That might be an excellent reason for Protestants, but it was anything but a good one for Catholics. Such a reason as that did not recommend the measure to him.
832
He would vote for it, on the ground that it furnished an instalment of 6s. 8d. in the pound, and that, as an inevitable consequence, the whole must follow. He would not shrink from avowing, that such was the ground upon which he supported the Bill for regulating the Temporalities of the Church in Ireland. In conclusion he stated, that he objected to the proposition before the Committee, because there was a risk that the money to be voted would never be returned to the public, that it would unjustly impose a burthen on the landlord, and would not allay the irritation which existed upon the subject of tithes.
Mr. Shawsaid, the precept of the hon. Member who had just sat down was certainly much better than his example; for he accused others of wandering from the real question before the House. He promised to call hon. Members back to the Resolutions moved by the noble Lord; and he had given a dissertation on Toryism in general—on the House of Lords—on the Portuguese question—and various other subjects, which no one would contend had any connexion with the present question. However, on the point of the Established Church, he would, at once, join issue with the hon. Member; first, merely observing that he trusted the Government would take a salutary warning from the admission of the hon. Member, that his sole object in supporting the Irish Church Reform Bill, was, not to reform, but to destroy the Irish Church. The hon. Member accused his Majesty's Ministers of a desire to uphold it, as if that was a crime in them; but he would boldly tell his Majesty's Ministers, that it was their plain and positive duty to uphold the Established Church in Ireland, and that they could not abandon that duty, without dissevering the union between England and Ireland; of which it was an essential and fundamental article, that the Churches of England and Ireland shall be united, continued and preserved. Neither could they advise his Majesty to such a course without a violation of his solemn oath. Yes! (said the hon. and learned Member,) I unhesitatingly affirm that. I have never been the advocate of extreme views in reference to the Coronation Oath. In the discussion on the Church Bill, which at least professes to conduce to the efficiency of the Established Church, I have never alluded to the subject; but will any man of common sense—of common honour—or of common honesty, tell me, that a minister of the Crown could advise the King of Eng-

833
land "to destroy"—unqualifiedly to destroy the Established Church? [Mr. Gisborne: It is disorderly to accuse any Gentleman of want of honour or honesty.] He meant nothing personal to the hon. Member. He did not hear him say that he would give such advice. He merely put a hypothetical case. The hon. Member, as an individual, had a right to hold what opinion he pleased, but he must take leave to say, with the freedom and liberty of speech which he claimed for himself, as an independent Member of that House, that no man in the responsible station of a Minister of the Crown, could advise his Majesty to give his consent to the overthrow of the Established Church, and thus counsel the base crime of perjury, without forfeiting all character for honour or honesty—for personal good faith—for allegiance to his King, and duty to his country. In respect of religion, too, he believed the maintenance of the Established Church to he of extreme importance. He could not agree with the hon. member for Kilkeimy (Mr. Finn) that each man should be left to pay for his own religion as he would for his lawyer, and in the words of the hon. Member "to go to heaven as he best could;" as if the hon. Member had been speaking of hiring a hackney coach. He would not enter upon any religious discussion, but would merely lay down as a maxim of mixed political and Christian economy—that while in all matters that concerned our temporal wants a demand was sure to create a supply—in regard of spiritual things, so far as they were effected by human agency and means, a supply must be laid before the mind to induce a demand or desire for their enjoyment. The hon. Member (Mr. Finn) had charged the established clergy of Ireland with tenaciously clinging to the temporalities of their Church. How little did he know them! or how grossly did be misrepresent them! Was it clinging to the mere property of the Church to remain with patience and almost without complaint, for three years, deprived of the legal and almost only means of their support? Hon. Members talked of the poor people having to sell their last cow and their last pig—not because they could not, but because they obstinately would not, pay the small sum which they well knew was due, and which before interested agitation commenced they used cheerfully to pay the clergyman. But he could heap instance upon instance where the clergy themselves sold their last horse and their last cow, some to give food to their fami-
834
lies, and others to give it to their still more suffering friends, on account of their lawful incomes being withhold. One case he had become acquainted with within the last few days, where a portion of the fund so benevolently collected in England for the relief of the distressed clergy bad been sent to one of them, and he returned it, stating "that he would not draw upon that source while he had a book and a silver spoon left, of which a few still remained to him, and that there were others of his brethren who wanted it more." Was it manly or generous to malign such men as these. The hon. member for Waterford (Mr. Barron) had drawn a Very strong picture of what he called the oppression of the clergy of his neighbourhood in respect of the costs they had imposed upon the people. Now, he had that day had an opportunity of conversing with a most respectable and worthy clergyman of that neighbourhood, and his case would illustrate many. His tithes had been systematically refused to him for the last three years. He at length applied to two gentlemen in his parish with whom he was personally acquainted—one owed about 5l. the other 2l. They both told him they would not pay him, in opposition to the general agreement to that effect which the parish had entered into, but that he must take his remedy. He replied that then they must not complain of his putting them to costs, and he desired his attorney to proceed against the two gentlemen, and as far as possible to spare the poorer parishioners. The attorney was obliged to sue them in the superior courts, and then no doubt the costs exceeded considerably the original demand; but surely under these circumstances the clergyman was not to blame. The intimidation prevailing in the county was such, that it was difficult even to procure an attorney to act; but he understood the one alluded to had conducted himself with propriety. Yet the hon. member for Waterford called him a "wretch of an attorney." Calling names proved nothing; and while the him. Member spoke of a "wretch of an attorney" at Waterford, it would be just as easy for the attorney at Waterford to speak of a wretch of a Member of Parliament—without either one or the other establishing any fact by the abuse. But really it was a loss of time to dwell longer upon that of which every reasonable man in the House had not only been reasoning, but for the last two years legislating upon, as an assured and admitted

835
State of things—namely, that a universal combination existed against the payment of I tithes, and consequently that the clergy were reduced to the utmost distress. He would not reproach the Ministers, although he could not but feel that to their want of vigour and vindication of the law the present difficulties were owing. He was fully impressed, too, with the justice of the observation that they were furnishing a most! dangerous precedent, and that their conduct would be referred to as a justification for the resistance of the law in other cases. The evil, however, as regarded the clergy had gone to so formidable an extent that some remedy must be provided. He therefore should support the Resolution of the noble Lord, but the noble Lord would, he hoped, allow him to suggest that a large arrear was due previous to 1831; and though, perhaps, the noble Lord might expect those of the clergy who were likely to derive the full benefit of the three years' tithes to forego some of their strict rights, the noble Lord could not expect that in the case of the representatives of deceased clergymen; and their demands, at all events, even though not included in the years specified in the Resolution, the noble Lord would, he trusted, allow. He (Mr. Shaw) had been misreported to have stated, that he would willingly accede to the proposition, on the part of the Irish clergy. He had no authority to make, and he did not malte, that statement. He merely said, what he was willing to repeat—that from his knowledge of their general feelings and dispositions he was persuaded they would consider any proposition for an adjustment of this question, in that spirit of candour and liberality by which their conduct had at all times been characterized.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that when the tithe collection bill of last Session was put into operation, there were 104,285 l. (out of a total of 105,6,93 l. arrears) tithe arrears, of which 83,334 l. were proclaimed by Government to be paid within a certain day on certain terms; 21,000 l. odd were not proclaimed. Well, of these 83,334 l. thus proclaimed, the Government could only—such was the universality and energy of the resistance—recover 12,100 l. In such a state of things, therefore, it was plain, that there was, between this almost national resistance to tithes on the one hand, and the duty of the Government to assert the authority of the law on the other, only the alternative of his noble friend's propositions, or something like them. Those were re-
836
commended by the circumstance, that whereas by the bill of last year, when 60,000 l. was advanced to the Irish clergy, the Government had to levy the tithes of the occupier, the cottier, and the small farmer, with whom the clergy had, so prejudicially to their influence, brought us in frequent collision; while, by the noble Lord's measure, the clergy would not be brought into contact with either tenant or landlord, and the Government would not look to the tenant for repayment, but to the landlord, by a direct tax on his laud. Hon. Members were in error in ascribing greater severity to the tithe-collectors of laymen than to those of clergymen: they were both equally obnoxious to the charge I of severity, with this exception in favour of the clergyman, that he was wholly dependent for existence on his church property, which could not be in fairness said of the lay impropriator. There was also some error as to the charge that the Government had harshly insisted upon the payment of tithes due only on the 1st of May, after the Bill's coming into operation. So far from it, the Irish government gave explicit orders that such tithes should not be considered as arrear tithes, and that the Government would afford no aid in their collection.
Major Beauclerksaid, that in his opinion, the speech of the hon. member for Derbyshire was one of the most sensible he I had heard in that House for some time; and however it might be received within those walls, would produce a great effect out of that House. It was, in his opinion, very unfair of the Government to throw upon the Irish landlords debts which they had never contracted. Government would have acted much more fairly, if, out of the 3,000,000 l. which they promised that! House from the Church Temporalities, they had undertaken to pay these arrears.
Mr. Baldwincould assure Ministers that they greatly deceived themselves if they supposed that by shifting the burthen of tithes from the tenant to the landlord, they thereby got rid of the national outcry against tithes. The only effect of the transfer would be the uniting the landlord and tenant in a close phalanx against the tithe-collector.
Mr. Murraywithout going all the length of the hon. member for Derbyshire; (Mr. Gisborne) could not but protest against the monstrous doctrine of the hon. and learned member for Dublin university (Mr. Shaw),

837
that, forsooth, to meddle with the property of the Irish Church would be to destroy the Constitution. According to that hon. Member, it mattered not that the members of the Established Church were only as one to 100 of the population, that 100 must be taxed, as if the Church was essentially national. The doctrine was monstrous. Hon. Members had better be aware in their appeals to what they called the '" fundamental laws on which rested the Protestant Church of this Protestant Constitution." To what did they appeal, unless to the legislative omnipotence of Parliament, which conferred those privileges on the Church? If Parliament had doubted its own omnipotence when the church property was wrested from the Catholic clergy, and in degree handed over to the clergy of the new persuasion, where would these fundamental laws be now? And if parliament was then omnipotent, that was there in the circumstances of the 19th century to prevent its exercising its legislative sovereignty over the property of a Church the members of which were only a fraction of the people—the Church of Ireland?
Mr. Bellewwould oppose the noble Lord's Resolutions, as he conceived they left the main evil of the tithe system in Ireland untouched—namely, the great disproportion between the remuneration of the clergyman of the Established Church and that possessed by the Presbyterian and Catholic pastors. The hon. Member read an extract from Mr. O'Brien's pamphlet on tithes, in order to show, that the cost of an episcopalian clergyman in Ireland was as twenty, while that of the Presbyterian clergyman but two, and the Catholic but one. Then, the revenues in the county of Clare, in which the writer lived, for the religious instruction of the members of the Established Church was 20 l. a-family, while it was but 1s. for the Catholic. This flagrant and most unjust disproportion was the parent evil of the Irish Church Establishment.
Mr. Montague Chapmanwas also opposed to the noble Lord's Resolution—because they provided no remedy for the parent evil of the tithe system. It should be remembered that Ireland was not a Protestant country—that the mass of its inhabitants professed a religion different from that of the Established Church. Now, an Established Church meant a national Church, and till Ireland was converted to the Protestant faith the Established Church could
838
not be said to be national;—that was, the Catholics, the preponderating majority of its inhabitants, would have a just right to complain of being taxed for the support of a Church which was not that of the people. It was not the amount of the tithes of which the Catholics complained, but of their appropriation to uses other than the support of their own Church Establishment, and so long as they were Catholics, they would and ought to denounce so unjust a principle.
Mr. James Talbotsaid, that on a question of such importance on which the peace and prosperity of the country depended, he could not but be anxious to express his opinion. He had found it difficult to comprehend the meaning of the Resolutions under consideration. He supposed it was meant that the landlord should pay the tithes, and that this was described by his Majesty's Ministers to be an act of justice. This might be so; but he should like to know what the landlords would call it. As far as he understood these Resolutions, he did not consider them to be beneficial even to the Church. The measures they pledged the House to promote, would not be sufficient to suppress the combination against the payment of tithes—which extended to all classes and all interests in Ireland. The same feeling which induced an assembly to resolve, that he who paid tithes was an enemy to his country, was likely for some time to animate every party in Ireland, and to stimulate them to further opposition One point had been greatly misunderstood by his Majesty's Ministers, by that House, and he had almost said, by the country. The people of Ireland did not complain of the actual amount of the tithe levied upon them. However grievous the imposition might be in many instances, and however vexatious the mode of collection, it was not to the amount, but to the appropriatim, that they objected; and whatever commutation might be introduced, so long as that appropriation remained as it was at present, it would be a lasting source of dissension and bloodshed. No man could be more averse to a system of passive resistance than himself. He deprecated it as much as any man in that House, or as any noble Lord in the other House, considering it a system which must lead to the most injurious results; at the same time he felt, and had always felt, that the collection of tithes for the purposes to which they were at present appropriated, could not be justified on any principle of equity or

839
expediency. It was very fashionable, at present, to talk about imposing a tax upon Irish landlords, and it certainly seemed to be a question which pleased both sides of the House. He, however, must express his dissent from the principle. There were some unworthy men in every class of life, but there were many good resident landlords in Ireland. The hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, who had with so much ability, with so much eloquence—he wished he could say with so much common sense—advocated the interests of the Established Church of Ireland, had gone into arguments involving very high considerations, higher, indeed, than were at all necessary to introduce into the discussion of this question. The hon. and learned Member had talked about the Coronation Oath, and had been very eloquent and very declamatory, upon what the deserts of a Government would be, if they proposed the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. If ever there was a question calculated in all its ramifications to excite irritation, to engender all the evils which must arise from endeavouring to conciliate, without doing justice, and to dissever the Union—even to destroy all connexion between the two countries—it was the upholding, at all risks, and at all hazards, the present appropriation of the Church revenues of Ireland. The temporal interests of the Protestant Church, as had been well observed by the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, were quite distinct from their spiritual. Many measures might be adopted to improve the condition of the people of Ireland. Of course, it was not expected that he should enter, on this occasion, into a detailed statement of that he might consider would be a proper appropriation of the revenues of the Church of Ireland; but he should think that, after the abolition of tithes, or rather the imposition of a land-tax, the proceeds to be appropriated to national purposes, the landed property of the Church of Ireland would even then be more than sufficient to serve the spiritual wants of the Protestants of Ireland.
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, he thought that the tithes could not be justly applied to temporal objects. Three parts of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and only one-fourth Protestants; and under such circumstances, the Catholics had a right to demand, that at least one-half of the ecclesiastical property in the country should be devoted to Roman Catholic purposes. Ireland would never be contented, until the Catholic Church
840
could resume that proportion which he had mentioned of the revenues which formerly belonged to it. Though a Protestant, he considered that every man in Ireland was disgraced by a system which placed so large a portion of the Irish people in a state of inferiority with respect to the support of their religious opinions. He was sorry to see that no Catholic Member came forward to claim the rights which his Church distinctly possessed. He was not a Catholic, but he looked upon himself as the Representative of the Irish people in general. He considered the possession of the whole ecclesiastical property in the country by the Protestant Church, as throwing odium upon every Protestant in Ireland. The sooner they got rid of such a system, and restored the people to their rights, the better it would be for the whole empire.
Sir Hussey Viviansaid, that though the numbers of the Protestants in Ireland were much smaller than those of the Catholics, yet the property in the hands of the Protestants was considerably greater; so that it was Protestant property after all which paid the greater portion of the tithe that was applied to the support of the Protestant Church.
Mr. Finchobserved, that if it were wished to destroy the Church of Ireland altogether, it would be better to bring forward a distinct Motion for that purpose. The property of the Church was undoubtedly once national, but it was no longer so, and could not be touched without a violation of justice. He considered the Church Establishment of Ireland to be one of the noblest institutions in the world. He should certainly vote for the Resolutions, but he did so with pain, as he felt that was only a choice of evils.
Mr. Wardsaid, that notwithstanding the exhortations of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Finch), he could not separate the present Resolutions from the general question of the Irish Church Establishment. He considered the two as indissolubly connected, and he should, therefore, beg leave to state, with reference to both, the reasons for which he should support the Resolutions then before the House. He should vote for them, not because he approved of them in principle, but because, having modified his individual opinions as to the Reform requisite in the Irish Church according to the Government standard—having diluted them down to the milk-and-water consistency of the Bill which he held in his hand, he was unwilling

841
to raise a difficulty upon any new point, until he saw whether this Bill, embodying as it did those ameliorations, which upon the lowest possible estimate, the House of Commons held to be indispensable in the Irish Establishment, would be suffered to become the law of the land or not. If it were so, well, a useful principle would be established, which might be worked out gradually in after times. If it were not, the House would stand upon strong ground in the opinion of the country; for what improvement could be hoped for, in any branch of our system, if everything approaching to improvement were resisted in that branch where it was most required? There was one more suggestion which he should venture to point out to the consideration of his Majesty's Government—he meant the expediency of withholding the present grant, which he could not but regard as a bonus to the Irish clergy, until the fate of the Temporalities Bill, in another place, was ascertained. For, differing, as he did, toto cœlo, from the hon. and learned member for the university of Dublin in his views as to the Irish Church, which he (Mr. Ward) regarded, in its present state, not as a fundamental article of the Union, but as a fundamental article of the disunion, between the two countries, he should be very reluctant to contribute, in any way, to its support, without some security for those changes which could alone render its existence beneficial.
Mr. Edward Ruthven,as the Representative of a large Catholic constituency, felt himself bound to resist any attempt to make that constituency support the ministers of a Protestant Church. It was as unjust to make a man pay for the maintenance of a religion which he did not believe, as it would be for a policeman to compel him with a bayonet to enter a Church where that religion was preached, and to remain there during the whole of the service. The people of Ireland were naturally averse from paying money which was diverted from the purpose to which it was originally applied; and for himself he would not pay it until he was forced to do so.
Mr. Lefroysaid, he had been anxious for some time to make a few observations upon the Resolution under discussion, but felt considerable satisfaction that he had not succeeded in catching the Chairman's attention before, as he had now the greatest pleasure in expressing how entirely he approved of the sentiments just expressed by
842
the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. Those sentiments were of the more value, as several Gentlemen had spoken in so very different a strain; some boldly declaring, that Church property should be entirely confiscated, others, that the Protestant Church in Ireland was anti-national. As to the latter, though many Gentlemen in the House might desire that the Catholics should be relieved from the payment of taxes to that Church, he must suppose that this was from a hope that irritated feelings, which at present existed, would be done away with, and not because they admitted that the Church was anti-national, being the Established Church of the united empire. The right hon. Secretary had taken his stand on a firm position; he declared he would support the rights of property, and in doing so he must support the property of the Church, for that property was totally distinct from the spiritual duties of the Church; and if the Government attempted to interfere with it, they would have a troublesome account to settle with all lay proprietors of tithes, whose title was exactly the same, and no better than that of churchmen. With respect to the objections made by certain Gentlemen as to the landlords being liable to the tithe, he must express his surprise that these objections should come from the quarter they did, as those hon. Members had always been the most forward to boast in that House, that they only wished the poor to be relieved of their burthens, and that they desired no indulgence or benefits for landlords. For his part, he would say, that he would willingly bear his share, if this proposition was supposed to be useful for the poorer classes in Ireland; and though he generally voted against the measures of Ministers, he felt peculiar pleasure in supporting them when they were defending a just and righteous cause, such as he conceived the present. He should look upon this night as one of the happiest in his life, if he assisted in passing a measure which would produce tranquillity. With respect to some observations which had fallen from an hon. Member upon the speech of his learned friend, the member for the University of Dublin, he could only say, that they were not at all applicable. His learned friend, and those with whom he was in the habit of acting, were not the supporters of abuses, but they were the supporters of the rights of property; and whilst they were anxious to remove real grievances or do

843
away with real abuses, they would never consent to any measures which would upset the Established Church, or extinguish Protestantism in Ireland, valuing such privileges more than property or life itself.
Colonel Conollywould not have obtruded himself upon the notice of the Committee, were it not for the observations which had been made by the hon. Gentleman, the member for the county of Kildare (Mr. Edward Ruthven). That hon. Gentleman had stated, that he was the Representative of a Roman Catholic constituency. "That cannot possibly be the case," said the hon. and gallant Member, "for I am one of his constituents." He (Colonel Conolly) must take the liberty of repeating, that the hon. Gentleman was grossly ignorant of the nature of the constituency of that county, if the hon. Member for a moment supposed himself to be the Representative of an exclusively Roman Catholic body. He however exculpated the hon. Gentleman from intentionally misrepresenting the fact, inasmuch as he was most probably ignorant of the character of the constituency of the county which he represented. The hon. Gentleman was not to be blamed for this, as he did not possess a single acre in the county. He would take that opportunity of stating, that the hon. Gentleman did not represent the property of the county of Kildare. He was brought into that House in consequence to his agitating the tithe question from one end of the county to the other. He would state it broadly, and without the fear of contradiction, that the hon. Member owed his seat in that House solely to the circumstance of his having entered into a crusade against the Established Church, and to his having decried tithes. He should be wanting to his own feelings—he should be wanting to common truth and justice, as well as to the character of the county in which he resided—were he not to lay before the House a statement of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman owed his return. He, in common with all those who felt anxious for the welfare of the Church and the peace of Ireland, could not withhold expressing his grateful thanks for the boon his Majesty's Ministers were about to confer upon that most exemplary class of men—the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. He was rejoiced to find, that there was now a prospect of relieving them from the starvation and misery to which they had been reduced. He was most happy to see, that Ministers Were at length sensitively awakened to the
844
true state to which the clergy in Ireland had been reduced; and, as far as an humble individual was concerned, who warmly espoused the cause of the clergy, he begged leave on their behalf to tender his gratitude to the noble Lord and his Majesty's Ministers for the relief Which he was about to aiford them. He was glad to find, that in the course of that debate some hon. Members, who on previous occasions had vilified and traduced the clergy, had that night done justice to their characters. The truth was, that so far from being the rapacious monsters which they had been described to be, there never was a more exemplary class of men than the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland—men who, by their mildness and forbearance, not merely conferred honour upon the clerical character, but upon human nature. Their conduct, during the trials and privations to which they had latterly been subjected, afforded one of the most pathetic instances of self-sacrifice that could be imagined. He said this because he knew the fact to be so; he had witnessed the patience and forbearance with which the clergy had borne their accumulated and unmerited misfortunes; and, knowing these circumstances, he should be wanting in justice did he not give expression to his feelings. Although his Majesty's Ministers had at length recognized the rights of the Church, he must take the liberty of warning them against being led away by the spoliative propensities of many of their Supporters. Those hon. Members lost no opportunity of decrying the Established Church, and describing the conduct of its ministers as brutal and rapacious—and all this merely because the clergy used some means to obtain an existence. Having been driven to a slate of starvation—he did not wish to exaggerate their condition—it was not, in fact, susceptible of exaggeration—after having been driven to such a state of misery—to hear them abused and vilified, was more than the most patient could listen to, or the most forbearing tolerate. It was not necessary for him, in the present stage of the proceedings, to enter into discussion upon the plan proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. Other and more fitting opportunities would occur: but he could not sit down without offering, on the part of the Established Clergy, the humble tribute of his gratitude to his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. Edward Ruthvensaid, that an attack more wanton and unconstitutional—a more ungenerous attack was never made by any

845
man on another—and that other a young man and a young Member of that House—than had been made upon him by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member had talked of his pretensions to represent the county of Kildare. His pretensions were easily told. He had been sent to that House by the people of Kildare. That was his only claim, and it was one more honourable and more just and honest than to have been sent there to represent the bigotry and fanaticism of a selfish and destructive party. As to the property he possessed in the county, it ill became the hon. Member to say anything about that. He had a qualification of his own, without being obliged to ask any man to lend him one, and he had a house of his own in the county, where every Gentleman present should be hospitably received. He thanked the House for its attention while he had repelled the attack of the hon. Member.
Colonel Vernerrose for the purpose of supporting the Resolution. The clergy were accused of tyranny and oppression, but he should like to ask those hon. Members who brought the charges how they would like to remain three years without their incomes. He much feared that many of those hon. Members would not in reality be satisfied with the abolition of tithe—what they sought fur was the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. The clergy were accused of acting with tyranny and oppression—but their traducers had not the hardihood to state, that the clergy had not as good a right to their tithes as the landlord had to his rent; and yet for merely seeking by legal means to assert a legal right they were vilified and calumniated. Many of the clergy had been obliged to fly the country, and within the last few days one of that body had called upon him to state, that in consequence of his tithes being withheld and his life threatened, he was obliged to seek refuge in a foreign country. He stated, that previously to the late outcry being raised against tithes, he received his income regularly, and lived on the best terms with his parishioners; but when the minds of the people became inflamed, and he was forced to have recourse to legal means to recover his just rights, those kindly feelings which previously existed between him and his parishioners were severed, and the consequence was, that he was obliged to fly the country.
Lord Althorpsaid: I admired in common with others, the temper in which the present
846
Debate was commenced, and I regret that that temper has not been preserved. I have been thanked by some hon. Gentlemen, and perhaps more than I deserve, for bringing this proposition forward. My real object in doing so was not altogether for the benefit of the Church, but because I thought that there was extreme danger in allowing the present state of things to continue in Ireland, and because I thought that it was indispensable that Parliament should interfere and put a stop to it. I was quite aware, that it was a proposition which was liable to certain objections; but I hoped, and I continue to hope, that it will be productive of much good; and therefore, that the House will overrule those objections, and agree to a proposition that, in my opinion, is calculated to benefit England as well as Ireland. It is, as the House must already know, intended by this measure, that the landlords should be entitled to recover from those tenants who themselves have not paid their tithes, and I am aware that this feature of the measure is open to some objection, and even to an objection of some apparent weight; but, upon reflection, I am sure the committee will agree with me, that the weight is only in appearance. I think the Committee will also agree with roe, that if the land tax thus intended to be imposed were to be collected in the same manner as the tithes have heretofore been collected, it could not be productive of satisfaction, as it must of necessity be looked upon in the same light as the whole burthen of tithes; if tithes were to be collected, in the same proportions as before, the present would merely be looked upon as a repetition of the measure of last Session, and not tend in the slightest degree to advance the pacification of the country. It is very true, and I do not shrink from the admission, that I do propose to lay on a land-tax; and however it may eventually be received by the landlords of Ireland, there is no shutting our eyes to the truth, that such a measure is unavoidable. While noticing this feature in our proceedings on this subject, I may be permitted to observe, that from the moment tins admission was first made, a change came over the views of Irish gentlemen on the subject of tithes. I never, upon any political subject, remember so great a change as that which seemed to have been wrought in the minds of those gentlemen from the instant that that announcement was made. The debates, which from that time forward took place upon the subject, were wholly altered in

847
their tone. Antecedently to that part of the measure being known, the Irish Members breathed nothing but approbation; but ever since they became exceedingly ingenious in discovering objections. Before that discovery, it was agreed by every gentleman, that the present state of things could not be allowed to continue, and that such continuance would be in the highest degree dangerous to the happiness and safety of the country; and gentlemen also agreed, that the adoption of the present measure, minus the paying clause, would be the best thing in the world, would remove all causes of discontent, and place things on a satisfactory footing; but now that the measure has been produced, we have had to encounter every sort of difference of opinion. I have never for a moment affected to say, that we have not been throwing a burthen upon the landlords of Ireland; but as I have on former occasions said, we had only to choose between two evils, and the alternative, which, from the nature of the case, became the more eligible, is one of which, after all, the landlords will have no real reason to complain—it was necessary for the peace of the country that the burthen should be shifted to their shoulders; and I do trust that, for the better consolidation and continuance of that tranquillity, they will submit to the burthen with a good grace. I am aware that it has been urged that this measure is only of a temporary nature, and can have no extensive or permanent effect. Now, the reply I have to make to that is, that the proposed measure has been brought forward as a remedy for a great present grievance; that it will now have the effect of relieving the occupying tenants from the pressure of the arrears accumulated during the past three years; and it will also have the effect of relieving the tenants-at-will from all their burthens; they will never have to undergo the grievance again. This, it must be confessed, is a great public benefit, and might have protected us from the censure of the hon. member for Derbyshire, who accused us of mixing a great deal of Toryism, with all our measures, so much of Toryism that he could not give us the benefit of his support. I rather think, that if those Members of this House who are in the habit of supporting Tory doctrines were consulted on the subject, they would have very little difficulty in saying, that a great number of our measures have in them but a very small spice of Toryism—too small to meet their views, or obtain their support. Of this I am
848
quite sure, that none of our measures relating to the Irish church would satisfy the express wish of those who profess Toryism. From the hour we came into office, till the present moment, we have felt it to be our duty (I say that, at all times, and certainly, above all others, at the present time) we have felt it to be our duty to bring forward measures, as, while they tended gradually to improve the institutions of the country, did not, by too rapid a change, incur the hazard of disturbing the tranquillity of the country. The course which we marked out for ourselves when we met the present Reformed Parliament for the first time, was that which I have now described, and the question which we had to put to ourselves was this—whether we should proceed with those gradual improvements which every man who wished well to the country desired to see accomplished, or whether by sudden and violent steps, taken at short intervals, we should produce the most calamitous effects? We have chosen the former of these alternatives, and upon the principle thus adopted we are resolved to act, so long as we receive the confidence of Parliament and of the country. So long, Sir, as we continue to enjoy that confidence, so long are we resolved to continue making the same improvements in the institutions of the country, and in such manner as shall secure us against hazarding their stability, or putting in jeopardy the peace and good order of the community. I do indulge the hope that, up to the present time, the course we have pursued has given satisfaction to the House and the country; and of this I can assure them, that whether it be so or otherwise, they will not find us inclined to adopt any other course. Our earnest wishes, and our fixed resolutions lead us to promote every safe and practical improvement, but we have no desire to have recourse to rash and dangerous experiments.
Mr. Ronaynedeclared the proposed measure to be a miserable expedient, and one that would not be found to answer the object intended. It might, perhaps, give temporary quiet to the country, but it would never prove permanently effective.
Mr. Lambertsaid, he was the landlord of two parishes containing several thousand acres, and he wished to known how the tithes were to be recovered from the tenants, in the event of their running away?
Lord Althorpsaid, the landlords would have every right to recover the land-tax from such tenants as owed their tithes.

849
There certainly had not been any provision made for the case of tenants running away, but he had no reason to think that that class would prove very numerous, and, at all events, there would be no great difficulty in making such an arrangement as would meet any difficulties of that nature.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the House must be prepared to give compensation to the Irish landlords, whose property by this measure they proposed to take away; it was impossible that they could otherwise carry their resolution into effect. Not only were they thus embarrassing themselves with the necessity of making this compensation, but they were creating a new source of animosity between the peasant and the landlord. It was impossible to look upon the measure otherwise than as a mere expedient, and it was at the same time impossible to look upon it otherwise than as a direct injustice and confiscation. When the tenant absconded in debt both to the landlord and to the parson, could there be anything like justice in affixing upon the landlord the double loss by compelling him to make good the debt to the parson? Nothing, therefore, could be more evident than that a compensation fund must be formed somewhere, and it would be the height of injustice to seek it from the resources of the nation at large, and still greater injustice to make the Catholic landlord pay that with which Protestant property alone should be encumbered. In his judgment, the best source from which to derive the means of compensation would be the Protestant Church property.
Mr. Charles Walkeragreed with the last speaker, that the measure of his Majesty's Government would afford nothing but temporary relief, and he hesitated not to add, that it would lead to ultimate dissatisfaction. He was a Protestant, but he fearlessly acknowledged that he was ashamed of the Protestant pastors of Ireland. The whole outcry about the preservation of tithes was raised on their behalf; and though a numerous body of laymen had endured extensive losses by the late occurrences in Ireland, there would not have been a voice raised on their behalf, were it not that the interests of the lay impropriators and of the clerical body were bound up together. There was no denying the fact, that the Irish Church was an extortionate church. Yes, he would repeat, that it was not only extortion, but grievous injustice, to make the landlord pay debts which he had never incurred.
Mr. Christmascould not agree that the landlord should pay in every case where the occupying tenant held by lease; and as to what had been said respecting the clergy demanding their six-and-fourpences and thirteen-and-tenpences, he must be permitted to observe, that if they gave up those small sums, it would amount to giving up their whole income. He was aware that opinions opposite to those which he held were advocated by gentlemen who professed the highest respect for the Church, and who declared that they did not want to do anything with the Church but to take away its revenues. He begged the House to remember, that tithes were not a tax which could be imposed or removed at pleasure—that they did, on the contrary, constitute a separate property; and if they were to be considered as separate property, with what consistency could hon. Members talk of extinction?
Mr. O' Ferrallsaid, that he thought, supposing the weight of the burden did eventually fall upon the landlords, they ought not to complain. In all arrangements of that kind, where a great national benefit was obtained, they could not expect to accomplish their object without encountering some difficulties.
Mr. Barronwas ready to pay his proportion of the tax as a landlord, if it were for the benefit of the people. This he considered as a temporary measure; but he hoped it would lead to a permanent Land-tax. The poor of Ireland had a right to maintenance and education out of the property of the Church of Ireland. The Church of Ireland and that of England were not in the same situation with regard to their property. The rights of the poor with respect to them were different in the two countries.
Major Macnamaraobserved, that for the sake of preserving the peace of the country, he should willingly pay his portion of the tithes.
The Committee divided on the Resolution: Ayes 270; Noes 40—Majority 230.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Hutt, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hughes, H.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Clay, W.

Leigh, G. L.

Cookes, T. H.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Davies, Colonel

Parrott, J.

Fellowes, Hon. N.

Pease, J.

Fellowes, H. C. W.

Rippen, C.

Gisborne, T.

Roebuck, A.

Hill, M. D.

Romilly, J.

851

Romilly, E.

Grattan, H.

Staveley, T. K.

O'Brien, C.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Ronayne, D.

Watkins, J. L.

Ruthven, E.

SCOTLAND.

Talbot, J.

Gillon, W. P.

Talbot, J. H.

Wallace, R.

Vigors, N. A.

IRELAND.

Wallace, T.

Blake, M. J.

Walker, C. A.

Baldwin, Dr.

PAIRED OFF.

Chapman, M. J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Finn, W. F.

TEILERS.

Fitzgerald, T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Fitzsimon, N

The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Stamp Duties on Advertisements.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from the Archdeaconries of Bath and Bedminster, against the Jewish Relief Bill; and by the same, from the same; and by the Earl of ELDON, from Durham,—against Irish Church Reform.—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from Perth, for the Restoration of the Drawback on Spirits made of Malt.—By Lords BARHAM and SUFFIELD, and another NOBLE LORD, from several Places,—against Slavery.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Halifax, and other Places, against the Local Jurisdiction Bill.—By the Earl of
790
ELDON, from the Parish of All Saints Poplar, for continuing to the East-India Company the Privilege of Trading to India.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had been requested to slate to their Lordships the nature and objects of this Bill, and the principle on which it was founded; and he thought that when a Bill of this description or any other, introducing material alterations into the law of the country, came from the other House of Parliament, it was the duty of some noble Lord to state to their Lordships the nature and object of the Bill, and the principle which had been adopted for its basis. The title of this Bill was "An Act for the Limitations of Actions and Suits relating to Real Property, and for simplifying the Remedies for trying the Rights thereto." This Bill was founded on a principle that had long been recognized in the law of England, which was, that a long period of adverse possession should give an indefeasible right to the property. That principle itself owed its origin to the necessity, or at least the convenience, of quieting titles to property. The rule of law was, "leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subvenient," and that rule arose from the circumstance that the evidence of title to property, however good that title was, might be lost; that the witnesses required to prove it might die; and other events happen, which but for the intervention of this rule might leave a lawful possessor at the mercy of a fraudulent claimant. From the earliest period that rule had been acted on in this country, but it had not been acted on according to any precise system, and for that reason it was necessary to introduce this Bill. In the early periods of the history of this country the limitation was taken from stated eras, as from the return of King John from Ireland, from the journey of King Henry to Normandy, and from the coronation of King Richard 1st. The length of the limitation varied, of course, with the change of period from which it was dated, and the law, therefore, at last adopted another rule, which was that of allowing only a certain number of years to be a limitation. He should not go through the various Acts which had been passed upon this subject; it would be sufficient

791
for him to notice two of them. The first was an Act passed in the reign of James 1st, and the next in that of Henry 8th. By the Statute passed in the reign of James 1st it was enacted, that no entry on lands should be permitted after an adverse possession of twenty years; and as no entry could be made, no action of ejectment could be maintained; and that was then the ordinary mode of trying titles to land, so that no possessor of lands could have his title to them impeached in that form of proceeding after that lapse of time. Possession for twenty years was, therefore, a title to lands, but not an absolute title, for, according to the limitations contained in the Statute of Henry 8th, any real action might be tried, and the party turned out of possession after that time. This limited remedy of a real action, or an action upon a claim of right, and not of mere possession, was only applicable in certain cases. It was not applicable where land was held under wills, or by the provisions of marriage settlements, nor to cases where, in the language of the land, there had been no seisin; it was not applicable to cases of dower, of escheat, or of waste, and to a variety of other cases which it was not necessary for him to particularise; nor did it apply to cases of equitable title, and therefore their Lordships would perceive the incongruity of the law as it now stood. Besides this, it was not applicable to cases of limitations by fines. If a party who had gained a wrongful possession of lands levied a fine on these lands, after a non-claim of five years subsequent to the levying of the fine, his title was complete. The system of levying fines was enacted in the reign of Henry 7th, in consequence of the frequent changes in the possession of estates during the wars of York and Lancaster. This short period of possession which was to constitute a limitation, proceeded on the fiction of laws that fines were so notorious a mode of proceeding, that they might be considered a notice to all the parties interested to come forward and put in their claims; but though such was the fiction of the law, it was well known—at least in the present day—that the fact was not so in practice. He had stated these things to their Lordships in order to show that it was a principle of the English law to quiet titles, but that the operation of that principle was at this moment defective. The remedies which the law gave
792
for the recovery of estates or for defending the possession of them, were at variance among themselves and inconsistent with each other, and they did not comprehend all persons and all descriptions of property. This Bill was introduced to remedy that defect, by laying down one uniform and consistent rule. That object was to be effected by legislating in this way, by providing that after a certain time the party holding adversely should thereby have an indefeasible title to the property. There were several advantages in adopting such a rule. The first was, that it would quiet the title to lands; the next was—which was not an immaterial consideration—that it, would give security in possession, and, consequently, ease in letting, and facility in conveying, property. The material question, then, was that which had engaged the anxious attention of the Common Law Commissioners—what period of adverse possession should render the right of the possessor indefeasible? They had at last determined that a period of twenty years should be adopted, and this Bill was framed on that rule. They recommended that at the end of that time the adverse possessor of land should be considered to have acquired an indefeasible title, and after that time he should not be liable by any process of law to be expelled from his property. He thought that the Commissioners had come to a right conclusion in the limitation they recommended to be adopted. They had for a long time been divided in their choice between a period of twenty and of thirty years, and they had finally chosen the former. In the first place twenty years was the period fixed by the Statute of James as that after which no action of ejectment should be brought. Now, within the operation of the action by ejectment was comprehended the great majority of titles in the country for the proceeding by real action was limited to a certain number of cases only. If twenty years adverse possession was sufficient in the time of James 1st to defeat an action of ejectment, he thought, considering the increased facility of communication, and the increased intelligence of the country, their Lordships would be of opinion that that period would properly be applicable now to all the modes of trying titles in the country. Another consideration which made the Commissioners adopt the period of twenty years

793
was, that that was the term admitted as a limitation in Courts of Equity. By the rules of those Courts no suit for lands could be instituted there after the expiration of twenty years, except in cases of fraud, and in others which it was not necessary for him particularly to advert to; and as so large a portion of the property of the country was subject to trusts, and liable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Equity, it was convenient that the same rules should be applicable in similar circumstances in those Courts and in Courts of Law. He had already stated among the advantages contemplated by the present Bill that of quieting titles. Another advantage connected with that was this: A person selling an estate was obliged to make out a good title for sixty years. If there had been many changes of possession during that time, the abstract would be most voluminous, and the expense consequently enormous, and all that expense might probably arise from what had taken place in the earlier period of the term. By the change now proposed, conveyances of property would be rendered considerably cheaper—an object which, in a commercial country like this, it was most desirable to attain. Another beneficial consequence of the measure would be, that all trials of title to lands would in future be by actions of ejectment. That form of action was, of all others relating to the titles to land, the most simple and the least expensive. The old forms used in real actions were antiquated, obsolete, technical, and little understood. These forms would now be abolished. By turning to page 14 of the Bill their Lordships would see, that the following processes were abolished. 'Writ' of right patent, writ of right quiadominus remisit curiam, writ of right in capite, writ of right in London, writ of right close, writ of right de rationabile parte, writ of right of advowson, writ of right upon disclaimer, writ de rationabilibus divisis, writ of right of ward, writ de consuetudinibus et servitiis, writ of cessavit, writ of escheat, writ of quojure, writ of secta ad molendinum, writ de essendo quietum de theolonio; He had read about one-fourth only of the writs to be abolished. He need not enter further into details. He would only add, that there were certain cases in which claimants, labouring under disabilities to sue, such as infancy, Iunacy, coverture, etc.
794
would still have their rights reserved to them, ten years additional being allowed them before an adverse possession was held to bar their claims. There was one other subject on which it was now necessary that he should say a word—he meant that of claims in cases of advowsons. The limitation he had mentioned was not applicable to the case of this important and valuable property. Advowsons could only be contested in cases of vacancy. Now, a vacancy might not occur within a period of twenty years. For the purpose of giving a reasonable limitation, another period was adopted with regard to advowsons. That period was a term of three lives, or three incumbrances, provided that they extended to sixty years, and if not, then a period of sixty years; but in no case was the limitation to exceed 100 years, although the three lives, or three incumbrances might go beyond that term. Having thus made their Lordships acquainted with the nature and object of the Bill, he should not say anything about the details of it, as he thought that it would be better to discuss the principle of the Bill now, and the details might be considered at a future time in the Committee.
Lord Wynfordsuggested, that the House should now merely go into Committee pro forma, and the discussion upon the details be taken on Thursday next.
The Earl of Eldonwas anxious to have time to look into the Bill before the House went into a Committee. He was ready to admit, that it might be desirable to adopt the same period of limitation in Courts of Law and Equity, but he thought that some provision should be made for those cases in which the twenty years' adverse possession was now about to expire; and might expire before the parties could have the opportunity of putting in their claims so as to bar the limitation. In the desire to alter the law, these things did not seem to be sufficiently considered; and when he looked to the measures then before that and the other House of Parliament, having for their object most extensive alterations in the existing laws, it appeared to him that professional men, if those measures were carried, would have to begin their legal studies over again. So numerous were the alterations contemplated with respect to landed property, that it would be soon necessary, when a gentle-
795
man went to amuse himself on his estate in the country, to take an expert solicitor and a clever barrister with him to inspect his title-deeds, and ascertain the validity of his rights.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted the difficulty started by the noble and learned Earl, but said, that that must always be the case when Statutes of Limitation were introduced. He did not see how that difficulty could be avoided, for if time were given before this Bill came into operation, the effect would be to bring a number of worthless and unfounded claims into the Courts, brought there for the sole purpose of avoiding the operation of the Bill. This evil had been felt in passing Lord Tenterden's Bill, but there was no attempt made to avoid it, and indeed it was distinctly stated by Mr. Baron Hullock, at York, that the Bill was intended to have the effect of inducing men to bring actions at once. He really could not agree with what had been asserted by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Eldon), that if these Bills were allowed to pass, every title in the country would be altered. The Fines and Recoveries Bill, he had no doubt would make conveyancing much less tedious, and much less expensive. On another Bill, that for altering the law relative to debtor and creditor, to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, he confessed he had strong opinions. The present law he had long considered as at once unjust and insufficient, and the Bill which had been brought into the other House, he had great hopes would materially improve it, in vindication of the Government, he thought it right to state, that the subject had been opened by him more than a year ago, when he presented the Report of the Law Commissioners to their Lordships. They certainly had been in no great hurry since in their proceedings; but with interests so varied and so complicated to deal with, it was most desirable they should be wary in their conduct. This was the reason why the Bill was not to be pressed this Session—that the community at large might have ample time to discuss its provisions; for though a vast deal of information was already before the public from the Law Commissioners, still the mere existence of a document was not sufficient to command attention to the subject of it. He was quite sure, however, alter what had now passed there, and what occurred the previous evening in
796
the other House, that a matter so important to all parties, creditors as well as debtors, laymen as well as lawyers, would, between this and the next Session, receive from the public the most ample and mature consideration. He found, from a communication just made to him, that his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General did state in the other House of Parliament an intention of passing the Bill he had just alluded to, during the course of the present Session. It was the intention of his hon. and learned friend, he had understood, to open the Bill with the view of not passing it during the present Session, but as it was the wish of several hon. Members of the other House that the measure should pass, his hon. and learned friend had yielded to their solicitations, and had opened the Bill as now stated. His (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, however, still was, that it would have been a better course to have introduced the Bill, and let it stand over till another Session.
The Earl of Eldonagain referred to the several measures before Parliament for the alteration of the laws relating to real property. He objected especially to the Bill for altering the law of curtesy, and to the Bill for rendering real property assets in all cases for the payment of simple contract creditors; measures which he conceived, if carried into effect, would produce alterations more injurious, and certainly more extensive, than those who proposed the measures had any idea of.
The Lord Chancellorwas sorry to hear that his noble and learned friend's (Lord Eldon) objections to the Bill for rendering real estates assets for the payment of simple contract debts continued unabated. As their Lordships might probably, conceive, however, that they had had sufficient discussion on the laws relating to real property for one evening, he had no objection to let that Bill stand over until Thursday night next. At a more convenient time he should also be happy to meet his noble and learned friend on the subject of the proposed alteration as to the law of curtesy. He should only say now, that he believed his noble friend's apprehensions as to the evils which might result from the proposed alterations were greatly exaggerated.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he had a striking exemplification of the probable effects of the Bill rendering real property assets for the payment of debts in a case which came

797
before him that day. A creditor filed a bill in equity to recover a debt of 64 l., charged upon a real estate, and the costs of the suit amounted to 1,200 l. Now it was precisely the same machinery which had operated this result with which the proposed law was to be carried into effort; and, in the opinion of very competent persons, unless some new machinery was devised, if the Legislature passed that Bill, it would inflict a great curse upon the country.
Bill committed pro forma, and to be recommitted.