Sitting of 21 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BAINBRIDGE, an Account of all Bank Notes and Post Bills issued by the Bank of England, which have not been paid into the Bank, up to the 31st December, 1831: also the Amount paid by the Bank of England, upon Indemnity, or otherwise, in each year up to the same period for Bank of England Notes and Post Bills lost or destroyed.—On the Motion of Mr. ROBERT GORDON, Copies of a Correspondence between the Court of Directors and the Governor General of India, in the year 1830, and 1831, relative to the Constitution of the Indian Government.—On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, the Number of Inhabitants of Westminster employed as Constables during each past week of the present Session in Attendance on the Houses of Parliament, and on all other Duties not Parochial: also the Number of Fines, Fees, and Payments on Account of Non-performance, or incurred in Performing such Duties, and who eventually receives such Payments.—On the Motion of Mr. WARBURTON, an Account of the Number of Persons who have obtained Diplomas from the Royal College of Surgeons, in each year, from 1825 to 1832, and of the Number Examined and Rejected: the same for Edinburgh and Dublin: also of the Regulations, or Bye-laws, under which Graduates in Physic have been admitted as Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians of London, since 1771, what Number of Persons have been admitted as Fellows, and what Number Rejected, since 1771: also the Number admitted as Licentiates, from 1823 to 1832: and also an Account of the Money received by the College from Persons admitted as Licentiates, during the same period, and how that Money has been Appropriated.
Bills. Read a third time:—Separatists' Affirmation.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of CHANDOS, from the Clergy of Buckingham, against the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for Redress to the Merchants for the Confiscation of their Property in 1807; also from the Owners of House Property, Liverpool, against the Rating of Tenements Bill; and from the Corporation of that Town, against the General Register Bill.—By the same, and Mr. J. YOUNG, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. J. YOUNG, from Kilbury and Templeoran, for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Cess; from the Clergy of Kilmore, against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society.—By Mr. JOHN TALBOT, from St. Mary's and New Ross (Wexford), against Tithes.—By Mr. BUCKINGHAM, from the Sailors of St. Catharine's Docks, for the Total Abolition of Naval Impressment; from Tavistock, for the Abolition of Corporal Punishment.—By Mr. JOHN MAXWELL, from Galston, for the Repeal of the Septennial Act; from the Weavers of Glasgow, for Inquiry into their Distress, and for Relief.—By Mr. CUMMING BRUCE, from the Kirk Session of Kilmainham, for Communicating Religious Instruction to the Irish in their Vernacular Tongue.—By Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Henbury, &c.; and by Lord SANDON, from Eecleshall, for the Repeal or Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Lord HENNIKER, and an HON. MEMBRE, from a Number of Places, for the Abolition of the Malt Duty.—By Mr. ROBERT GRANT, and Mr. J. YOUNG, from several Places,—against Slavery,—By Mr. ROBERT GRANT, from the Society for Promoting Rational Humanity towards the Brute Creation of Cambridge, for a Law to Promote their Object.—By Captain MEYNELL, from the Cotton Weavers of Lisburn, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By Mr. RUTHVEN, from Dublin, against the Sub-Sheriffs (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, from Westertrick, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Sir RICHARD NAGLE, and Mr. JOHN YOUNG, from several Places,—for a Mitigation of the Criminal Code.—By Mr. T. B. LENNARD, from the Society of Friends, for Exemption from Tithes; and from Epping, for the Repeal of the 6th section of the Labourers Employment Act.—By Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, from the Devonport and Stonehouse Retailers of Beer to be put on a Footing with other Licenced

1065
Victuallers.—By Mr. SULLIVAN, from the Inhabitants of Kilkenny, against the Corporation of that Place.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from the Presbytery of Edinburgh, against the Edinburgh Annuity Tax Bill.—By Mr. THICKNESSE, from Wigon, in favour of the Notaries Public Bill.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Mr. Stanley, the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill was read. The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee on said Bill.
Clauses, to the 131st inclusive, were then agreed to.
Clause 132, relating to the mode in which the sums to be paid for the Bishops leases should be determined—
Lord Oxmantownsaid, he thought the clause could be considerably improved by the insertion of new words; and for that purpose he had prepared an Amendment which he begged leave to submit to the Committee. The clause, in its present shape would render the Bill inoperative. Where the tenant had made valuable improvements, the Bishops in Ireland, practically speaking, in regulating the fines on renewals, never took those improvements into their calculation. Unless the clause were amended, the object of the preamble of the Bill could not be carried into effect; and so far from a bonus being held out to the tenants, the value of their property would be deteriorated—and the tenants, in place of being bettered in their condition, would be worse off than before. The noble Lord moved an Amendment to the effect that the Commissioners should be directed, in estimating the purchase-money, to calculate it upon the same principle as that hitherto adopted by the several Archbishops and Bishops in Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, he could not conceive how the noble Lord could contend that the tenants did not receive very considerable benefits under the clause as it stood. The noble Lord must recollect, that they need not purchase unless they pleased, and might renew with the Commissioners as before. They had, therefore, nothing to complain of.
Mr. Shawadmitted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) that the change by which the Commissioners would be obliged to renew with the tenants in case the tenants did not desire to purchase, must be considered a great improvement, compared with the condition in which they would have been placed by the clause as it originally stood. That would have forced them to purchase upon terms however dis-
1066
advantageous—or else to lose the property which their families might have held for centuries. There was one case within his own knowledge. A friend of his own, whose family had been possessed for the last 200 years of a large estate, held that estate under a Bishop's lease, in the north of Ireland. This property had been made the subject of marriage and other family settlements, and in all respects treated as a fee simple estate for that long period of time. His friend and his son both were at that moment strict tenants for life of the interest in question—morally if not legally certain of that interest not being evicted, and under the former arrangement, (if the Commissioners had not been compelled to renew), the father and son must either have raised money at any sacrifice, to make the purchase of the perpetuity, which would in no degree have improved their estate, or else have forfeited that which they had, from long possession, justly considered as their family inheritance. The alteration, therefore, he would allow was beneficial to the tenant, but still it was not just; and he so far agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Oxmantown) that the Government owed it to all parties interested in these tenants' lands, to resettle their rights upon a foundation as secure as it was possible—inasmuch as the very proposition to modify and alter a tenure which had so long existed undisturbed, was itself an evil, tending to unsettle men's minds and raise doubts as to the permanency and stability of their property. He thought the Amendment of the noble Lord, that the Commissioners should value the tenant's interest upon the same principle as the Bishops had acted, just and reasonable, and it should have his support.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for the Colonies) had not answered the objections urged by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had stated, that the Bill, as it stood, would prevent the tenant from purchasing the perpetuity, inasmuch as it would be better for him to remain under the Bishop. Supposing the tenant had laid out 10,000 l. in improving the property, it would manifestly be much more for his advantage to renew with the Bishop than to purchase the perpetuity from the Commissioners.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if the clause remained in its present state, the tenant would have to purchase the amount of what he himself had laid out. The Bishops, in calculating the renewals, never took

1067
into account the improvements which had been made by the tenants. Supposing, for instance, that the tenant had built a house upon the farm, no man could doubt but that increased the value of the farm; and yet the Bishop never charged the tenant any increased fine owing to that circumstance. The mode at present pursued in Ireland of calculating the renewal fines had been in operation since the Restoration; and all the noble Lord sought by the Amendment was, that the practice should not be altered.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the Bill, as it stood, gave that power to them substantively, and gave beside a bonus to the tenants. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to understand the question, but he appeared to have taken a very erroncous view of it. In the Bishops' sees, where the tenant wished to purchase the perpetuity, the Commissioners were to estimate it at the market value, and the tenant was to be allowed a bonus of four per cent. Should he, however, be dissatisfied with the value set upon it by the Commissioners, the tenant was to have the power of having the matter settled by arbitrators, the costs of the arbitration to be paid by the Commissioners in the event of its turning out that they had estimated it at too high a value.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not met the case at all. In calculating the fines the Bishops never took into account the value of the house which the tenant had built, whereas the Commissioners, in estimating the value of the perpetuity at the marketable price, would be bound to do so. He would give an instance—a gentleman, the high Sheriff of the county Fermanagh, held a tract of country under a Bishop's lease—he had built a handsome house, and planted his demesne, and yet the Bishop never raised the fine. Now the gentleman to whom he alluded could not have the perpetuity of this farm without again paying for the improvements which he himself had made.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that in legislating, the House could hardly assume that landlords, in parting with the perpetuity in their property, would not take into account the value of the improvements made upon it. The Bill says, make your bargain now, and the Bishops hereafter will be precluded from augmenting the amount to be paid.
Mr. James Grattansaid, that the Bishops acted differently in different dioceses.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, the question was certainly a complicated one, for it appeared from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, the member for Wicklow (Mr. J. Grattan), that no uniform practice prevailed. It appeared, however, that it was the common practice for Bishops to renew, from year to year, for twenty-one years. It was clear that the Bishop, if he pleased, had a right to let the lease run out. He had a complete right and title, supposing he thought it for his benefit, to run his life against the lease and let the property as he pleased. It was undoubtedly his right, at all events, to increase the fine if he deemed fit. What might be the practice of individual Bishops in Ireland, he (Dr. Lushington) could not say, but if the Bishops relaxed their power as stated, they conferred a benefit upon the tenant to which he had no legal right. It had been stated by some hon. Members, that it was not the practice for the Bishops, in calculating their fines, to take into account the marketable value of the lands. As he (Dr. Lushington) had had occasion, in the course of these debates, to make several speeches against the hon. member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), and the hon. member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), he would now make a speech for them, and say, that such conduct was most liberal on the parts of the heads of the Church in Ireland. It appeared to him, that the Amendment would render the clause impracticable. As the clause stood the value the Commissioners were to set upon the perpetuity, was after the expiration of twenty years. Taking, therefore, into account the decay to which buildings must be subject, the value of such tenements after twenty years must be very little indeed.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, appeared to have forgotten that the tenant had always one check, if not two, upon the Bishop. If the Bishop should run his life against the lease, and let the property to other tenants, he was obliged to reserve half the amount for his successor. Another check was, that the Bishop, when he was appointed, was generally at that period of life when it was scarcely worth his while to run his life against the lease. With regard to the power conferred by the clause upon the Commissioners, he thought it most unjust. Supposing one tenant in a townland had built upon and improved his farm, and that another had not, he who had laid out his money would have to pay

1069
over again, while the other would have the benefit of his neglect. Was that, he would ask, fair or just? There was a common tenure in Ireland, known by the title of toties quoties leases. He held such a lease under a tenant of a Bishop. The direct tenant had no benefit in the property, he receiving, in fact, only 1s.; and would it not be most unjust to make him (Colonel Perceval) pay for the improvement which he had made? If the value of the improvements were of the trifling character described by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington), it would be better to act in accordance with the preamble of the Bill, and by adopting the Amendment proposed by his noble friend (Lord Oxmantown) give a bonus to the tenant. The Bill would then in that respect be an advantage; but if the Amendment should be rejected, he, for one, as a tenant, would say, that they would be much better off as they were.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that as this was a Bill founded upon the custom of the country, he could see no just reason why that custom should not govern them in the present clause as in the others. It was distinctly stated, that the custom for many centuries was, that the Bishops were not in the habit of taking into consideration, when calculating their fines, the value of the improvements made by the tenants. He thought that that practice ought not to be disturbed. He should therefore vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Prymesaid, that if a tenant were induced to lay out his money on Bishops' leases, some protection ought to be afforded him. He would recommend a middle course, such as that adopted by the University of Cambridge. Where property held under them was improved, they did not charge tithes for it for the first fourteen years.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that it seemed to him that there was no criterion to regulate them. Some Bishops acted one way and some another. The Amendment would, therefore, be impracticable. He could not, he must own, view the conduct of the Irish Members on the present occasion without some suspicion. Gentlemen were united in opposition to this clause who were at variance upon almost every other question.
Mr. O'Connell: The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, that his principal objection to the Amendment was that it would be impracticable. Now, what the Amendment proposed was precisely what
1070
had been done for 150 years. So much for its impracticability. But the hon. and learned Solicitor General taunts us with agreeing in our opposition to the clause. What other motive could we have in agreeing except to prevent injustice being done? He was not a tenant under any Bishop, and he was sorry for it. He mentioned this because the newspapers stated that he was. The hon. and gallant member for the county of Sligo held under a Bishop, but the House would do the gallant Member the justice to say, that he was incapable of being influenced in his vote by such a circumstance. He (Mr. O'Connell) never knew an instance of the slightest difference ever having been made by the Bishops between Protestant and Roman Catholic tenants, and that was another reason for the Irish Members joining. But then it was stated that the practice was not general. He admitted it—but the exceptions only strengthened the case. He knew but two instances in which Bishops had behaved improperly. These Bishops had broken marriage settlements, crushed families, and reduced numbers to misery and distress. These were the exceptions. While every man joined in reprobating the exceptions, all must equally join in admiring the conduct of the overwhelming majority who took the more humane, the more noble, and the more Christian-like course, and left their tenants undisturbed. He (Mr. O'Connell) hoped the House would not think him wrong in the part he took in this clause—the only part, indeed, which he bad taken at all in the Bill.
Colonel Percevalsaid, he was delighted to hear justice done to the conduct of the Bishops of Ireland by the hon. and learned Gentleman who bad just sat down. Although he (Colonel Perceval) was a tenant under a Bishop, he was not permanently interested in the fate of the Amendment one way or other, inasmuch as the property he held was not built upon. In the county of Armagh, a gentleman, with whom he was acquainted, laid out 10,000 l. within the last four years, in improvements on a Bishop's lease. He could further state, that, in the county he represented, gentle men had built houses, and planted demesnes on Bishops' lands; and would it be fair or just to make those gentlemen pay a second time for such improvement?
Mr. Halcombethought great injustice would be done if the clause were permitted to remain as it then stood.
Mr. O' Connellsaid, he knew an instance

1071
of a case at Rathmines, near Dublin, where a man took six acres of ground, for which he paid 6l. an acre, and he renewed every year. He laid out 15,000 l. in building houses upon the ground. Now, according to the clause as it stood, he would have to pay 15,000 l. again for having turned fields into houses. Would any man say, that was just?
Mr. Estcourtthought the question depended very much upon the fact, whether the custom of the Bishops in renewing was universal or not; and he should be glad to hear, more particularly, how the matter stood from his hon. friend, Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Shaw, in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) said, that the learned Gentleman had stated, with tolerable accuracy, the course of dealing between the Bishops and their tenants in Ireland. The Bishops dealt with them on the fairest and most liberal terms, not raising their rent from any casual rise even as regarded the beneficial money interest which tenants might enjoy under them—but, in no instance were they in the habit of charging the tenant for ornamental improvements, or the erection of buildings on their property. It was but reasonable, then, that the same rule should be observed by the Commissioners, in respect of the purchase of the perpetuity, as had been observed by the Bishop in respect of the renewal of the lease—otherwise the tenant who had improved would be in worse circumstances than the one who had neglected his property. The person who had expended capital upon the faith of the Bishop's not taking advantage of the improvement it produced, would have to pay over again, in the way of purchase, to the Commissioners for the increased value of the property which his own expenditure had created, while the very negligence and carelessness of his neighbour in having allowed his property to deteriorate, would, in the same proportion, lessen the amount of his purchase money—and this without the Commissioners, in the performance of their public duty, having the power to take these circumstances, and the former practice, which had universally prevailed, into account, unless such an Amendment as was now proposed vested in them that discretion. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, too, that the principle he (Mr. Shaw) was contending for was recognized in the new provision of the Bill, which prevented the Commissioners charging for past improvements in the case of their receiving
1072
the tenants' leases—why then should it not equally hold in the case of purchase? It had been observed, that there was something strange in Irish Members, of various opinions, being united on the present occasion; he confessed that it had afforded him much satisfaction—because he was persuaded that they had not united to confer a favour upon any particular class or interest, but to do no more than an act of justice to those tenants who had improved their estates, under the full impression that they were to have the benefit of the improvement.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, he held a statement in his hand, signed by Messrs. Robinson and Rose, confirming the view taken by the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Abercrombiesaid, that the object of the Amendment was, to transfer a large portion of that which was now the property of the Church to a class of persons who had no legal right to it. He could not reconcile the statement of the hon. member for Dublin that night with what he said on a former occasion. That hon. and learned Member said, some nights since, that a person travelling through Ireland could not but know church lands from others, they were so little improved. He thought the clause, as it stood, unobjectionable, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
Sir Robert Ferguson, as a Member from the north of Ireland, and a holder of Bishops' lands, rose to make a few observations. In that part of the country with which he was connected, he could state, of his own knowledge, that it was not the practice of the Bishops, in calculating their fines, to take into account the value of the houses built upon the land, and he understood the same practice prevailed in other places—as in Armagh. In the counties of Armagh, Tyrone, and Derry, the gentry, in a great many instances, built houses and planted demesnes on Bishops' lands, and no reference whatever was had to the value of those improvements in calculating the fines. All that was sought by the Amendment was, that if such a practice could be established, to let the tenants have the benefit of it.
Lord Oxmantowndeclared that, with the exception of one hon. Member, he had had no communication with any other on the subject of his Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 85; Noes 49—Majority 36.
The Clause, as amended, was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 147 being read,
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that this clause was one of those which had been objected to on the score of principle. When they came to the 110th Clause (a postponed one), he would show, that the effect of it would be beneficial to the people of Ireland and to the support of the Protestant religion. He knew, that with respect to the 147th clause, in which the disposal of a sum of money was concerned, that there existed a great difference of opinion on both sides of the House, and that there were some of his own friends who objected to it, as they considered that it involved an alienation of Church property. The construction he put upon the tendency of the clause was very different, for he did not see, that it involved in any way the alienation of that property. What was bona fide the property of the Church was not at all touched. There was, he knew, both in that House and out of it, a strong feeling with respect to the alienation of Church property. They would have to consider what would be the purchase-money arising out of the sales of perpetuities—whether the surplus would amount to any large extent, and to see how it could be applied. With respect to the disposal of the money, the Committee would recollect, that the vote they had already come to that evening had reduced the amount of the sum very considerably. The clause relieved the people of Ireland of a debt to the amount of 300,000 l. or 400,000 l., which was the first charge on the purchase-money of perpetuities. If the Bishops' lessees did not avail themselves of the offer held out to them, things would remain as they were. The surplus-money alluded to in this clause would be applicable to certain parliamentary purposes; but no one could expect, that it would be applicable to the Army or Navy Estimates, or the general expenditure of the country. No, as nearly as possible it would be applied to the purposes of the Protestant Church—at least to purposes incidental to that Church—to the promotion of the established religion, and of education in Ireland. However, it might be doubted whether any large sum would be realised; and if not, the interference of Parliament with respect to it would be a matter of no very great importance. Knowing, however, as he did, the immense advantages to be derived from the present measure, feeling the folly of endangering its principle for the acquisition of no practical result, knowing also that the loss of
1074
the measure would be the loss not only of the advantages derivable from the Bill, but would involve other consequences, to which he would not then allude, but which he was sure there was no man in that House but must deprecate and feel a strong anxiety to avoid. [Cries of" No, no."] He heard the hon. member for Oldham say no, in objection to his remark; but he (Mr. Stanley) thought he must be the single exception that was to be found in the House. [Mr. O'Connell: There are several hon. Members who dissent. At least twenty said no.] He regretted to hear, that the number was so great of those who did not look with feelings of alarm and anxiety to the possible results which might arise from such a conflict of hostile opinion on the subject of the present clause. At all events, they were determined to make no sacrifice of principle; they would give up nothing that they were bound to by principle, however hon. Gentlemen opposite might contend, that they were making a sacrifice of principle. The words he intended to substitute for the words at the end of clause 147 would not interfere with the right of Parliament to the surplus money, if any there should be. He hoped that the good feeling of the House would sanction a declaration that was intended to lead to practical results. The 54th clause went to abolish Vestry-cess, and the produce of the sale of perpetuities was intended to extinguish future instalments of Vestry-cess, and to pay off the debts already incurred. Now, what he proposed to do was this—to move the omission from the Bill of the 147th clause altogether, and at the same time to strike out from the 54th clause the exception which related to the perpetuity purchase-fund. This alteration, he believed, would leave the question of the surplus fund precisely where it was at present. It would be recollected, that a material alteration had been effected in the Bill since its introduction—he meant the exemption of incumbents from the payment of tax, they having no present fund provided for them except that caused by the reduction of the sees of Derry and Waterford. Even in two years it was improbable that the fund in question could meet the objects to which it had been proposed to apply it. His object was not to make a sacrifice of principle; and he therefore, in the spirit of conciliation, entreated hon. Gentlemen not to be led astray, and not to contribute to the loss of the present measure, which involved so many serious con-

1075
sequences. His object was to incorporate this fund, and, in the first instance, to make it applicable to Church purposes in preference to any other.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he was not disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee was the same person who, during the progress of the Coercive Bill, came forward and stated, that the Government were about to establish a great principle in the Church Temporalities' Bill,—that they were going to open to the people of Ireland, for the first time, the prospect of being relieved from one of the heavy burthens which oppressed them, physically and morally, by establishing the great principle that the property of the Church was at the disposal of Parliament. When they asked for the Coercion Bill they said, that they meant to introduce another measure with respect to the Church, which would make the recurrence of disturbances impossible, by removing their causes,—they came to the Reformed Parliament, to the Representatives of the people of England, and said: "We ask you for unconstitutional measures, but at the same time be convinced, that we are about to establish a great and important principle of relief, and we will stand or fall by both measures." Who talked of collision then?—who talked then of shrinking? The right hon. Gentleman said, the consequence of the rejection of the Bill would be to be deplored. They might be by the right hon. Gentleman, but they would not by the country. Many a time when, during the discussion on the Coercion Bill, he taunted the hon. Members opposite with "lip service," with respect to Ireland, the reply he received was: "We are acting harshly now, it is true, but we are about to establish a great principle, which will meet the most anxious wishes of the Irish people." The right hon. Gentleman did not perhaps say, but many others on this side of the House did: "We are going to establish a principle, the result of which will be, that the people of Ireland shall not be taxed for the support of a Church to which they do not belong." Many hon. Members went even further than that, and said, that it was an absurdity to maintain a church, without a flock. Where were those hon. Members now? Would they vote with the right hon. Gentleman? Would they allow the Irish Members to go hack to Ireland, and state that such had been the conduct of the House of Commons? No, he would not anticipate that
1076
they would be guilty of such base trickery, for he called God to witness it would be the basest act which a national assembly ever perpetrated. He would not condescend to talk about the probability of there being no surplus—he would not make it a question of pounds, shillings, and pence: he contended for the establishment of the great principle that Church property was at the disposal of Parliament. It was upon the faith of establishing that principle that Ministers carried the Coercion Bill. He had heard during the week various reports—amongst other things it had been said that, in another place, the most valiant soldier the world ever produced had shrunk from an anticipated contest—that he had avoided a collision—that having taken one false position he was unwilling to take another. It was now seen who had shrunk from the collision. If the fact were written upon the wall in words of fire, it could not be more legible. Ministers had sacrificed their principles in order to keep their places; but when their principles were gone what was the value of their places. Oh shame! Would the high-minded gentry and nobility of England surround the Ministers now, after such a flagrant abandonment of principle? He appealed to the House—he appealed to the common sense of Members—ay, and he appealed from that spot to the British nation, and called upon them not to lend themselves to such a shameless proceeding. The only benefit which the people of Ireland were now to expect from the Bill was the abolition of the vestry cess, but upon that point nothing was yet settled, and if, indeed, it were, there would be no security for the plan being carried into effect, for what the Government determined on one day they abandoned the next. With the exception of the Vestry cess, the Bill did not propose to reduce the burthens of the people of Ireland a single shilling. It was true that the number of Protestant prelates were to be reduced; the Government knocked down Bishops as they would nine pins. What did he or what did the people of Ireland care, about the number of Bishops? He did not wish to overturn the Protestant religion. The Catholics had twenty-seven Bishops, and he was quite content that the Protestants should have as many, provided they would pay for them. The reduction of ten Bishops, however, would not lighten the burthens of the Irish people to the extent of one shilling. Ministers last year pledged themselves to extinguish tithes. This was,

1077
to be sure, afterwards modified, and the Government, by means of employing horse, foot, and artillery, collected 12,000 l. at a cost of 15,000 l. That was their mode of extinguishing tithes, and now, after they had pledged themselves to the great principle contained in the Bill, they shrunk from carrying it into effect. The principle which Ministers now turned their backs upon was that of placing the Church property in Ireland under the dominion of the Parliament which had given it away before. No man would say, that the Church property in Ireland passed to the Protestant Establishment by the assent of a convocation of clergy. No; it was taken away from the Catholic church by the strong hand of power. The Bill proposed to sanction the principle that Parliament should reassume dominion over that property, and Ministers shrunk from carrying the Bill. They made their apology; but it would not be accepted. Let them carry their apology to Carlton-terrace; but they had done so already, and it was accepted. He would record his vote against the third reading of the Bill, and he repudiated it on the part of the people of Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyexpressed his surprise at the tone of indignation, real or assumed, in which the hon. member for Dublin had addressed the Committee. The hon. Member stated, that Government had pledged themselves to carry two measures, one for the restoration of tranquillity in Ireland, and the other for the reform of the Irish Church. The hon. Member always contended that the two measures must be considered in the nature of a compromise, one against the other, and ought, therefore, to proceed pari passu. Government disclaimed the notion of a compromise, but they pledged themselves to the support and carrying of the Coercion Bill; and they also pledged themselves to the support and carrying of the Church Temporalities Bill, and by those pledges they were prepared to stand. Notwithstanding the mocking of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he repeated that by those pledges they were prepared to stand. He begged leave to ask hon. Members whether the Coercive Bill, since he must place in juxtaposition two measures which had no connexion with each other, was carried through that House in all its integrity as it was introduced in the House of Lords? Hon. Members might laugh; but would they deny the fact? When the Bill was returned to the House of Lords were not Ministers actually charged with
1078
deluding those who had supported it when introduced there by having consented to its being stripped of some of the most efficient clauses in it? By persons who were strongly opposed to the Government on one side, as the hon. Member was on the other (and that was saying a great deal) it was stated, that the Bill had been returned in such a shape as to be scarcely worthy of support. Did the hon. Member then accuse Ministers of basely truckling and sacrificing their principles in order to retain their places? When Ministers accepted the modifications which were proffered from the other side of the House, they heard none of the clamour which was now raised. He admitted the Government were pledged to the most important details of the present measure, but the hon. Member had no right to charge them with sacrificing their principles in order that they might retain their places. The hon. Member said, that the Bill was good for nothing unless it established a principle which, to the extent to which he would carry it, would strip the Church of Ireland of the whole of its possessions, and enable Parliament to do what they pleased with them. Gentlemen might entertain what opinions they pleased upon that point, but he begged to state that this was not the principle upon which the Bill was introduced. It might be the principle which made the Bill acceptable to the hon. Member; but with all respect to him the Bill was not introduced with the view of pleasing him. The Bill was introduced for the purpose of effecting a substantial Reform, and that it would effect. ["No, none at all."] What! none at all? Had not the House heard the manner in which the Vestry-cess bad been spoken of? Had not the levying of money from an exclusively Catholic population by an exclusively Protestant vestry been constantly spuken of as the great grievance of the people of Ireland? Tithes had always been represented as the less grievance, as less odious to the people than the Vestry-cess. ["No."] He said yes, and he would show the reason why the case must be so. The burthen of tithes was incident to property, and was taken with it; besides, it could not be capriciously increased, and was fixed upon the property of Protestants as well as Catholics. The Vestry-cess, however, stood upon a totally different foundation; it was an arbitrary assessment made by an exclusively Protestant vestry upon an exclusively Catholic population. Therefore this burthen was more objectionable to the

1079
Catholics than tithes, which if not paid under that very name, would be paid in the shape of rent. From the Vestry-cess, amounting to 70,000 l., and from all the litigation which accompanied it, the Catholic population would be relieved by the Bill. He could not understand how the hon. Member proposed that the Vestry-Cess should be got rid of, except by this Bill, which God forbid he should have the power of throwing out. The repeal of the Vestry-cess, however, was not the only relief which the Bill afforded to the people; the sum of between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l. chargeable upon the Catholic population of Ireland for the next twenty-years was taken away—was entirely removed. The object, however, for which the Bill was introduced was not only to satisfy the Catholics of Ireland, but to render the Protestant Church in that country more efficacious. As a Protestant, he desired to see a Reform of the Irish Church, with a view of increasing its efficiency. The hon. Member said, that the Catholics did not care whether there were twenty-seven or thirteen Bishops. It might be a matter of indifference to the hon. Member, but to him and the House it appeared that no money should be unnecessarily expended in keeping up what he could not help thinking an overgrown staff for Church. The revenues of the Church might be better applied to the relief of the parochial clergy by the augmentation of their livings—to the building of churches, without any charge on the Catholics of Ireland. These objects were provided for by the reduction of the number of Bishops, and therefore that measure was an object of importance to him, though it might not be to the hon. Member. To maintain the respectability of the Protestant Church, and to insure the due performance of its duties, was the principle upon which the Bill had been introduced, and on which it had been supported. That principle they were bound to maintain, as they had maintained the principle of the Coercion Bill. By both measures they were prepared to stand or fall, and they would not be deterred from taking the course which they conceived to be best calculated to secure the efficiency of the Bill, and to give peace and happiness to the country, by any such taunt as had that night been thrown out against them, and which he would not condescend to reply to.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that what he had stated on the subject of the Vestry-cess was, that he did not know what the Go-
1080
vernment intended to do upon the subject, as the clause relating to it had been withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had cautiously avoided meeting him upon the point to which all his observations were directed—namely, the abandonment of the great principle of the Bill.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the hon. and learned Member was more conversant with the intentions of Government upon that subject than any one else could be. The hon. and learned Member was perfectly aware that the clause had been postponed in order that his own opinion, as a lawyer might be taken upon it, and he (Mr. Stanley) had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member would not now deny that he had been for some days in the fullest consultation with the Government as to the manner in which the clause should be framed.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which had been cheered, was that in which he said that he (Mr. O'Connell) had been "in the fullest consultation with the Government." He (Mr. O'Connell) did not deny, that he had been in consultation with them; but would the right hon. Secretary say, that anything definite had been agreed on? He (Mr. O'Connell) denied that anything had been agreed on upon that subject; but with regard to the distribution of the surplus revenues of the Church, he would say than that part of the Bill was definitively agreed on.
Mr. Humesaid, that in this discussion there was room more for sorrow and regret, than for anger; for never was a Government reduced to a juncture such as his Majesty s Government had that night reduced themselves to. He would put it to the noble Lord, what security the House or the country had that the Government meant to carry that or any other Bill which they might introduce other than that which he had given, that they should stand by the principles of the present Bill? The noble Lord had given his pledge that the Government would stand or fall by that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the present clause was not one of the principles of the Bill. But what he would ask, was to be considered the principles of the Bill, but those provisions which were laid down by the Government as part of the measure? These provisions, as stated by the noble Lord, the Government were bound—were pledged as men of honour—to maintain; or they were bound,

1081
in consequence of those pledges, to retire from office. Nay, more, it was stated by the noble Lord, that as the situation of Ireland was such as to require so harsh a measure as the Coercion Bill, the Church Reform Bill would be brought forward in conjunction with it, in order to heal the evils which had brought Ireland to that state. There were two principles (as he understood) to be established by that Bill; the one was the Reformation of the Church of Ireland—the other and the principal point on account of which alone he and many other Gentlemen on his side of the House had supported it was, that it admitted that the property of the Church might be alienated for public purposes. The Government had then defended the admission of these most important principles, and the noble Lord had even stated, that the measure would place 3,000,000 l. sterling at the disposal of Parliament, to be applied to public purposes. The Government now attempted to change their former opinions, and to retract their words; but those words were written, and were known to the public; and it would be for the public to judge of such conduct. For his part, he would say, that it showed the most lamentable desertion of previous pledges, the greatest want of firmness, and was a disgraceful breach of public faith. Could they, as men of honour, retain that honour if they did not redeem the pledge which they had given to the country, of cither retiring or carrying the Church Reform Bill. He had stated, when the Coercion Bill was before the House, that the Tories themselves had never ventured to bring forward a measure which violated the Constitution so outrageously as that which was then brought forward by the Whig Government; but the excuse always urged was, that they intended to bring forward a measure of Church Reform, which would nullify the effect of the Coercion Bill. He admitted, that the abolition of Vestry-cess was one of the principles of the Bill, although in that he was sorry to find he differed with his hon. and learned friend below him. But of what value, he would ask, was that in comparison to the advantages expected by Ireland from the measure? The noble Lord had stated it to be about 60,000 l. a-year, but he (Mr. Hume) was ready to show that the benefits to be derived was no more than 27,000 l. And was that the advantage which Ireland expected from this measure? The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had stated, that there was
1082
a strong feeling both in this House and in the country against alienating the property of the Church of Ireland. He did not know what it might be in the society in which the right hon. Secretary moved but he knew that in the country generally the proposition was hailed as the establishment of a proper principle on the subject of Church property. When the measure was brought forward, the noble Lord had stated, that he would put down ten of the Irish Bishops. He saw no principle on which the noble Lord could have fixed upon that number, and had therefore assisted him with one—namely, that as four Bishops were found to be sufficient to do ail the duties incumbent on them as Irish Bishops in Parliament, the same number would be sufficient to perform the other ecclesiastical duties. He stated this merely to show, that the provisions of the Bill were its principles, and its only principles. They now found that the Government shrunk from some of the most material of those provisions, and they could not know whether any more were to be changed or not. What right had the Government to suppose that the clause would be thrown out elsewhere? They had found, no doubt, that there would be a majority against them in the House of Lords; and finding that there was no other way of keeping their pledge of standing by the Bill, but by yielding that point, they had yielded it. They were afraid to go before the public and say, that they had done all they could to carry the measure, but that the majority of the House of Lords was against them, and that there was no other way of carrying it but by their support. They were afraid to do so; but if they did, they would then redeem the pledge which they had given of standing or falling by the measure. The Government now said, that the probable result of such a clause was to be deprecated; but he would say, that if that House supported it—and it had hitherto been well supported by the House—he saw no reason why it should be now changed. Since the 14th of February, when the noble Lord brought forward the measure, the country and the House had supported it; and notwithstanding that, the Government now shrunk in alarm from the opposition of the other House. They deserted their duty and their honour to preserve their places. Perhaps it might not be so, but it appeared so to him. He hoped that the majority of the House which had voted for the Bill as introduced, would not retract that opinion.

1083
He trusted that the same majority would now reject the mutilated Bill altogether. It was a mere mockery, and the House and the country had been duped by the Ministry. Their conduct was a cause of deep sorrow and regret to him, and all he could do was, to object to the withdrawal of the Clause, and, if it were withdrawn, to vote for the rejection of the whole Bill.
Mr. Macaulaywas not aware, when he entered the House, of the course which Government meant to pursue upon this occasion, but he fully approved of it. Some hon. Members seemed to think that Government had come forward with the principle, that whenever there was a surplus arising out of a new arrangement of Church property, Parliament would have a right to deal with it as they thought fit. He had not the least hesitation in saying, that this was a principle which he individually advocated, and therefore he ought to be considered an impartial witness when he stated, that not only was that principle not advanced by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought the question forward, but it was distinctly repudiated by him. The noble Lord distinctly declared, that whatever his private opinion might be, the right of Parliament to deal with Church property was a question reserved and postponed. Were hon. Members aware, that it had always been denied that the surplus was Church property? He (Mr. Macaulay) appealed to both sides of the House if such was not the statement made by the noble Lord? The Government had declared, that they did not consider the surplus fund arising from Bishops' leases as Church property. Whether they were right or wrong in saying, that it was not Church property he would not take upon himself to say, but he would say that, in proposing that that surplus should be placed at the disposal of Parliament, to be applied to secular purposes, they neither declared whether ecclesiastical property should be applied to secular purposes or not, for, in so disposing of it, they had considered it as not ecclesiastical. He would venture to say, that no member of the Cabinet supported the Bill on the principle that Church property was at the disposal of Parliament. He himself considered the question suspended till the surplus should have actually arrived. To say, that Ministers were abandoning a principle was absurd. Under these circumstances, and seeing that neither money nor the principle of the Bill was sacrificed by
1084
the alteration proposed in this Clause, he hoped the House would not oppose the change.
Mr. Harveysaid, it was some comfort to inferior minds to find that the most splendid talents were not sufficient to enable sophistry to beguile a single man who attended to facts. How any man with even a tithe of the understanding possessed by the hon. Member who spoke last could expect to lead the House, having the clause before them, to the interpretation which he put upon it, it was difficult to imagine? What said the clause? "And the surplus of the said monies accruing to the credit of the said Commissioners shall be applied to such purposes as Parliament shall hereafter appoint and direct." Now, if that clause did not give Parliament a control over Church property, why was it not allowed to remain? He remembered that when the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), whom he was sorry not to see in his place brought forward this measure, and erected his standard of popularity upon it, he calculated that the sum which it would place at the disposal of a future Parliament would be no less than 3,000,000 l. sterling. It was true that the vote which the Committee had recently come to, and he regretted that he had not been present upon that occasion to add to the minority, had considerably damaged the measure in a financial point of view; and he was much surprised at the supineness with which Ministers had suffered one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill to be dispensed with, until he found that they were prepared to abandon the great principle of the Bill, though that had been looked forward to even as the basis of the Reformation of the Church of England, in order to avoid the hostility of the House of Lords, It had been said, that the hereditary council of the nation had been swamped, but the proposition was now reversed and the Commons of England were to be swamped. He congratulated the high-minded Tories upon having a government subservient to them, whilst at the same time they incurred no responsibility. The people had been encouraged to expect Ecclesiastical Reform as one of the prominent measures which were to grow out of the Reform which gained Ministers their passing, and fast expiring popularity. What was the result? In the worst days of Toryism, when the Tories sat on that hotbed of corruption, the Ministerial Bench, nothing so paltry as this Church Reform Bill ever sprang from it.

1085
He was much disposed to concur with what the hon. member for Dublin had stated respecting the reduction of the number of Bishops. He was surprised that the Representatives of the Church in that House should view that proposition with such apparent indifference. If Catholicism was making that rapid advance in Ireland which some persons believed, and others regretted, what was more likely to sustain the Protestant religion than the exertions of the Bishops? He was not surprised, that men who were changing their principles with every wind should laugh at the expression of such an opinion. No doubt they would be as ready to abandon the Church as they were the all-important principle of the Bill, if they thought that by so doing they could preserve their places. As long as they had a Protestant Church it was important that its integrity should be maintained. In his opinion it would be better to retain the present number of Bishops in Ireland, with moderate stipends, who, by constant residence and persevering exertions, might yet shed the light of Protestantism over that benighted country. He trusted, that the House would throw out the Bill, which was a ministerial delusion, put forward under the name of Church Reform. There was no one element in it which deserved to be associated with the term Reform in its comprehensive sense.
Mr. Stanleyrose to vindicate, not himself, but the Government, from a charge which had been brought against them by the hon. Member. The hon. Member had stated, that the Government had introduced principles into the Bill to which they had pledged themselves, and which they afterwards abandoned. The hon. and learned member for Leeds had very truly stated, that the alienation of the property of the Church formed no part of the principle of the Bill. That had been also stated by himself, and more distinctly stated by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought it important, not to the principles of the Bill, but to the character of the Government, that the House and the country should be set right upon the subject. He would now read what the noble Lord had stated on introducing the measure. After slating what the plan of his Majesty's Ministers was, he proceeded: 'Now, I apprehend, that however great the differences of opinion may be as to the right of Parliament to apply the property of the Church to the purposes
1086
of the State, both those who think that they have a right to apply it to such purposes, and those who think they have no right so to apply it—all will agree in thinking, that the first claim upon the property of the Church, is the claim of the Church itself. No parties are likely to dissent from this opinion, but those who either think that there ought to be no Church Establishment at all, or those who think that a different Church ought to be established in Ireland. With the exception of those who entertain these opinions, it will be generally agreed, that the present property of the Church Establishment ought to be applied in the first place to the purposes which may be necessary for extending the benefits of the Church to the people of Ireland.'* And in another part he stated, that: 'The measure I have proposed provides for not continuing the scandal of persons holding benefices and receiving the revenues of a living where no duty is performed; and it provides to as great an extent as is practicable or adviseable for the reduction of the number of the Irish hierarchy. I would also beg to observe, that it does not lay down any abstract principle. Indeed it is not necessary to do so for any practical purpose. It is not necessary now to decide whether Parliament has or has not a right to interfere with Church property. As I have already observed, all who think that there ought to be a Church Establishment at all, must agree that the Church has the first claim to be considered. But when a practical plan like this is brought forward, it is quite unnecessary to call for a determination on any abstract principle; or to decide whether or not Parliament has any right to interfere with the property of the Church. The result of such a call would be only delay and obstruction. The plan which I have now detailed to the House is what his Majesty's Ministers feel themselves justified in proposing at present; without meaning to preclude Parliament from considering the future disposal of Church property to other purposes than those of the Church. Whenever the purposes of the Church are fully satisfied, Parliament may, if it think fit, proceed to the consideration of the manner in which the surplus ought to be applied.'† These were the sentiments expressed by his noble friend—prin-
* Hansard, (third series) xv. p. 568.
†Hansard, (third series) xv. p. 576.

1087
ciples on which the measure was introduced—and he now stated them to be so, not in his own vindication alone, but in vindication of the Government. When the Government advanced a principle, and stated their intention to stand by it, they were not inclined to shrink from their duty; and he would not be doing justice to the Government if he did not vindicate them from the charges brought forward by the hon. Member.
Dr. Lushinglonsaid, that during his whole parliamentary experience he had never heard a discussion in which the decency of parliamentary language, or the courtesy of public life had been so much departed from. Neither had he ever heard a discussion in which the grossest and basest motives and intentions were more plainly attributed to a Government. He would say more; he had never heard such language used on an occasion where it was so totally destitute of foundation. An hon. Member had explained, that the surplus arising from Bishops' leases was not. considered part of the Church property; and that, therefore, the question as to the alienation of Ecclesiastical property had not been touched. He (Dr. Lushington) had always been, and still continued, of opinion, that the surplus revenues of the Church, after paying the clergy, and other Church purposes, ought to be appropriated to the promotion of education. Nothing would deter him from stating that these were the principles which he held on this subject. Was it worth while, then, to enunciate a theoretical proposition, when, by the very terms of the Bill itself, they were stripped of the power of carrying that proposition into effect. And for what reason, he should like to know, were they bound to conciliate one part of Ireland at the cost of irritating another? He, at least, saw no just ground for giving this useless and unnecessary insult to the Protestants of Ireland. Then what would be its effect elsewhere? There might be some people in that House desirous of calling in the power of the people to annihilate the authority of another Assembly. When he saw the delight with which any proposition was hailed that seemed to threaten such an event, he must say, that he did not observe that fear of a collision which any man desirous of avoiding it would wish to sec, and which could not happen without such consequences as all men of moderation and prudence must desire to avoid. When there was any principle concerned, that by its concession
1088
would be of great advantage to the country, and when it became absolutely necessary to obtain its concession, he trusted that he should be found, at least, as firm in demanding it as any of those who now appeared most ready to rush into the battle. There seemed to him no such necessity now; and he, therefore, desired to avoid all irritation upon any subject on which the evil of that irritation was not demanded by an adequate necessity, and balanced by, at least, an equal advantage. He must say, that he was surprised at the conduct of some hon. Members. He had heard, not merely during this Session, but long before, so much said of the evils of the Church-cess, and of the benefit that Ireland would gain by its abolition, that he could not but feel surprised at the remarks now made—remarks, which, if they meant anything, meant to deny all that had been before said, and to leave it to be believed that the abolition of the Church-cess was of no advantage to Ireland. What! was it no advantage to abolish that which had so often and so universally been the subject of complaint? Was it no advantage to abolish two Archbishops and several Bishops? And was it no advantage to equalize the livings, and to give the other checks on the abuses of the Church Establishment? After all this, he must say, that those who made these accusations ought first to enable themselves to support those accusations by facts, which in this instance he thought they had not done.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that his approbation of the principle of this Bill had been often quoted against him. What was that approbation? He would tell the House, from the same authority which had been quoted against him, what he had said: "He greatly approved of this Bill, because it was clear that it recognized a principle which would be applicable to all other property of the same description." He had then also stated "that he supported the Bill because it recognised the right of the Government to look into the state of ecclesiastical property hereafter."* As to the censure which had been thrown on him for the language he had used when he was expressing his abhorrence of what he conceived to be a gross breach of faith, he must, before he bowed to that censure, be convinced that the person who uttered it was entitled to sit in judgment on a question of breach of faith. He had heard of an hon. Member pledging himself to his
* Hansard's (third series) xvii. p. 577–8.

1089
constituents to support a certain line of policy, and afterwards voting in the teeth of his pledges. That was what he would call a "breach of faith." "I," continued Mr. O'Connell, "at least never committed such a breach of faith. I never pledged myself to support any measure, and afterwards wheeled round against it. I say I never shrunk from any of my promises or declarations to my constituents and countrymen. The repeal? I deny it. I did not shrink from the repeal question. I never pledged myself to bring it forward. I defy any man"——
Mr. Bernalspoke to order. He put it to the learned Gentleman whether he would persist in these irregular observations.
Mr. O'Connell: May I ask where I am irregular?
Mr. Bernal: In referring to the alleged pledges of any hon. Member out of doors, which have no reference whatever to the measure before the Committee.
Mr. O'Connellwould bow to the Chairman.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that if the learned Gentleman had alluded to him as having broken pledges to his constituents, he could only tell him, that he broached an assertion totally without foundation. He would not use harsher terms of denial, but would simply and explicitly deny, that he had given any such pledges to his constituents as the hon. Gentleman had insinuated.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of taking any part in the warm conflict which had arisen, but merely for the purpose of stating the opinion he had originally entertained with respect to this clause. He came down to the House this evening, with the intention of giving his cordial support to the Amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle-under-Line, that whatever surplus there might be from the improved value of the Bishops' lands should be applied to the purposes of the United Churches of England and Ireland. The object of that Amendment seemed to him to be fully answered by the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and he, therefore, supposed that the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Amendment. But there was one observation he must notice. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had said, that this measure of the Government had been adopted in consequence of a compromise with their opponents. For himself, he utterly disclaimed all knowledge of any such compromise, and he declared,
1090
that when he entered that House this evening, he did not know what was the intention of the Government. He disapproved of all compromises, and he owed it to the Gentlemen with whom he acted to say they did the same. In giving his assent, therefore, to any part of the Bill, he was free as air as to the rest, and in public matters that was the course he should generally pursue. He disapproved of compromises, for when once they were made, they not only did not gain the confidence of an opponent, but they most certainly lost that of the men who had been accustomed to follow and rely upon those who made it. He entirely approved of the course the Government had adopted on the present occasion in omitting this clause, but he did not much rejoice in it, for he was able to show that there never would and never could be a surplus. The principle against which he, on another occasion, had protested was, not that they had no right to apply Church property to secular purposes—for he had no occasion to dispute that point—but that if the Legislature gave a new value to Church property, that new value belonged to the Church alone. But of all the extraordinary propositions he had ever heard, that of the hon. member for Middlesex, who was always complaining of absenteeism, and who, nevertheless, proposed to abolish all but four Irish Bishops; and for this reason, of all others, that they were entitled to sit in Parliament was the most extraordinary. That was the way in which the hon. Member proposed to remedy the non-residence of the higher clergy. He should say no more now, than that he supported the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to this clause; but in doing so he did not think himself pledged to agree to any other clause in the Bill.
Mr. Gisborneobserved, that it was natural that Irish Members should wish to be heard on such a subject; but he must say a few words, and he thought that there were many English Members in the same situation with himself. Many of them had voted for the Irish Coercion Bill—he had for every clause of it, upon the faith that the Government would pass the present Bill in the form in which it was first announced. He did not deny, that the abolition of the Church-cess was a relief to Ireland; but then this clause also was a most important feature in the Bill. He looked to it without regard to Ministerial explanations; and he wished to ask the Ministry whether they had any more prospect of carrying it

1091
in another place, when they first proposed it, than they had at the present moment? Were they the only people in the world who did not know that it would be made the subject of a desperate struggle? If, when they proposed the Bill, they intended to recede from this condition in it, they deceived the House; and if they did not, then they were bound to show, that the circumstances under which they now with-drew it were different from those under which they had first proposed it. The right hon. Gentleman had at first told them that there was a division in the Cabinet on the subject of the Church property, but they had at last agreed upon a medium principle, which was the one contained in this clause. If the Legislature, by any act of its own, could increase the value of the Church property, it had a right to dispose of that increase. The principle must be admitted, for how could the Government have the right to interfere with the property at all, if it was not State property? He did not think it was a proper argument to address to the House of Commons of England, that they must recede from a certain measure, because it was possible that such a measure might produce a collision with the other House of Parliament. He knew not what were the chances of such an event, but he did not think it fit to be adduced as an argument to bias the Resolutions of that House. Neither could he agree with the argument that the Legislature could not meddle with Church property, for that proceeded on the supposition that a finite possession of property gave the right of making an absolute disposition of it, which was absurd; and they could only escape from that to another, by saying, that the Legislature had confirmed that disposition, for that would go to show that one Legislature could eternally bind all other Legislatures. He hoped that the House would never agree to any such proposition; and for himself, he never would consent to any such dogma. He trusted that the House would not allow the clause to be withdrawn.
Lord Sandonthought, that the proceedings of this night formed an ample justification of the Ministry in withdrawing this clause. An opinion had gone abroad that this clause involved the principle that the State had a right to deal with the property of the Church. As that was an error, the sooner it was corrected the better.
Colonel Daviesprotested against the
1092
withdrawal of this clause; nor could he conceive what motives had induced it, unless there were some truth in certain allegations which had been made: but, whatever were those motives, his Majesty's Ministers had this night degraded themselves in the eyes of the country. Hitherto they had had an obsequious House of Commons, but he trusted, that the Representatives of the people of England would no longer, for their own sakes, show themselves thus easily led. Collision with the other House had been spoken of, but were they to be frightened and to stultify themselves in their best measures by a dread of this kind? and were they to be deprived of their best rights through a fear of what might occur elsewhere? If they were to have Tory measures, let them he carried under Tory banners; and if this were to be the conduct of Government, he, for one, should feel disposed to give his adhesion to the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir R. Peel). He had never been that right hon. Baronet's supporter, but he admired his talent, and believed that he had more in his head than all the Ministers put together.
Lord Ebringtonhad no objection to his hon. and gallant friend's expressing his opinion of any proceedings in Parliament in the best possible way; but he thought it rather too much of his hon. and gallant friend to state such sentiments of Ministers as he had just uttered, after the Motion of confidence in them which his gallant friend had moved and carried the other night. He agreed with the hon. member for Derby in the opinions expressed by him with respect to Church property, and the power of the Legislature over it; but it should be recollected that his noble friend (Lord Althorp), in bringing forward this measure, had left the question of the applicability of Church property open; and as no practical benefit could at present arise from the assertion of this principle, he could not see that this was a proper time for doing so, as would be the case were the clause persisted in. He should never be found wanting in asserting the due rights of the House of Commons when a necessity arose for vindicating them, but at present there existed no such necessity. When he considered the benefits which would arise from the removal of Vestry-cess and other vexations, he must say, that although he feared not collision with the other branch of the Legislature, as the withdrawal of this clause would not affect the general be-

1093
neficial tendency of this Bill; he thought it was not worth while by retaining it, to increase the chances of that collision.
Colonel Daviesdenied, that he could, with any show of reason, be accused of inconsistency. The Motion to which the noble Lord referred in support of his charge, was made by him (Colonel Davies) not for the sake of the Government, but for the sake of that country which was so deeply interested in the question.
Mr. Fergus O'Connorsaid, it was extremely hard of Ministers, after having deluded the House for two months, now to come down and reject the only two lines which were worth anything in the whole 152 clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had described this as well as other Bills, as intended for the security of the Protestants of Ireland. He would ask, then, what Bill was there for the people of Ireland? The House had better be at once dissolved if they were to go on in this way, and only agree to what might meet the concurrence of the House of Lords. The hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Davies) was mistaken in saying that Ministers had degraded themselves that night—they had only added to the measure of their degradation. He hoped the House would now reject the Bill altogether, and it should certainly have his decided opposition.
Mr. Grote, in rising to offer a few observations to the House, felt it his duty, in the first place, to declare that his recollection of what had fallen from Ministers when this Bill was first brought forward, entirely coincided with their statement of what then transpired, and it was not, therefore, on that point that he should argue against the omission of this clause. He did entertain an objection to the Bill in the first instance, because it did not, in his opinion, go the length that the people expected it would go towards rectifying that great ecclesiastical enormity of Europe—the Irish Church. Still he felt anxious to support it, being unwilling to signalize its defects, knowing, as he did, the difficulties that Ministers would have to contend with in getting it passed into a law; but when he found that, defective as it was, it was to be rendered still more defective by being robbed of one of its chiefest members—of the only part which rendered it a decided benefit to the country—he felt himself bound to give it his most strenuous opposition, as far as regarded the withdrawal of the clause in question. It was supposed that this alter-
1094
ation was made with a view to its favourable reception in another place; but he would ask, what would happen even if the House of Lords should think proper to reject this Bill. What worse could the House of Lords do than send it back to them again?—and surely, then, it would be time enough to consider whether it was advisable to make these alterations. He contended that the Ministry were only creating difficulties for themselves; for, after making these alterations beforehand, how could they tell but that the House of Lords might deprive them of some of the most valuable of the remaining clauses. He should most strenuously protest against the omission of this clause, and if he might be permitted, he would give a few words of advice to his Majesty's Ministers. Instead of offering a few crumbs of reform to the people, and afterwards endeavouring to pare down even those few, he would advise them to give such measures as they might think just and necessary, without any reference to what might be the conduct of another assembly. He would advise the Ministry to act thus, and then leave that other assembly to act as it might think fit. He gave this advice, presuming that the Ministers were willing to act liberally, though, from the experience the country had had, it was impossible to accuse Ministers of advancing either too fast or too far.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that much had been thrown out as to its being an unconstitutional proceeding to attempt to frighten the House of Lords, but he felt confident that it was equally unconstitutional to attempt to terrify the House of Commons with threats of what might be done in the Lords. The avowal of the right hon. Secretary was distinctly this, that part of the produce of the Church lands was to be directed to public purposes, or any other objects to which Parliament should deem fit to appropriate that property. This was the basis of their measure, and he called on the House to stand by this measure. The people would stand by them if they were not cowards. But the people would never stand by a vacillating Ministry, whose every measure displayed their incapacity, and tended to betray the country into a state of unexampled uncertainty as to what was or was not to be conceded to the public voice—the people of the united empire.
Lord John Russellconfessed he turned with gratification from the frothy de-

1095
clamation which had so lavishly been bestowed on the subject, to the calm, and, as usual, rational arguments which had been addressed to the House by the hon. member for London, however he differed from the hon. Member in the view he had taken of this alteration in a main feature of the Bill. The origin of the measure in that House ought not to be lost sight of. He agreed that Church property ought not to be lightly touched, yet there was no doubt that Parliament had the power, and that it was in its province to alter the nature and adjust the appropriation of that property of the Church of Ireland, to procure thereby positive and substantial benefits for the public at large, more particularly if such a change were called for in order to procure for the people the benefit of superior religious instruction and moral advantages. At the same time, it was, in his opinion, much to be deprecated, that the question as to the power of Parliament should be raised until it was absolutely necessary; for he was personally convinced, that to discuss the question might bring on a convulsion in this country. The different views taken upon this subject made it one of a very delicate nature. Those who opposed the appropriation of Church property, contended, that to appropriate Church property in the manner suggested, was neither more nor less than spoliation; whilst the hon. member for Derbyshire, and the hon. member for London appeared to consider the clause chiefly valuable, because it sanctioned the principle of appropriating Church property to State purposes. If Ministers yielded to this feeling, they would not be carrying into effect their own principle; but would, without any adequate necessity, be yielding to the general principle of the diversion of Church property for State purposes. If that House was to enter into a contest with the Lords, they should do it for something worth contesting. The present was but the shadow of a claim, to prosecute which would be risking the peace and tranquillity of the country, for the sake of an abstract principle. He regarded the Constitution in a very different light from some hon. Gentlemen. The check which one House exercised over another, was not invented for the purpose of bringing the two Houses into collision on every difference of opinion, but in order that measures should be adopted that were satisfactory to both, and beneficial to the country. There was no doubt that the diminution of the number of Bishops, and the abolition of
1096
the Church-cess, would not be voluntarily acceded to by the House of Lords, but merely because, on considering the nature of the Constitution, they would feel it their duty to yield to the sense of the country, and to the declared wish of the House of Commons. The question for them to consider was, whether, at the present season, they would think it worth while to pass a Bill which contained many essential benefits, although it did not sanction a principle to which there existed, in the minds of some men, great, and perhaps, insuperable objections. If that House were to enter into a contest with the House of Lords, he hoped the contest would take place on a question of some importance, and that they would not wantonly, and on trivial grounds, provoke a collision. Although the House of Commons was, doubtless, the stronger of the two branches of the Legislature, yet he hoped they would use their power with temper and moderation. Some of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side, especially the hon member for Colchester, supported the clause, because they imagined, that if this clause were retained, there would be more probability of the Bill being rejected—an event to which they looked forward with no inconsiderable satisfaction. He could not at all approve such a feeling. He could understand it as proceeding from those, who, in the discussions which had taken place in that House, had paid but little regard to the general security of property; but for himself, he was of opinion that this country could not stand a revolution once a year. Under the present circumstances of the country, they were all bound to make sacrifices to preserve and promote tranquillity, and the security of property. Let others be for convulsion, he was for peace.
Mr. Methuenregretted very much to hear so unconstitutional a doctrine as that which had been laid down by the noble Lord, and others of the Ministry, as to the conduct to be pursued by that House in anticipation of a collision with the House of Lords. His opinion entirely clashed with that of the noble Lord, and he called on the House of Commons, in the name of the people of England, to do their duty fearlessly. The next question was, were the people of England to succumb to the House of Lords? He was bound, as an honest man, to say that no power on earth should have induced him to vote for the Coercive Measure, had it not been his opinion that his Majesty's Ministers would

1097
carry out the principles of the remedial measure in the spirit in which it was first introduced, without reference to any party in the country, or to any power, however high.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that even if this clause were left out there was quite sufficient in the Bill to mortify the friends of the Established Church, and afford matter of triumph to its enemies—there was enough still left in the Bill to induce him to give it his most determined opposition. To adopt this clause, under existing circumstances, would, in his opinion, be nothing less than a gratuitous insult to the Clergy.
Sir Henry Willoughbysaid, the Ministers had only abandoned a principle which was found to be totally untenable. If the same principle were attempted to be established with reference to private property, every man then would rise in arras against it. If acted upon, then enactments would not be looked upon as mere Acts of Parliament, but as Acts of Confiscation.
Mr. Hardycontended that the same principle which the clause would establish as to Church property taking a portion of it because its value was enhanced by an Act of the Legislature, might with equal justice be applied to private property, such as canals, docks, and commons when inclosed. If the hon. member for Middlesex was correct, his Majesty's Ministers were in a state of extreme jeopardy; for if they retained the clause they were in great jeopardy from the House of Lords, and if they expunged it they were in danger from six out of every seven men whom they might meet out of that House.
Mr. Dominick Brownerose, but his voice was drowned in the cries of "Question."
Mr. Secretary Stanleyfelt the importance of coming to a decision that night, but begged a hearing for his hon. friend the member for Mayo, who had the great parliamentary merit of making short speeches.
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, it was now proposed that they should of a sudden come to a decision quite opposed to that which they had entertained for the last three or four months. It always gave him great pain to differ from his Majesty's Ministers, but he was compelled to do so in the present instance. He would rather have a Tory Administration—would rather see the present Ministry break up—would rather see a dissolution of Parliament, than that
1098
it should go forth into Ireland that the Reformed parliament had declared that Church property was inalienable. He could conceive nothing more disastrous than the effects which such a proceeding would have on the people of Ireland.
Mr. Baldwinsupported the clause us it originally stood. He denied that the clause went to appropriate Church property; all that it appropriated was the right of the reversion to the property at present held on lease.
Mr. Robert Fergusonwished to have the principle established and the details might be altered; but the withdrawal of the clause would do away with the principle.
Mr. Secretary Stanleywished the House to be aware that the clause did not open the question whether the State had or had not a right to deal with Church property. No such question was at issue before the House. If it were he might be obliged to vote one way, and his right hon. friend another. That was not the question at issue, and those who voted for the omission of the clause might adhere to and act upon their opinion, that Parliament might interfere with Church property without any inconsistency whatever. The Government thought that the property was different from any other description of Church property referred to in the clause, and might be separated from it; but that idea had been discountenanced by both sides of the House. The question then was whether the property was not to be dealt with as other Church property, and to be placed in the same fund, and devoted to the same purpose, as other Church property? He again repeated, that the abstract question of the right of Parliament to deal with Church property was not before the Committee.
The Committee divided on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 149; Noes 280—Majority 131.
The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Briscoe, J. I.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brocklehurst,. F.

Attwood, T.

Brotherton, J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Buckingham, J. S.

Beauclerk, Major

Buller, C.

Beaumont, T. W.

Bulwer, H. L.

Barnard, E. G.

Cayley, E. S.

Bewes, J.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Blamire, W.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Bowes, J.

Childers, J. W.

Briggs, R.

Clay, W.

1099

Cobbett, W.

Stanley, Edw. J.

Collier, J.

Strutt, Edw.

Curteis, H. B.

Tayleure, W.

Dashwood, G. H.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Davies, Lieut.-Col.

Thicknesse, R.

Divett, E.

Todd, J. R.

Dundas, Capt. J. W.

Tooke, W.

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Torrens, Colonel

Ellis, W.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Evans, W.

Turner, W.

Evans, Colonel

Vincent, Sir F.

Ewart, W.

Walter, J.

Faithfull, G.

Warburton, Henry

Fellowes, H. N.

Ward, H. G.

Fielden, J.

Watkins, J. L.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Wason, Rigby

Gaskell, D.

Wigney, I. N.

Gisborne, T.

Wilbraham, George

Grote, G.

Williams, W. A.

Guest, J. J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Wood, Alderman M.

Hall, B.

SCOTLAND.

Handley, Major

Abercromby, Right Hon. J.

Harland, W. C.

Harvey, D. W.

Ferguson, Robert

Hawes, B.

Fleming, Hon. Adm.

Hawkins, J. H.

Gillon, W. P.

Heathcote, J. J.

Hallyburton, Hn. D. G.

Heron, Sir R.

Oswald, R. A.

Hill, M.

Oswald, J.

Hoskins, K.

Parnell, Sir H.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, R.

Hudson, T.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

IRELAND.

Humphery, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Ingilby, Sir W. A.

Barron, W.

James, W.

Barry, G. S.

Jervis, J.

Bellew, R. N.

Lambton, H.

Bernard, Hon. W. S.

Langdale, Hon. Chas.

Blake, M. J.

Lee, J. L. H.

Browne, J. D.

Leech, J.

Browne, D.

Lennard, T. B.

Callaghan, C.

Lister, E.

Chapman, M. L.

Lloyd, J. H.

Clementi, Lord

Lopes, Sir R.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Martin, J.

Evans, G.

Methuen, P.

Finn, W. F.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Fitzgerald, T.

Moreton, Hon. A. H.

Filtgibbon, Hon. B.

Morrison, J.

Fitzsimon, C.

Ord, W. H.

Fitzsimon, N.

Palmer, General

Grattan, H.

Parrot, J.

Howard, R.

Pease, J.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Philips, M.

Lalor, P.

Potter, R.

Lynch, A. H.

Pryse, P.

Macnamara, W. N.

Richards, J.

Martin, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Nagle, Sir R.

Roebuck, J. A.

O'Brien, C.

Rolfe, Robert M.

O'Connell, M.

Romilly, J.

O'Connell, J.

Romilly, Edward

O'Connell, Morgan

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

O'Connor, D.

Scholefield, Josh.

O'Connor, F.

1100

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Walker, C. A.

Roche, William

Wallace, T.

Ronayne, D.

White, S.

Ruthven, E. S.

TEILERS.

Ruthven, E.

O'Connell, D.

Stawell, Colonel

PAIRED OFF.

Sullivan, R.

Bayntun, S. A.

Talbot, J.

Hutt, W.

Talbot, J. H.

Oliphant, L.

Vigors, N. A.

Tynte, K. C. J.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Fazakerly, I. N.

Andover, Lord Visc.

Feilden, W.

Apsley, Lord

Fenton, Capt. L.

Ashley, Lord

Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.

Atherley, A.

Finch, G.

Attwood, M.

Folkes, Sir W.

Baring, A.

Forster, G.

Baring, F. T.

Fox, Lieut.-Col. C. R.

Bell, M.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Bentinck, Lord G. F. C.

Gaskell, J. M.

Berkeley, Hn. G. C. F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bethell, R.

Gordon, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gladstone, T.

Boss, J.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Brigstock, W. P.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

Brodie, Captain

Grant, Rt. Hon. R.

Brougham, J,

Grey, Hon. Colonel

Buller, J. W.

Grey, Sir G.

Buller, E.

Gronow, Capt. R. H.

Bulteel, J. C.

Hughes, H.

Burton, H.

Halse, J.

Buxton, F.

Handley, W. F.

Byng, G.

Handley, H.

Byng, Sir J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Harcourt, G. V.

Carter, J. B.

Hardinge, Hon. Sir H.

Cartwright, W. R.

Hardy, J.

Cavendish, Hon. C.

Heathcote, G. J.

Cavendish, Colonel

Henniker, Lord

Cayley, Sir G.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Chandos, Marquess of

Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C.

Chaplin, Col. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Chapman, A.

Hodgson, J.

Chetwynd, Captain

Hornby, E. G.

Clive, E. B.

Horne, Sir W.

Clive, Viscount

Hotham, Lord

Clive, Hon. R.

Houldsworth, T.

Codrington, Sir E.

Howick, Visc.

Collier, J.

Halcombe, J.

Cooper, Hn. A. H. A.

Hope, H. F.

Crawley, S.

Hurst, R. H.

Dare, R. W.

Hyett, W. H.

Darlington, Earl of

Ingham, R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Inglis, Sir R.

Dugdale, W. S.

Jermyn, Earl

Duncannon, Visc.

Jerningham, Hn. H. V.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Johnstone, Sir J. V.

Dundas, Hn. Sir R. L.

Keppel, Major G.

Ebrington, Visct.

Kerry, Earl of

Edwards, J.

Key, Sir J.

Egerton, W. T.

King, E. B.

Ellice, E.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Labouchere, H.

Fancourt, Major

Lamont, Capt. N.

1101

Langsten, J. H.

Sanford, E. A.

Langston, Col. G.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Lefevre, C. S.

Scott, J. W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Scrope, P.

Lennox, Lord A.

Sebright, Sir J.

Lester, B. L.

Shawe, R. N.

Lewis, Hon. T. F.

Sheppard, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Simeon, Sir R. G.

Littleton, E. J.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Locke, W.

Smith, J. A.

Lowther, Hon. C. H.

Smith, J.

Lumley, Viscount

Smith, R. V.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lyall, G.

Spankie, Mr. Sergeant

Lygon, Hn. Col. H. B.

Stanley, E. G. S.

Maberly, Col.

Stanley, Hon. H. T.

Macaulay, T. B.

Stanley, E.

Mangles, J.

Stavely, J. K.

Marryat, J.

Stormont, Viscount

Marshall, J.

Strickland, G.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Surrey, Earl of

Miller, W. H.

Sutton, Rt. Hn. C. M.,

Milton, Lord Visct.

Speaker

Molyneux, Lord

Tancred, H. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Taylor, Rt. Hn. M. A.

Mosley, Sir O.

Thompson, Ald.

Mostyn, Hn. E. M. L.

Thomson, P. B.

Norres, Lord

Tower, C. T.

North, F.

Townley, R. G.

Ossulston, Lord

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Owen, H. O.

Tullamore, Lord

Palmer, C. F.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Palmer, R.

Verney, Sir H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Parker, J.

Vernon, G. H.

Pechell, Sir S. J. B.

Villiers, Viscount

Peel, Sir R.

Vivian, Sir H.

Peel, Col. J.

Vivian, J. H.

Pelham, Hn. C. A. G.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Pendarves, E. W.

Walker, R.

Peter, W.

Wall, C. B.

Philips, Sir G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Philips, C. M.

Waterpark, Lord

Philpotts, J.

Walson, Hon. R.

Pigot, R.

Wedgwood, J.

Pinney, W.

Weyland, Major R.

Plumptre, J. P.

Whitbread, W. H.

Ponsonby, Hn. W. F. S.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Poulter, J.

Winnington, Sir T.

Powell, Col. W. E.

Wood, Colonel T.

Poyntz, W. S.

Wood, C.

Price, Sir R.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Pryme, G.

Wynn, Rt. Hn. C. W.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Yorke, Captain C. P.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Young, G. T.

Rickford, W.

SCOTLAND.

Rider, T.

Adam, Adm.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Agnew, Sir A.

Robarts, A. W.

Arbuthnot, Hn. Gen.

Ross, C.

Bannerman, A.

Rotch, B.

Bruce, Cumming

Rumbold, C. E.

Colquhoun, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Dunlop, Capt. J.

Russell, W. C.

Elliott, Hon. Capt.

Ryle, J.

Ewing, J.

Sanderson, R.

Fergusson, Capt. G.

Sandon, Visct.

Gordon, Hon. Capt.

1102

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Christmas, J. N.

Hay, Sir J.

Cole, Lord

Hay, Col. A. L.

Cole, Hon. A.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Conolly, Col. E. M.

Johnston, A.

Cooper, E. J.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Corry, Hon. H. L.

Loch, J.

Daly, J.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Macleod, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Murray, J. A.

Knox, Hn. Col. J. J.

Ross, H.

Lefroy, A.

Sinclair, George

Maxwell, H.

Stewart, E.

Mullins, F. W.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

O'Neill, Hon. Gen. J.

Traill, G.

Oxmantown, Lord

IRELAND.

Perceval, Col.

Acheson, Visc.

Shaw, F.

Archdall, Gen. M.

Tennant, J. E.

Bateson, Sir R.

Verner, Col. W.

Belfast, Earl of

Young, J.

Castlereagh, Visc.

WARWICK ELECTION.
Sir Ronald Ferguson, in moving, pursuant to notice, for a Select Committee to consider the Report of the Committee on the Warwick Election Petition, said, that he would not trespass at any length upon the time of the House at that late hour, but should content himself with a brief statement of facts. On the 20th of February, a petition was presented from certain electors of the borough of Warwick against the return of Sir Charles Greville, on the ground of corruption, bribery, and the illegal and unconstitutional interference of the Earl of Warwick in the election. Immediately afterwards a counter petition was presented against Mr. Bolton King, the present sitting Member. A Committee was appointed in May to investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption against the agents of Sir Charles Greville, and the alleged illegal interference of the Earl of Warwick on his behalf. As regarded the case of Mr. Bolton King, there was no charge of unconstitutional interference, the petition against his return being confined to allegations of bribery. The Committee sat, and proof was given that twenty-two voters had been bribed by Sir Charles Greville's agents. Upon this the counsel of Sir Charles Greville gave up the case, and the Committee had no means of continuing the inquiry, there being no party to defray the heavy expenses inseparable from it. The investigation was therefore closed; but the Committee thought they had had sufficient evidence submitted to them to enable them to make a special Report. He was now to ask the permission of the House to institute a further inquiry into the subject. It wag

1103
proved that Mr. Brown, steward to Sir Charles Greville, had paid into a bank, in the town of Warwick, 3,500 l., to the credit of Mr. Tibbetts, town clerk, who was the agent to the Earl of Warwick, and that Tibbetts gave checks to the agents employed in the election. He thought that he had stated enough to satisfy the House that this was a case for further inquiry. It was with great regret he found himself compelled to move for a Select Committee, but he referred any Gentleman, who doubted its necessity, to the evidence. He proposed to name, as a Select Committee, the Gentlemen who had sat on the Election Committee, because they were best qualified to resume and carry on the investigation from the point at which it had stopped. In conclusion, he moved, that a Select Committee be appointed, to consider and report the best mode of preventing bribery, treating, and other corrupt practices, in future elections of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Warwick.
Lord Molyneuxseconded the Motion.
Sir John Hanmeropposed the Motion, and gave it as his opinion, that the allegations contained in the Report of the Committee were not borne out by the evidence. He deprecated the institution of the proposed inquiry, merely on the ground of so few as twenty cases of bribery, and expressed a hope that Parliament would not, at the present late period of the Session, enter into such a discussion.
Mr. Ellicerose to suggest to his hon. friend (Sir Ronald Ferguson) the introduction of an Amendment into his Motion, which he thought was essentially necessary for the purpose of carrying the objects, which he had in view, into effect. One of the grounds upon which his hon. friend moved for this Committee was, that the late Committee had been stopped in its inquiries into the proceedings that had taken place at the late election for Warwick. Now it did not appear, from the terms in which his hon. friend's Motion was worded, that the Committee which he proposed to appoint would have the power to inquire into those proceedings. He would, therefore, suggest, that the Motion should be altered to this effect:—"That a Select Committee be appointed to make further inquiry into the proceedings that took place at the last election for the city of Warwick, and to consider and report what further means should be adopted to prevent bribery, treating, &c., in that borough." The present Motion was proposed
1104
without reference to who had, or who had not, been candidates there at the late election, and the object of it was to trace those proceedings to their source, and to provide a remedy against their recurrence.
Mr. Langdalemaintained, that the statements contained in the Report of the Committee were fully borne out by the evidence that had been laid before them, and that the House would lose its character with the country if it did not institute the proposed inquiry.
Sir Edward Knatchbullsuggested, that the precedent in the Stafford case should be followed in this.
Mr. Halcombesaid, if they should go into the inquiry, it would be found that Warwick was a place in which bribery had been little known. He was surprised at the Report of the Committee, looking at the evidence which had been laid before them, and he was further surprised that, instead of calling Sir Charles Greville's banker before them to give evidence, they had called Lord Warwick's banker for that purpose. That was a new way to elicit evidence. It was extremely hard thus to call in a third party, a banker, and make him produce the private accounts of an individual banking with him, in order to bring home a charge of bribery to another person. If he were placed in such a situation, he would rather go to Newgate than give evidence so required from him.
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, Sir Charles Greville, he believed, had no banker in Warwick. He was ready to adopt the Amendment of his hon. friend.
The Motion, as amended, was carried.
On the Motion, that the Members of the late Warwick Election Committee should be appointed as the Members of the Select Committee, being put,
Sir Edward Knatchbull Sir Edward Knatchbull moved, as an Amendment, that the said Select Committee should be chosen by ballot.
Mr. Murraysaid, that the carrying of such an Amendment would tend to cast an unjust reflection on the Members of the late Committee, who had fearlessly discharged their duty; and that the only effect of it would be to cloak the bribery that had taken place.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 11; Noes 97—Majority 86.
The Committee accordingly appointed.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Woollen Trade.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath; from the Coachmen, Guards, &c., of Birmingham, against Licenses being granted to Stage Coaches for Travelling on Sundays; and from Bakewell, for the Repeal of the Beer Bill.—By the Archbishop of YORK, from Sheffield, against the proposed Measure of Church Reform for Ireland; and from Scarborough, for Amending the Apothecaries Act.

FRENCH OCCUPATION OF ALGIERS.
The Earl of Aberdeenthought it necessary to say a few words on a subject to which he had before called the attention of the House. Their Lordships would recollect that some time ago, in consequence of assertions made elsewhere from high authority, that the French Government had entered into no engagement whatever on the subject of

1027
Algiers, he had moved for the production of certain correspondence and other papers, with the view of explaining the real nature of the engagements entered into by that Government. That correspondence and those papers, or the greater part of them, were now upon the Table, and he would at present say nothing more than this:—That he was quite willing to leave their contents to those principles of interpretation which had hitherto guided the judgment of men of sense, honour, and integrity. In addition to those documents, others, for the production of which he had not moved, existed, furnishing ample evidence that those engagements had been confirmed not only by the personal declarations of the king of the French, but from the mouth of his Minister. The noble Earl had said, that communications had taken place between the two Governments on the subject; and, in consequence, he had deferred bringing it under the notice of the House. He had very recently seen statements, however, from which it would appear, that all negotiation must now be considered at an end; and whatever might be his feeling regarding the papers, or his opinion of the conduct which they indicated, he wished the noble Earl opposite to understand, that he made no Motion, gave no notice of Motion, and did not even ask a question upon the subject. The noble Earl had more than once stated his opinion of the great importance of the topic; and in that opinion of the noble Earl he entirely roncurred. He might indeed think that Marshal Clausel rode his hobby a little too hard, when he said, that the possession of Algiers might eventually be a source of as great wealth and power to France, as the East-Indies were to England; yet it certainly was difficult to exaggerate the advantage it would give to any European power, and above all to France. He was, of course, at all times most ready to co-operate with Ministers in what might be considered due to the honour and interests of Great Britain. That honour and those interests were in the keeping of the noble Earl; and, after the opinions expressed by that noble Earl, it was impossible that there should not have been much negotiation and frequent communication within the last two years and a-half. Reserving to himself the liberty of returning to the subject on any
1028
future occasion, he would conclude by expressing a hope, that the noble Earl would be anxious at the proper time to make full communications to the House, and to prove that the honour and interests of the Empire had not been injured in the hands of the noble Earl and his colleagues during the progress of the negotiation.
Earl Greysaid, as the noble Earl meant to make no Motion—to give no notice of Motion—and not even to put a question, perhaps it was almost unnecessary that he should make any observations. He took it for granted, that the present remarks of the noble Earl had been called forth by the accounts published in the newspapers of what had occurred in the Chamber of Deputies. He could say, that he had also read in the papers an account of what passed; but, excepting through that channel, Ministers had not yet received any information from the British resident in Paris. The House, therefore, would not think it right in him now to enter into any discussion of the subject; indeed, on a question of this nature, resting on what the noble Earl thought a positive engagement on the part of France, it was impossible, standing in the situation he occupied, to enter into any explanation without public inconvenience. Therefore, all he could state was this:—That in this, as in all other transactions, Ministers had endeavoured according to the best views of policy they could form, to support the honour and interests of the Empire. Whenever the proper time came, for which the noble Earl very fitly reserved himself, he trusted that he should be able to show that Ministers had not been wanting in attention to these great and essential objects.
The Marquess of Londonderryarraigned the whole foreign policy of his Majesty's Government. With respect to Holland and Belgium, a convention had been laid on the Table of the House, and he wished the noble Earl to state whether he meant to originate any discussion on that convention, or to name any day for taking into consideration the matters connected with it. When, after sending out a large squadron, and incurring a large expense, he found that it all ended in leaving Holland and Belgium in the same situation which they occupied in October, 1832, he could not avoid censuring the course which Ministers had pursued. Again, if they looked to the east, they

1029
would find that at one time the interests of this country at Constantinople were left without any protection whatever, or, at all events, with very insignificant protection. We had no known and accredited ambassador there when measures of the greatest importance were going on. Our ambassador who should have been there, was detained six weeks at Naples, perhaps by adverse winds, perhaps by some negotiation for a higher post. When they witnessed such circumstances as these, it was impossible that he, and others who had been connected with foreign affairs, should not come forward to demand information. He would ask, had they now any organ at Constantinople to uphold the interests of this country, and to watch over the effects which passing events might have on the welfare of Europe? He believed that Great Britain was not represented at all there; and he had a right to say, that our foreign policy had been greatly neglected by the noble Earl and the present Administration. It appeared that they were entirely incapable of enabling this country to maintain that high position which she had formerly held, and which she ought still to hold, in the east. There were many points in the foreign policy pursued by Ministers, as well as that which related to Algiers, which were exceedingly objectionable. No reason whatever had been given why France should retain possession of that country; instead of uniting with those nations who could uphold the interests of Great Britain against the power of France, the policy of Ministers had been to turn their backs on those states, and to tie themselves to France. He admitted that France was as great a country as any on the face of the globe, but he wished the connexion with that country not to be too strictly bound. He could not but think, that if too closely embraced, France would be very apt to act mischievously. The embargo on Dutch vessels he considered most unjust and impolitic. It had, however, in consequence of some understanding with France, been at length removed. He wished a day to be fixed by the noble Earl for going into the whole of the foreign policy of the country, which ought to be discussed with as little delay as possible.
The Earl of Riponsaid, it was not his intention to discuss with the noble Marquess those various points connected with foreign affairs which he had introduced,
1030
and with which he had intermingled sundry obscure remarks. It would be improper for him, after the answer of his noble friend, to enter upon any such, extended discussion. He would not, in any way, touch upon the affairs of Belgium or of the east, or upon the domestic policy that Ministers had pursued, which, upon another occasion, it might be proper to advert to at length; he should therefore confine himself to one or two short remarks. It was not in his contemplation to state to their Lordships any opinion on the convention which had been laid on their Table. In producing that convention, all that was necessary had been done by Ministers; and he should be content if any noble Lord, or any Member of the other House, called for the opinion of Parliament with respect to it. If it were the purpose of his Majesty's Ministers to call for the approval of any of their proceedings, they would, of course, give their Lordships an opportunity to express their opinion. No such necessity, however, existed in this case; and consequently they were not called on to originate a motion, as the noble Lord wished them to do. The noble Lord had made remarks—first, on the individual who was now our ambassador to Turkey, and then on the Gentleman who, though not clothed in the higher rank of ambassador, had for a time performed the functions of one at Constantinople. The noble Marquess, in speaking of the delay in the arrival of Lord Ponsonby at Constantinople, seemed to think that the noble Lord might have been prevented from reaching his post because he was engaged in a negotiation for a higher and more profitable situation at St. Petersburgh. This was an insinuation on the conduct of that individual which it was scarcely worth while to answer. He had the satisfaction, however, of stating, and he was sure the noble Marquess would be glad to hear it, that there was not one word of truth in the insinuation—that it was a perfectly gratuitous assertion. Where the noble Lord had picked it up be could not conceive. As to Mr. Mandeville, who acted as chargé d'affaires between the recall of Sir Robert Gordon and the arrival of Lord Ponsonby, and who was accused of inefficiency by the noble Marquess, it should be observed, that he was placed in that situation in consequence of circumstances that could not be controlled; and whether

1031
he was inefficient or insignificant, he would say, that if in the course of the proceedings any thing had been done wrong, Mr. Mandeville was not the person who was blameable for it. He would put it to the noble Marquess, who, he knew, was imbued with all that honourable feeling which characterized his profession, whether it was fair to throw on persons who were absent a certain responsibility, instead of attaching it to those who were present, and who were able to defend themselves.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he had made no charge against the respectable individual alluded to, nor had he persevered in the opinion that an unnecessary delay had taken place in the arrival of Lord Ponsonby. The spirit of his whole argument was, that all those transactions required the attentive consideration of that House. When they looked at the extraordinary missions of Lord Durham and Sir Stratford Canning, they would find that, though an enormous expense had been incurred, they had done no good. What results had those two missions been attended with? If the noble Earl would assist him in bringing forward the question, he would undertake to prove that, in every point of foreign policy, his Majesty's Ministers had degraded this country, and removed her from the high situation which she once held in Europe.

COLLECTION OF TITHES (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklow, before he proceeded with the motion of which he had given notice, wished that the Resolution of the House of Commons of the 18th inst., on the subject of Irish Tithes, should be read.
The Clerk was proceeding to read it, when
Earl Greyobjected to such a course of proceeding, as the Resolution was not regularly and formally before the House, but was only on their Lordships Table by favour.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he wished the Resolution to be read in order to avoid explaining to their Lordships at length its nature and object. He should now, however, explain fully the purport of that Resolution. When he came down to the House last Monday, and gave notice of this Motion, he fully believed, that the Resolution had been laid before their Lordships; and his intention on that occasion was to enter into the discussion im-
1032
mediately; but, on finding that the Resolution had not been communicated to their Lordships, he determined to bring the question forward on the earliest day. He might be told, that he was even now introducing it prematurely, because the subject was not yet before the House, and that the discussion should be deferred until the matter came up in the shape of a Bill or Resolution to their Lordships. He was prepared to admit the justice of that proposition on general principles, but it was by no means applicable to every case. There were cases in which it was not only expedient, but very desirable, that their Lordships should have an opportunity of discussing subjects that originated elsewhere, in the hope, when it was known in the other House of Parliament through the ordinary channels of communication, that their Lordships held certain opinions on such subjects, that the measures would be modified and altered so as to afford them a better chance of being carried in their Lordships' House. This remark applied particularly to measures of a fiscal nature; many of which might contain principles and enactments of which their Lordships highly approved, and others that they might view as objectionable. In that case, following the rules and customs of Parliament, they were obliged to reject such measures altogether, because they had not the power to alter them. With respect to the subject which he was now about to introduce, whether his Motion was convenient or inconvenient, whether it was well-timed or ill-timed, still he felt, that it was his duty to bring it forward, on this, the first day that he had an opportunity of so doing. In order to bring the question as clearly as he could before their Lordships, he called on them to consider the situation in which they were placed with respect to this important subject. Their Lordships would recollect, that at the commencement of the last Session of Parliament, this subject was considered by his Majesty's Ministers of such vast importance, that it was made mention of in his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and in such a manner, too, that every one thought Ministers were prepared with some measure relative to it. But his Majesty's Ministers were not governed by such vulgar prejudices. They were not prepared with any such measure; but they proposed, in both Houses of Parliament, a Select Com-

1033
mittee to investigate the subject, to examine witnesses, and to report thereon. These Committees immediately assembled, and commenced operations with activity, diligence, and ability; and each Committee made two Reports to their respective Houses. As to the first of these Reports made to their Lordships last February, he should say nothing. He had animadverted on it at the time, chiefly on account of a most objectionable term which it contained—a term which had created much evil, and caused much bloodshed; but the second Report to their Lordships, which was made in June last, contained much valuable information, and he greatly approved of it. He should take the liberty of reading one short extract (the only one he meant to read) from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, which had been communicated to their Lordships' House. The Reports of the two Committees were very similar, but he preferred that of the House of Commons, because it was most explicit. It said: 'That your Committee recommend that the following measure, be submitted to Parliament with the least possible delay; and, in order to facilitate their commencement, without loss of time, they think that these measures should be introduced in three separate Bills. The first is a Bill to enable the Tithe Composition Act to be enforced; the second to constitute Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland; and the third to make a commutation of tithes for land.' When this was made known, he asked whether it was the intention of Ministers to introduce those three Bills in that Session of Parliament, and the noble Earl and the Lord President of the Council answered most decidedly, "that it was." This occurred nearly at the end of June; and he believed that the intention of Ministers was what they had stated. One of those Bills was introduced in that House, and had passed through Parliament; but only one of them, it should be observed, had passed in the last Session. He did not blame Ministers for not doing more last Session. He did not expect them to do impossibilities; and, at the time, he thought it was impossible for them to carry the three Bills at that late period of the Session. What he blamed them for was, that during the interval between the last Session and this present 21st of June, being an entire year from the time
1034
when he put the question—not one word was said by any member of the Government in either House of Parliament on the subject. He knew he might be told that they had a variety of complicated business before them. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, the other night, with that dignity and self-complacency which became one who believed himself to be a benefactor of the State, described to their Lordships all the complicated measures, all the important State business, which had occupied the attention of Ministers. The noble and learned Lord asserted, that, to grapple with any one of those great measures would, in former years, have been deemed employment enough for any Government. They, however, retired not from these various extraordinary works—they shrunk not from these mighty labours—they could bear this world of business on their official shoulders. Although, however, they had not thought proper to introduce either of the other two Bills to which he had adverted, they had found time to concoct another measure relative to the Church of Ireland, embracing almost every subject connected with that Church. Instead, however, of introducing such a measure, it would have been better if they had redeemed their plighted faith to Parliament and the country. He would not take the trouble of reading the Commons' resolution to their Lordships, but he would state what it contained. It was, then, proposed in the other House, that the enforcement of tithes should be caused to cease altogether; that an advance of money should be made for arrears of tithes and composition of tithes, for 1831 and 1832, and for the income of the clergy for 1833; and it was intended and proposed to pay the country for this advance by an imposition of Land-tax. By this plan, the defaulters, those who had by fraud, by violence, by every mode of intimidation, exempted themselves from the payment of those just dues, would be effectually screened; while the proprietor of the soil, who had always been the assister and protector of the clergy, and who had performed his duty, would be oppressed. If they placed the burthen on the defaulters, it would be returning to the Act of last Session under a new name. It would be doing that which his Majesty's Ministers were least likely and least inclined to do—it would be flying in the face of that

1035
mountain party, which were opposed to all conciliation, before which Government was crouching and trembling, and the mischievous measures of which the Ministers, in no small degree, assisted. But it was not stated by whom this advance was to be ultimately borne—whether by the Lords of the soil in possession of the land, or by the various intermediate persons standing between him and the immediate occupier. That was not stated, because it was a great and arduous question. The resolution was bought forward, and he supposed the Bill to be founded on it would partake of the same character, in this crude, undigested, and unformed shape, in the hope that, in going through Parliament, it would be altered and improved, and, in some way or other, rendered more passable. Ministers brought their rough blocks from the Downing-street quarry, that statutes might be manufactured out of them by artists more able and skilful than themselves. The plan now proposed involved as gross a spoliation of the landowner as ever was effected by the most arbitrary government. What would be the result to the lay impropriator, now that tithes were declared to be a nuisance which ought to be abolished? No provision was made for the lay impropriator of tithes. He saw a noble Marquess on the cross-bench (the Marquess of Westmeath) who, he believed, was a great owner of lay impropriations, and he certainly flattered himself that the noble Marquess would vote with those who meant to oppose the measure. This was not the case of Don Pedro versus Don Miguel—no, it was a case of property versus spoliation; and he was convinced, that the good sense and justice of the noble Lord would lead him to vote with him (the Earl of Wicklow) on this occasion. Then, the third class of persons who would be affected by this proceeding was the clergy themselves. He defied any man who looked into the provisions of this resolution to view it in any other light than an insidious species of bribery for the Church. Ministers wished to bribe the clergy to give up that right to the soil which the Church had possessed more firmly and for a longer period than noble Lords had possessed their estates. He believed that the noble Lords opposite had never intended to enter into a systematic attack on the rights and interests of the Church; but if they had taken office in the Government for the purpose,
1036
of destroying the Church, they could not have pursued more effectual means than those they had adopted. Let the House look to the whole of their conduct towards the Church of Ireland, or rather (for that was not the proper designation) that part of the Church of England which was established in Ireland, ever since they had come into office. They had permitted the Church to be plundered of its rights—they had allowed the clergy to be deprived of all the rights they possessed—the clergy were forced, in many instances, to retire from the world, overwhelmed with a degree of distress which it would be difficult for their Lordships to conceive; and at this moment, when their spirits were broken—at this moment they were offered no less than three years of arrear, for which they were to sacrifice their right to tithes—for which they were to sacrifice the interest of the Established Church. In short, they were to become a body of ecclesiastical pensioners on the Treasury of the State. It might be said, that the measure would be temporary—he cared not, he protested against it as a spoliation of the Church—nay, as a system of spoliation with reference to all classes. One class of persons was to pay the debts of a second class of persons to a third class of persons. And what was all this for? For what was the country to suffer this infliction? Why, to remedy evils that were created by the Government itself. When Ministers entered office he would assert, and he defied contradiction, that resistance to tithes in Ireland was scarcely perceptible. He knew, that there was an unwillingness to pay tithes, just as there was an indisposition to pay rent, or to pay any species of tax; but there was no more objection to tithes than to any other impost in that country. No sooner, however, did the agitators discover the sort of persons with whom they had to deal—no sooner did they find that they might cajole or intimidate them—than they commenced that system which Ministers were vainly endeavouring to remove. At what time, be would ask, was the proposed measure to be carried into effect? Why, at a time when tithes were better paid than they had been for years. The Coercion Bill was now in operation; and he approved of it, not on account of the punishment which it inflicted, but on account of the confidence it inspired. It gave to the loyal part of the community

1037
a confidence which they had long wanted, and the consequence was, that the tithes were better paid now than they had long been. A clause had been introduced into that Bill in the course of the discussion elsewhere which in some degree impaired and defeated its efficacy. He blamed Ministers for allowing it. They well knew who the parties were that clamoured for it. They were not the Representatives of the people, but the Representatives of priests and demagogues, selected from bullock-sheds, attornies' offices, and clerks' offices in the country. He was most friendly to the Church, but not as contradistinguished from any other class of men, for he wished to preserve the rights of all classes. If he had spoken more on the subject of the Church than others, it was because the Church had been ill-treated and had suffered much; but he never was anxious for the relief of the Church, much less for the bribery of the Church, by violating the property or injuring the rights of others. It might be said, that he was almost the only individual who had raised his voice against this plan, which had passed, as they learned through the medium of the Press, by an exceedingly large majority. Now, he certainly felt great respect for all the votes of the other House; if they declared that the Malt-tax was a nuisance, and should be abolished, he respected their vote; and if, the next day, they agreed that it was not a nuisance, and ought not to be abolished, still he respected the vote of that hon. House; in short, he respected all their votes. But he confessed that he felt no small degree of surprise when this plan was introduced to the House of Commons, that no man of landed property in Ireland (for there were in the House some men of landed property, notwithstanding the Reform Bill), rose and solemnly protested against it. This Resolution, however, had not yet passed into a law, and he ventured to say, that even in the other House of Parliament the measure would still he well considered and strenuously opposed before it came into their Lordships' House. When it came before their Lordships, he should do his duty. It was a measure fraught with injustice and cruelty, and he should oppose it in every stage. He moved "for a return of all sums collected by Government under the Act of last Session to facilitate the payment and recovery of tithes in Ireland."
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down afforded in itself a convincing proof of the impolicy of entering into a discussion on a matter which was not fully before the House. If the noble Earl had waited until the subject had been brought forward in a defined shape, he would have avoided some of the errors into which he had fallen on this occasion. The noble Earl had laid great stress on the words relating to the unfortunate subject of tithes used in the Report of one of the Committees which had sat on that subject, and had contended, that the words "extinction of tithes" had been productive of much strife and bloodshed. He (Viscount Melbourne) denied that those words had been productive of any such effect. It was, he admitted, true that they had been made a pretext for passive resistance to tithes by those who, if such words had never been used, would have found other pretexts to offer the same resistance; but it was impossible that any one could have been deceived as to the sense in which those words were used. It would be perfectly clear to any one who took the trouble of reading that part of the Report, and who took it in context with what preceded and followed, that the words "extinction of tithes" were not used as intending to convey the idea that such a measure had been already decided, but that it was merely referred to as a measure in prospect. If, however, an isolated expression of a Report were thus taken without reference to the import of the whole, it would be impossible to guard against misconstruction with respect to any public document. The noble Earl had complained, that of the three Bills which the Government had promised to introduce as the result of the Reports of the Committees, only one had yet been introduced; but any man, looking with candour and impartiality at the circumstances of the country, would find in those circumstances a sufficient justification for the course which Government had adopted. As to the second of the Bills, there had been so much opposition raised on the part of the clergy, that Government had not only refrained from bringing it in, but had given up the measure altogether. The noble Earl had dwelt much upon the self-complacency with which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had announced the intention of Government

1039
to introduce these measures. On this subject he would only say, that if personal allusions were to be made, and if the manner of noble Lords and their way of delivering their remarks in that House were to become the subject of criticism and comment, the practice must lead to sarcastic recriminations, which it would be as well to avoid. He (Lord Melbourne) was not disposed to deal in any such; but when the noble Earl talked of self-complacency, he could not avoid remarking that the same complaint would most readily apply to the noble Earl himself; for certainly Narcissus, when he surveyed himself in the fountain, was not more enamoured of the graces of his person, which he found were much greater than he had imagined, than was the noble Earl of himself when he found himself addressing their Lordships on this subject, and with greater eloquence than he had thought he could have brought to it. But he would not proceed further with this topic—remarks of this kind he was not fond of indulging in, and he would not pursue them. They brought to his mind the observation of the philosopher of old, who found himself brought into controversy with a talkative fellow. He observed, "I shall not keep up a contest of this sort with you, for I find we do not meet on equal terms. You are fond of using such language, and are accustomed to hear it, but it is disagreeable to me to hear, and it is beneath me to reply to it." The noble Earl had taken the opportunity of inveighing against the measures of Government, even before they were brought in any regular and defined manner under the consideration of the House. He had called them rough blocks of stone, taken from the quarry of Downing-street, which were to be brought into shape by the skill of other artists. Now, would it not have been candid in the noble Earl to have waited until he saw the shape in which those blocks would be brought before the House before he condemned them? It was not the practice of noble Lords, however much opposed to the measures of Government, to attack those measures until they were brought in some tangible shape before the House. He admitted that the measure which Government had introduced last year with respect to tithes was a fair subject of animadversion. That measure was a transfer of the arrears of tithes to the Crown, in the hope that the
1040
passive resistance, as it was called, which had been made to their collection would not be continued when they were considered as debts to the Crown. That measure had not answered the expectations which were conceived of it. Of the whole sum of 140,000 l. there had been only 12,000 l. collected, and that at an expense exceeding the amount. Under these circumstances, and in the hope of putting an end to the disputes so constantly recurring in the collection, it was thought better to introduce this measure, which it was hoped, would have the effect of altogether putting an end to that resistance to the payment of tithes which had always existed in Ireland. This was to place the tithes as a tax on the land. The noble Earl had asked what was to become of the landlord—who was to undertake the payment of tithe? Why, he would get it from the tenant. [The Earl of Wicklow: How?] By the ordinary operation of the law; it was intended that the landlord should have a claim against the tenant for the amount of the tithe. By this means it was hoped that the tumults and disorders at present consequent upon the collection of tithe would be altogether avoided. It was complained, that the police had been employed in the collection of tithes. If it were so, it was against the Act of Parliament. They might be employed to serve processes for the recovery of tithe, but they could not be legally employed in its collection; but, of course, if there arose any tumult or disturbance in the collection, it was to be expected that they would be called in to restore order. The noble Lord asked what was to become of the lay impropriators? The lay impropriators were to have the same advantages as the clergy with respect to the payment of the tithe by a tax on land. But the noble Earl complained that the clergy were to be called upon to surrender their rights, which were as stable as the land on which their claim existed. He (Lord Melbourne) hoped the religion of the Protestant would always remain stable; but he feared that he could not say that the tithe had the same stability. The noble Earl asked why this measure should be brought in at the present time; he would ask in turn how it could be delayed any longer? He thought the time was now arrived when the Government was called upon to take some step towards settling a question which

1041
had for so long been the fertile source of so much tumult and disorder in that country. But it was said, that the feeling of resistance to tithes had gained ground since the accession of the present Administration to office, and it was more than hinted that the increase of the "passive resistance" was owing to that accession. He would not enter into the discussion of how far the resistance had gained ground in consequence of the accession to office of the present Administration. The noble Earl had given it as his opinion, and no doubt it was sincere, but he (Lord Melbourne) must deny that the present Government had done any thing to increase the opposition to tithes. It was, he repeated, time that this question should be viewed in a statesmanlike manner. It was due to the Protestant Establishment that the question should be placed on such a footing as would prevent that ill-feeling towards it which the collection of tithe had generated; it was due to the Catholic majority of Ireland that they should be released from those vexatious proceedings, which were, in present circumstances, almost unavoidable; and it was due to the Protestant majority of the empire to place the Establishment on a sure foundation. The situation of Ireland, with respect to the collection of tithes, was unparalleled in the history of nations. That system had given rise to turbulence and disorder, which, for the security of the empire, it was necessary to put an end to by some means; of course, the first duty of the Government was to put down turbulence, to restore peace, and then to legislate against the recurrence of that disorder and turbulence as far as they could. Let him call the attention of their Lordships for a moment to the combination, he might call it, which the Government found opposed to them on this subject. They had, first, the Catholic hierarchy; they had the majority of the Catholic gentry, and nearly the whole, if not the whole of the farmers. They had also the Catholic priests—he would say with some highly honourable exceptions; but besides those whom he had named, there were also many of the Protestant gentry—some of them presiding at anti-tithe meetings, and some proposing anti-tithe resolutions, inculcating passive resistance to their collection; and when there were found many Protestants thus openly taking a part against the payment
1042
of tithes, it was not unfair to presume that there were many others of the same class who in feeling were disposed to object, though they took no active part on the question. But let him add, that with this opposition, the Government found no very cordial support from that party which was called the Conservative. That party, seeing the turn which the public mind had taken on the question, were too much disposed to look after a little share of popularity as opposed to Government to take an active part in upholding a system towards which they still avowed themselves favourable. It was unnecessary for him to say that these circumstances had placed Government in a situation of no inconsiderable difficulty, and such as required the most serious deliberation. They had, as the result of that deliberation, determined upon bringing forward the measure which had been sanctioned by the adoption of the resolution proposed to the other House of Parliament. The measures which would be consequent on the adoption of that resolution were not yet in a state to come directly under the consideration of their Lordships; but he trusted they were such as would be approved of when they did come before them. At all events, he did hope that noble Lords would wait until they were before them in that shape in which alone they could enter into a full discussion of their merits.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if the noble Viscount who had just sat down had entered into any satisfactory explanation of the measures which it was the intention of Government to adopt on this important question, he should not have felt it necessary to offer a word in reply to what had fallen from him; but in the whole of what the noble Lord had said he found no explanation at all. He found that the tithe due to one body of men was to be compensated by a tax on another. That, no doubt, was a simple proposition; but this was what his noble friend (the Earl of Wicklow) complained of, that no explanation was given of how this was to be done. The noble Viscount got up to answer his noble friend, but he would defy any of their Lordships to understand more from the noble Viscount's speech than the statement that the case was as his noble friend had stated it. It was said, that tenants-at-will, and some others who held lands by particular tenures, were liable to pay the tithe to the landlord, and that he

1043
collected it, and not the clergy. It was forgotten, however, that by the Act of the last Session the clergy could not collect the tithe. If the Government intended to repeal that Act, the clergyman might proceed to collect his tithe, if he could, after all that had taken place on the subject. The noble Viscount had not given any explanation on this subject, because, in fact, he did not know what the Bill stated, or what was intended to be done with respect to it. The Resolution which had been submitted to the other House was, as it now stood, that a land-tax should be levied for the payment of tithe; but who was to pay it? Who, he asked, was to pay it? Was it the landlord? He would beg of noble Lords to consider what would be the effect of asking the landlord in this country to pay the tithes on his land for three years. It was calculated that the average of the tithes in Ireland did not amount to more than 2s. the acre. He would ask—and he was aware that some of the noble Lords opposite possessed an immense extent of land in Ireland—what landlord of that country was now ready to pay the tithes of three years—to pay to the amount of 6s. or 7s. per acre on his land? But suppose the landlord consented to this, he wanted to know by what authority the landlord was to collect this money back and repay himself? Was it in the shape of rent, or was it a separate charge, and to be collected with the same legal authority which the clergyman had for his tithe? These were points which the noble Viscount had left untouched, but which, if he had explained, their Lordships would have some notion of the nature of the measures intended by the Government. Their Lordships, in looking to that part of the Resolution which placed the tithe as a tax on the land, could not omit from their consideration the fact of the different tenures by which lands were held in Ireland. There were holders of lands for lives, and for leases of years, and for other different terms; but how those parties were to be affected by this measure the noble Viscount had not said one word, so as to remove the doubt and anxiety which must exist as to the situation of every kind of property in that part of the United Kingdom. The noble Viscount had stated to their Lordships the great difficulties which had attended the discussion of this subject of Irish tithes. He
1044
was aware of those difficulties, and if he had any doubt on the subject, he had only to refer to the large volume which had been laid before the House last year, to show, that those difficulties had grown to their present extent in consequence of the neglect of his Majesty's Ministers in the first year of their accession to office. The opposition to tithes in Ireland at that period was trifling; but such as it was, if the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, instead of pardoning those who had been convicted of presiding at anti-tithe meetings, and of moving Resolutions inculcating passive resistance to tithes, so that none should be paid unless by the compulsion of legal process—if, he repeated, instead of allowing such parties to escape with impunity—if, instead of promoting the great agitator in his profession—the Government had inflicted upon him the punishment due to the offence of which he had been convicted—if others also guilty (and it was well known who they were) had not been allowed to escape with impunity, the Government would not have seen that general opposition to the tithes of which they now complained, nor would they be placed in those difficulties in which they now found themselves. Let them look to what had been stated by the Archbishop of Dublin, a prelate who was friendly to the present Administration, and of whom the Government had a very high opinion. That most reverend Prelate attributed a great share of the resistance to tithes to the opposition of a Catholic clergyman of high influence and great importance with those of his own persuasion; who, in one of his letters on the subject, objected to tithes as a provision for the Protestant clergy. All these things the Government had passed over, and yet they now came to Parliament and said, "Oh, the state of the country is such—the opposition to tithes is so general, and has always been so general in Ireland, that we must be excused for not having taken measures to put that opposition down." It could not be denied, that the great opposition to tithes began in November, 1830—after the accession of the present Administration to office. In March, 1831, he took occasion to remind the noble Earl opposite, that the Proclamation Act would expire at the close of the then Session of Parliament. The noble Earl stated, that he was aware of that fact, and, that it was his intention to renew the Act before

1045
the end of the Session. The Government had, however, thought proper to dissolve the Parliament in April, and there was then no time to renew the Act. The Parliament met again in June, but not a word was said about the renewal of the Proclamation Act—not a word said about tithes or the opposition to their collection, which was still going on in Ireland. They were, it was true, told of disturbances which occurred in Roscommon and in some other places, but the same silence was still observed as to the cause. In the month of November, when Ministers must have agreed as to the words which were to be put into the mouth of the Sovereign, the affair of Captain Graham was known in London, but still no notice was taken on the subject until the unfortunate words which were inserted in the Speech from the Throne in December, when his Majesty was made to recommend the consideration of the question of the state of the Church in Ireland—if, during the whole of this time, the Government, instead of remaining passive, had acted with firmness in putting down the opposition to tithes which was going on in Ireland, they would not now be placed in a situation which obliged them to call on the country to give compensation to those whose property was, he might say, destroyed, by the levy of a tax on the property of another class of his Majesty's subjects. It was stated by the noble Viscount, that various classes of persons had joined in this conspiracy or combination to resist the payment of tithes, and, amongst others, he charged some of the Protestant gentry of Ireland as being in the number of the parties so combined. He (the Duke of Wellington) was but little acquainted with those secrets, and in the Report of the Committee he saw little to bear out the charge; but he must say that if such men were found engaged in such transactions, they now saw the consequences of their own acts. They saw that if they deprived the clergy of their property, they themselves would be taxed to make it good. Their Lordships would, in a few days, be called upon to consider a proposition for giving compensation to a large class of individuals who were to be deprived of their property; and he would beg of their Lordships to consider, and to impress the same thing on their neighbours, that if they deprived others of their property, they would as an almost necessary consequence lose their
1046
own. But he was sure that the noble Viscount was mistaken in the ground of his charge against some portions of the Protestant gentry. He was sure that they had too much attachment to the Church and to the security of their own property to join in any measure to deprive the clergy of theirs. He would not take up the time of their Lordships further on this subject, but would in conclusion express a hope that the noble Lords opposite would give the House some explanation on this subject.
Viscount Melbourne, in explanation, said, that he had not charged the Protestant gentry generally with taking any part against the payment of tithes to the clergy; what he had said, was, that many of them had done so; and when they found some thus publicly avowing their opposition, it was not unfair to assume that there were many others of the same class who were favourable to the same cause.
Earl Greysaid, that when the noble Earl (Wicklow) gave notice of a motion on this subject, he (Earl Grey) did not understand that it was for the sake of division, but discussion. He had asked himself what object the noble Earl could have for introducing such a discussion under such circumstances, and the only answer which his ingenuity could suggest was, that it would furnish the opportunity of dealing out reproach and invective against the Government, though without any real ground on which to go. In that conjecture he was fully borne out in what occurred in the course of the discussion. There could, the noble Earl must have been aware, be no objection to the Motion. There could be no difference between them as to the production of the account for which he moved; yet, as if it were a Motion to which the Government was decidedly opposed, the noble Earl had largely availed himself of the opportunity which it gave him to utter a long string of invectives against the Administration. In that he was followed by the noble Duke, who complained that his noble friend (Lord Melbourne) had not explained the details of the measure of Government; though, as it appeared to him, neither the noble Duke nor the noble Earl had stated very clearly what it was they wished to have explained. That, however, was an unavoidable consequence of the course the noble Lords had adopted of discussing

1047
this important question in its present state. Had the noble Lords waited until the Bill was before the House, they would have seen all its details, and the provisions made to carry it into effect, and they would then have had a fitting opportunity of stating their objections. Under the circumstances in which the discussion was brought on, he felt a difficulty in going into the details of the measure to which it in part referred; for though he had a distinct view of those details, he felt the difficulty of laying them before the House, as the Bill itself was not before them. Had he himself chosen to enter upon such details before the Bill was in that state which would bring it regularly before the House, he should have been met by a thousand objections, and have been told that the House could not judge well of them until they had the Bill. However, as the discussion was thus prematurely, and for their Lordships generally, inconveniently forced on, he would, in as brief a way as he could, give a detail of what it was that Ministers intended to propose in the Bill; but, before he did this, he would advert to some of the topics introduced by the noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl and the noble Duke had argued as if they had now almost for the first time heard of opposition to tithes in Ireland, as if such opposition were new in that country; whereas it was as notorious as anything connected with Ireland, that the opposition to the payment of tithes in that country was as old as the memory of man. He would appeal to the noble Lord who sat on the Woolsack next the Table, and who was well acquainted with the state of feeling in Ireland, whether there had not, in the whole time of his acquaintance with that country, been a strong, he might say systematic, objection to the payment of tithe, not under one, but under many administrations? But that opposition had been allowed to accumulate till it came to a point, and burst forth under the present Government in a manner which could no longer be resisted. Why, he would ask, when the noble Duke was in office, and when the question of tithes had been forced on the attention of Government, and when a Bill was brought in by which much might have been done, why had not the noble Duke at that time taken some steps towards settling the question? Would it not have been much less difficult to have done so at that day than
1048
at the present time? The avowed opposition to the payment of tithes began before the noble Duke quitted office. [The Duke of Wellington observed, across the Table, that it was later.] He hardly thought he could be mistaken as to the time; but was it not a fact that there was in the county of Clare, a spirit of opposition to the Government? Was that opposition not in any degree connected with tithes? It was said, that the Government did not take any steps to assert the authority of the laws, and to put down the resistance to tithe. He contended that it had; but he had to complain that the efforts of the Government were not supported by those from whom they ought to have expected support, if their actions were to conform to their professions. He did not speak of any conspiracy against the Government, but it could not be denied, that there existed in that country two parties, each opposed to the other, and both to the Government, which did not allow the one to domineer over the other. These were, no doubt, sources of annoyance and of difficulty to the Government; but neither by these, nor by the exertions of any agitators, was the Government so thwarted as by those who, professing to take no share in the open hostility of party, overlooked the real interests of the country, in order to harass and embarrass Ministers. This, unfortunately, was not a new ground of complaint for a Minister; the same complaint was made by the noble Duke himself, who, on the subject of the Catholic question, expressed his regret that he should have been opposed by those from whom he had a right to expect support. He (Earl Grey) might with justice make the same complaint, that the measures of Government had been opposed by some of those from whom, if he were to judge of them by their professions, he should have expected support. He repelled, as he could with confidence, the charge that the Government had not proceeded with the sentence against the agitator whose influence was so great in Ireland, and who was calculated to acquire great influence by his eminent talents; but when the noble Earl and the noble Duke complained that the sentence was not passed upon the hon. and learned individual alluded to, they should recollect that the Proclamation Act under which he had been tried had expired with the Session, and

1049
that legally the sentence could not have been passed. That was the plain and simple reason why it had not been. The noble Duke was perfectly correct in his recollection of what he (Earl Grey) had said as to his intention of renewing the Proclamation Act in the Session of 1831; but at that time he could not have anticipated the necessity of dissolving the Parliament. The dissolution then prevented him from carrying his intention into effect. After the new Parliament had met, he would appeal to the recollection of noble Lords, whether the appearances of circumstances were not such as to hold out a prospect that the government of Ireland could have been carried on by the ordinary operation of the law, and without the aid of the Proclamation Act? There were circumstances which induced him to hope, that the ordinary operation of the law would be sufficient to preserve the peace of Ireland without having recourse to that measure. Unjust as this accusation was against the present Administration, what was it when compared with the accusation of the noble Earl, repeated by the noble Duke, which charged them with framing all their measures respecting Ireland with a view to secure the favour and support of a single individual? If the memory of the noble Earl was so short, could not the noble Duke recollect that an Act had been recently passed, which some were pleased to entitle an Act for the coercion, but which he would denominate an Act for the preservation of the tranquillity of Ireland? Was that an Act calculated to secure the favour of the individual to whom the noble Earl and the noble Duke had alluded? Did they suppose that the measures adopted subsequently to carry that Act into operation were directed to that object, or were likely to produce that effect? If the views of the Administration were such as the noble Earl was pleased to represent them, they must indeed be extraordinary managers to take such measures as they had taken to carry them into execution; for the return which they had received from that individual for their repeated courting of his favour, if they had courted it, as the noble Earl averred, was to be described by him as a brutal, bloody, and ruffianly Administration. He was prepared, and so were his noble colleagues, in the discharge of their duty, to meet the enmity of that individual, and not only of that
1050
individual, but also of those individuals, who were diametrically opposed to that individual (Mr. O'Connell) in politics, but who had nevertheless united with him to overturn the present Administration without the slightest regard to any considerations of what was necessary to support the peace and to promote the real interests of the country. This topic brought him to the consideration of the question—which he would not say was then before their Lordships, for it could not be regularly brought before them until the Bill came from the other House of Parliament—but which had been made the subject of the discussion of that evening. The speech of his noble friend near him had relieved him from much of his difficulty, and he therefore hoped that he should not be under the necessity of detaining their Lordships long on the present occasion. In the first place, with regard to the Report of the Committee, the noble Earl had complained that, of the measures which those Committees had recommended, only one had been adopted. That one, however, was admitted by the noble Earl to be, of the three measures recommended by the Committee, that which was likely to produce the most instantaneous and immediate effect. It was a measure for the permanent and universal composition of tithes. When that measure was carried into effect, as it would be on the 30th of next November, the payment of tithes by those who were merely tenants-at-will would cease and determine. By this Bill, if the inducements contained in it should lead the landlords to take upon themselves the payment of tithes by composition, all the payment of tithes by those who were the mere occupiers of land would cease. It would be part of this Bill to extend to the close of the present year the option which was now conceded to the landlords of Ireland of taking upon themselves the composition to which he had adverted. As to the second measure recommended by the Committee, he had no hesitation in saying, that it was found so generally objectionable even by those persons for whose advantage it was specifically intended, that it was matter of policy and discretion to abandon it altogether; and with regard to the third, there could be no inconvenience, whilst there actually was some convenience, in delaying it till the full effect of the Composition Act was known and

1051
ascertained. Their Lordships came then to the consideration of the measure now before the other House of Parliament. The noble Duke had said, that this was the abolition or extinction of one species of property, which was to be compensated by the imposition of a tax upon another. Here, again, he had to lament that the noble Duke had not waited for the Bill, before he made his remarks upon the provisions of it, for he was sure that if the noble Duke had seen it, he would have formed a very different opinion of this property, which he said was to be abolished. The noble Earl had said, that the Bill made one class of persons pay the debt of another to a third class, to the general loss and ruin of them all. Now, what was the real state of the case? There were, at present, arrears of three years' tithes due to the clergy of the Protestant Church of Ireland, and this Bill proposed to abolish the claims which the clergy had to those arrears—not, be it understood, their title to tithes—by the payment of those arrears in money. That was the object of the Bill, and he could not refrain from expressing his astonishment that those noble Lords who were always declaring—and, he had no doubt, declaring sincerely—their anxious concern for the clergy of the Protestant Church of Ireland, should come forward, on the present occasion, to denounce this measure as an act of spoliation, when it was avowedly intended for the relief of those of whom they were always professing themselves the steady friends and the unflinching defenders. He was not in the habit of indulging in large professions; but on this subject, as on many others on which those who called themselves the supporters of the Church differed from him in opinion, his sincere object was to give all the security which he possibly could to the Established Church of Ireland. The clergy of that Church had a clear and indisputable title to that property in tithes which was theirs by law. Here he would admit, without disguise, that he thought that it was no inconsiderable objection to the measure that it proposed to recover for the proprietors of tithes that to which they had a right, by other means than the ordinary process of the law. It was an evil undoubtedly, but it was an evil arising out of the necessity of the case; and that consideration led him to put this question to the noble Duke
1052
—whether he was willing to leave the collection of the arrears of tithes now due to the clergy of Ireland to the ordinary process of the law as it now existed? What was the situation in which the clergy were placed at present? He confessed that he had entertained hopes that the measure which he had proposed last year would have succeeded. He had hoped that when, by the adoption of that measure, Government had displayed its determination to collect the tithes, there would have been a general acquiescence in the propriety of its decision. Such hopes, he repeated, he had entertained, but he was sorry to say that they had been grievously disappointed. The measure had certainly not produced the effects which he had anticipated. Out of 104,000 l. due to the clergy for arrears of tithes, not more than 12,000 l. had been collected under the act of last year, and that, too, at an expense exceeding the sum collected. On this subject he had a statement to make to their Lordships, which he had had some delicacy about making on a former occasion; but, when he was pressed by unfounded accusations, he must state what was necessary for his own vindication; and, however unpleasant the truth might be to some parties, it must be promulgated on the present occasion. What, he would ask, was the Government to do in the peculiar circumstances in which it had been recently placed in Ireland? The Government was bound to consider this question as a question purely practical. In all human affairs, and particularly in political affairs, men were bound to examine into the circumstances of their position, in order to know what measures were most applicable to them. Now, what was the position of the Government in Ireland? In consequence of a return which had been ordered by the other House of Parliament, he had before him an abstract of what had been done under the Act of last Session up to the 1st of February in the present year. He had also other returns, to the same effect, up to a much later period. With all the powers of the law, materially enforced as they were by the Act of last Session, there still remained an immense arrear of tithes due to the clergy, and at present no process, summons, or decree could be served in any part of the country without the assistance of a body of police, supported but too often by a military force. He would ask

1053
the noble Duke,—and he cheerfully admitted that the noble Duke was the first person in this country, perhaps in any country, in reputation as a great and distinguished military chieftain; for no man admired more than he did the glorious exploits by which the noble Duke had obtained that reputation, no man paid to them a more willing tribute of applause and gratitude;—but he would ask the noble Duke, as a friend to the array, whether it was convenient for the army, nay, whether it was conducive to the interests of the army itself, that it should be so employed throughout the country if other means could be devised? Their Lordships would recollect what a minute subdivision there was of these claims for tithes. In many cases, said the noble Earl, the claims were for less than 1s. in amount. That was undoubtedly true; and the House would perhaps be astonished at the extreme minuteness of that subdivision, when they heard the paper which he was about to read to it. That paper was, as he had before stated, the abstract of a very voluminous return which had been made to an order of the House of Commons. From that paper it appeared that the sums recovered and received for the last three years' arrears of tithes up to the 1st of February last was 2,923 l. 10 s. 10 d. The number of decrees issued was 30,000. The number of attachments issued to compel the payment of tithes due to the clergy was 1,258. The number of proclamations was 236, and the whole sum claimed in the schedule was 52,000 l. He did not wish to disparage the powers of the law; but he asked their Lordships to consider the state of things which this return proved to be existing in Ireland. The number of persons sued for tithes less than 1s. was 4,684, and the whole amount of tithes due from them was only 115 l. 6s. 4d. Now, for each of these petty claims a separate process was issued; and he asked the noble Duke whether it was advisable to continue a state of things, in which such small sums could not be claimed, he did not say recovered, without the assistance of the military arm of the country? The degree, too, in which the military were harassed by assisting in the service of these processes was not inconsiderable. When the tithe proctor, after the service of his process, found that he could not get his due, and when it became necessary that the party failing in
1054
the payment of it should be seized, the troops were employed to protect the arrest; and when the arrest was made, to escort him, often a distance of twenty miles to the county gaol, where on his arrival he generally paid the few shillings of which he was in default, and was then set at liberty. Under such circumstances, he had no hesitation in acknowledging that Government felt it to be its duty to put a stop to proceedings of such a nature; but it had not put a stop to them without consulting the interests of the clergy, and without considering how the debt due to them was to be paid. The measure, then, which the Government had introduced on their behalf was a measure of necessity. He admitted it to be so, and if the noble Earl, or the noble Duke, or any other noble Lord, would suggest to him a better measure, he should be most happy to adopt it. By their present Measure the Government extinguished no property, committed no spoliation; on the contrary, they secured to the clergy that the debt due to them should be paid by somebody, and, such being the case, on whom ought the payment of that debt in common fairness to fall? The noble Earl said, that this measure was a spoliation of the landed proprietors of Ireland, but on whom could the burthen of it fall so justly? He was indeed surprised that the noble Earl, who had so often reproached him for not relieving the clergy of the Church of Ireland, should think it consonant with what he had so often styled his sacred duty, to oppose this measure on account of the infliction of a burthen which must be trifling to him as a landed proprietor. He had been asked how he proposed to impose this tax upon the land of Ireland. His reply was short—Just as a similar assessment was imposed tinder the Tithe Composition Act, which took the payment from the occupier, and imposed it upon the landholder next above him. He admitted that this Measure would be attended with some inconvenience, and probably in some cases with real hardship. Against such cases it would be the duty of their Lordships to guard as they best could: but when they considered that the object of this measure was the tranquilization of Ireland, he did not think that such of them as were Irish landowners would be unwilling to take this burthen upon themselves. It was proposed that Government should advance to the clergy

1055
the money due to them for tithes, and that it should be reimbursed by the imposition of a Land-tax imposed on each parish, in proportion to the amount of tithes due from it. To carry this project into effect, various provisions would be necessary, of which it would be impossible for him to give any explanation at that time, and of which, he thought, it would be very advisable to postpone the discussion till those provisions were regularly before their Lordships in the Bill itself. It was proposed that this land tax should be fixed at such a rate that in five years the amount of debt for which it was to provide would be extinguished—in other words, the landlords would have four years given them for the repayment of this debt to the public. In this way the pressure of the burden could not, he was certain, be felt severely in any quarter. The landholder would also have the power of recovering from the occupying tenant, in the same manner as rent, the sum due from the occupying tenant to the clergyman for tithes. He could not think that this was a very unjust and oppressive measure, nor did he expect that any less objectionable measure would be discovered. When the Tithe Composition Act should be fully carried into effect, he trusted, that the cause of all future disputes—for that was the real evil—between the clergyman and the small proprietors, would be entirely removed, and that, too, at the cost of no great burthen upon the land. He thought that the landholders would not have much difficulty in recovering this imposition from the occupiers of land; at least those noble Lords who contended that the clergy could recover their tithes without difficulty, were the present law firmly administered, could not, he should expect, venture upon contending that they, as landlords, would have much difficulty in recovering the amount to which they would be entitled. The noble Earl had also stated, that it was possible that the occupant of the land from whom tithes were due, might disappear before this measure became law. Undoubtedly he might: but this inconvenience might happen under the present system to the clergyman—for if the occupant disappeared, how was the clergyman to recover his tithe from him? It would, therefore, not be an unjust provision of the law, to allow the landlords a certain allowance in the way of a per-cent-age, for those occupiers of lands who might
1056
disappear. He trusted, that this measure would come to them from the other House, not like a stone rough from the quarry, to be hewn into such a form as their Lordships might think fitting, but in such a shape as would enable that House, without much difficulty, to make it effectual for its purpose. He did not at all regard the taunts which had so often been directed against the Administration of which he formed a part, on account of the changes which they so frequently made in their measures. He did not presume to have himself that which was hardly given to man—he meant such a foresight of consequences, as would prevent individuals from finding defects in those measures which he conceived to be most perfect. He was glad to have his measures submitted to the consideration of Parliament, and he should be always ready to incorporate into them such amendments as were calculated to render them more useful for the purposes for which they were intended. He trusted that the present measure, when it was formally introduced into that House, would be in such a form as would render it an easy task for their Lordships to make it effectual for the objects which it was intended to accomplish—he meant the relief of the clergy, of the Protestant Church of Ireland, and the peace and conciliation of the country at large. One word more, and he had done. He had stopped short, as their Lordships would recollect, in reading the tithe returns made out to the 1st of February, in the present year. He would now read to them the further returns, to which he had before alluded, and which were necessary to show the present condition of the tithe question. The gross amount of arrears now due to the clergy for tithes was 105,033 l. A certain amount of claims had, however, been withdrawn by the clergy themselves, and the sum was thus diminished to 104,280 l. The amount of arrears for which proclamation had been issued, was 83,194 l. There remained, then, a sum of 20,900 l. odd, for which no proclamation or proceedings had been issued. This included the account for 132 parishes. There had been collected altogether 12,100 l., at an expense of 7,867 l. This statement would convince their Lordships, how completely the Act of last Session had failed in its operation, and would impress upon them the necessity of considering how the distress of the clergy, arising from the non-payment of

1057
their dues, could be best relieved, how their just rights could be best consulted, and how that object could be effected at the least detriment to the other parties connected with this great question. He could assure the House, that the Members of Government, had unanimously agreed to this measure, and he trusted, that when it came regularly before their Lordships, it would also meet with their unanimous consent. He trusted that no party feelings, no petty animosities, no personal interests, would prevent their Lordships from giving to it that favourable consideration, which in his conscience, he believed it to deserve, and he implored them, if they were dissatisfied with it, either to substitute for it some measure that was more effectual, or to join with him in making it as perfect as possible. To the motion at present before the House no objection could be offered; and having said that, he had no desire to trouble their Lordships with any further observations at present.
The Earl of Rodensaid, he did not mean to enter upon any full discussion of this question, until the Bill itself was before their Lordships; nor should he have at all troubled their Lordships, if it were not for the allusion of the noble Viscount (Melbourne) opposite to that class of persons in Ireland with whom it was his (Earl Roden's) pleasure to have acted. There was also a personal allusion of the noble Earl (Grey) directed to him, and in justice to himself and to the class alluded to, he felt himself called upon to repel those charges. The noble Lord had said, that the Protestants of Ireland were actuated by as great a hostility to the Government, as were the agitators of Ireland. It was true the Protestants of Ireland had felt great disappointment and disgust, at seeing the Government join their enemies, and they also were disappointed at seeing that Magistrates were punished for performing their duty. The noble Lord's Government in Ireland had, by their pusillanimous conduct, earned for it the contempt of all loyal men; it was no credit to any government, that the respectable resident gentry and the loyal Protestant population were opposed to them, for they had always been ready, and always had shown themselves steadfast, in support of the authorities of the country. They were never opposed to any government who acted with justice, and maintained the
1058
supremacy of the law, but they ever had, and he trusted ever would, despise and condemn a system which truckled to sedition, and seemed to trample under foot all the valuable and ancient institutions of the country. The case of Captain Graham was fresh in their Lordships' recollection, and the Protestants of Ireland could not forget such an act of injustice towards a loyal and active Magistrate. It was true, that the Protestants of Ireland had united themselves, but it was for their own protection. They had done so because they saw that, notwithstanding the professions of the noble Earl to put down all resistance to tithes, the effect was, to give encouragement to that resistance. The noble Earl said, that there was no instance, in which a clergyman was refused assistance in the collection of his tithes; but he wished to remind their Lordships that there were very many instances, in which clergymen declined to apply for such assistance, because, from motives of humanity, they were averse to risking the lives of their fellow-creatures. It was no excuse for the Government that clergymen had not applied for military assistance; it was the duty of a well organized Government, to protect life and property, whether applications were made by individuals affected or not—but the fact was, the people believed, that the Government were never in earnest as to the collection of tithes; they favoured the conspiracy against them, which has now succeeded, according to the explanation of the noble Earl. He could not acquit his Majesty's Ministers of being, in a great degree, the cause of the resistance to the payment of tithes in Ireland. They were greatly to blame for many of the measures which created disturbances in the country. Had they not allowed to continue in the Commission of the Peace those who had presided at anti-tithe meetings? The noble Viscount said, that the Protestants of Ireland had not at their meetings, said anything about tithes, and it had been inferred from that circumstance that the Protestants of Ireland were opposed to them. This was not the case; they were united for the preservation of property, not for its destruction—they knew well one class of property hung upon another; and whatever were the rights either of the people, of the landlords, or the clergy, the Protestant population were most anxious to maintain. He repelled the charges that were made against the Irish

1059
Protestants by the noble Lords opposite; he never would allow them to be maligned. He had heard a great deal said by the noble Earl (Grey) about his friendship for the Church, and he was bound to believe the assertion of any noble Lord in that House; but, judging of public men by their public measures, he would say, God protect the Church from such friendship as that of the noble Earl.
The Marquess of Westmeaththought that the tithe agitation in Ireland, would have been put down, if his Majesty's Government had shown an earlier determination to resist it. At the same lime, he believed his Majesty's Government had been imposed upon by a statement of grievances, which certainly did not exist. Having had many years' experience, and knowing that it was not the amount of tithes, but the appropriation of them, that was complained of, he greatly feared that no measure would be found effective to repress the clamour against them. He knew the inveterate hostility of the professors of the Catholic religion in Ireland to tithes; he did not mean all, but those who were the most turbulent and noisy; and he knew that, let Parliament and Government do what they would, they would find it impossible to satisfy those persons.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he certainly did not rise with the intention of saying anything on the subject-matter of the motion of the noble Earl; but he rose to make a few remarks on something connected with the motion of the noble Earl (Wicklow), in consequence of some observations which fell either from that noble Earl, or from the noble Duke, respecting the promotion of a certain eminent lawyer in Ireland (Mr. O'Connell) to the rank of King's Counsel. Though that promotion had taken place in the department of his noble and learned friend, who held the Great Seal for Ireland, he felt that he should not discharge his duty to that noble and learned friend, if he shrunk from taking his share in the responsibility of elevating the learned Gentleman in question to the professional rank to which he (Lord Brougham) considered him entitled. He desired to share that responsibility, because he upheld that the act was one of common justice to the individual and the profession, and not an act of personal favour. It was a right as much as any personal right in the case of a man who stood in the high professional
1060
rank of that eminent and learned individual. No man, whatever his political opinions might be, as long as he kept within the laws, as that individual then kept (then kept, he would say), if there were no valid legal proceeding against him, marking him out as unfit for being the object of such promotion, could, without the grossest injustice, not to himself only, but to the whole profession; not to the profession only, but to his clients, who had a right to his assistance in that situation, in which he would be most capable of doing justice to their cases;—without that triple injustice, no man who had raised himself to that station, to which the learned and eminent individual had risen, could be kept without that rank, to which he had as much right as he had to raise himself to that professional station by his talents.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad always understood that such professional advancement was a matter for which the Ministers of the Crown were responsible. He had never understood till now that such things were matters of course. The noble and learned Lord was much more capable than he could possibly be of stating what was the real case, and he wished to know whether it was not, in such cases, a matter of personal favour?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he agreed with the noble Duke, that within certain limits such promotion was partly a matter of personal favour; but the noble Duke would recollect, that he had not stated that it was a matter of right in every case, having referred only to the case of one standing so high in his profession as to be decidedly at the head of it. In such a case he had said, that the promotion of a gentleman was not a matter of predilection or favour so much as it was a matter of course; and that it would have been an act of the grossest injustice if the rank of his profession had been withheld.
Lord Wynfordthought, that the promotion ought not to have been conferred upon him at a time when he was known to be engaged in a course of lawless agitation.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the noble and learned Lord had attributed to him an allusion to an individual, to whom he had not once referred. This was the second time that the attention of this House had been called to that individual, in consequence of some supposed allusions of his. He never wished to raise him to such

1061
importance as to make him the subject of discussion in that House. He always meant to apply the language which he had used, not to that individual, but to all that portion of the profession to which his observations were applicable; but he did feel some surprise at the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. He was not prepared to say, that the learned individual was acting illegally at the time when the promotion was conferred; but the existence of the agitation of which he was the cause was well known. He must say, that, under such circumstances, the promotion was extraordinary, even if the individual were of that eminence which had been described, which he was not. He was convinced that he had never attained the practice which many other lawyers had attained in Ireland. His practice had always been among ah inferior class of the community; and there were many now who had greater business, and were better entitled to the promotion which that individual had received. He would ask (feeling himself incompetent to decide the point) whether it was a matter of course that one who had once raised himself to professional honours, and had afterwards attacked the Government in the grossest manner, whether it was a necessary consequence that he should always be continued in the same rank? Was it not the duty of those who raised him to the dignity to deprive him of it, if he should be found to be unfit for it by his subsequent proceedings? If this was in their power, he was sure it was their duty. He was convinced, from his own observation, that Ministers were never more mistaken than they had been in their Legislation for Ireland. The Magistrates of Ireland were anxious to do their duty, discarding all party feeling. When he left that House, he left all party feeling behind him. He was acquainted with all the Magistrates in his own county, who, with the exception of three, were all as much opposed to the present Government as he was; but they were not the less anxious to do their duty on that account, and to see the existing laws carried into execution. He had been accused of making his motion only to give rise to a discussion. He certainly had said, that his object was to have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments. He had stated his reasons why he considered such a proceeding necessary. He
1062
thought it very desirable that such a discussion should take place. The noble Earl had said—"Let those who dislike this measure propose a better." Most surely if he (Lord Wicklow) saw any measure at all calculated to be of service he should lay aside all party feeling; though his expressions against the Ministers had been strong, his feelings for his country were stronger; but it was not the province of that side of the House to bring forward such measures, it was a dangerous matter for them even to offer suggestions. He objected to the very name and title of this Bill. It was not a temporary measure. It was to last for ever; but were their Lordships sure that the present Ministers would continue in power for five years? He was persuaded that much greater changes than the removal of the present Administration from power would take place in five years. They ought by all means to avoid a Land-tax for the purposes of this Bill. If such a tax was desirable as a measure of revenue, let it be discussed; but let it not be insidiously brought in for one purpose to be applied to another. He should move one very material alteration in the Bill if it went into Committee. There was a great objection to the manner in which the landlords were now empowered to raise tithes. They had only the same powers as the clergymen formerly had. If, instead of that, the tithe had been annexed to the rent, the collection would have been general through the country.
The Motion was agreed to.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.
The Order of the Day for their Lordships to resolve themselves into Committee—on the Local Jurisdiction Bill was read.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, the object of this Bill was to establish an extensive change in the legal institutions of the country, and therefore he thought that their Lordships ought to have the fullest opportunity of judging of the nature of the measure. Now, it was his opinion that their Lordships were not in a condition to understand the details of the Bill at present. On reading the Bill, he found it quite unintelligible in some particulars. One of these was, that it referred to six or seven schedules which had never been before their Lordships—which had never been submitted to their consideration.

1063
It appeared to be absolutely necessary, before taking any further steps, to have these schedules before them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if his noble and learned friend had turned his attention to the nature of the schedules, he would have seen, that it would have been totally out of the ordinary course to detain the House until they could be submitted to it. They related to mere details, and did not involve one matter connected with or touching upon the grand principle of the Bill. There were some of the schedules which could not come before that House, as that respecting fees, which must be kept out of the Bill. Another schedule altered the form of the record. Another contained the new formulary of pleading. It was the usual practice to consider the Bill before the schedules, although a deviation from that rule took place in the case of a bill of great importance, in which some of the schedules involved the whole principles of the measure. In this case, on leaving out the words referring to the different schedules the Bill would not be impaired, as far as the enactments contained in the body of it went.
Lord Wynfordagreed, that it was usual to consider Bills before examining their schedules; but he thought a short statement of their contents was necessary, in order to enable the House to see whether they ought to be postponed or not. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would postpone the Committee.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, they were now about to enter into the consideration of the details of a bill before that Bill was printed, for he considered the schedules a most important part of the Bill. The usual course was, that a Bill should be printed; but the details of this Bill were not printed.
Earl Greysaid, they were not now considering whether they were to go into a Committee. That question was decided on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill was now to be committed, in order that the additional clauses and schedules might be added. When they were in Committee, he hoped that some progress would be made.
Bill committed.
Some verbal Amendments were made, and the House resumed.