Sitting of 26 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Oaths Validity.—Read a third time:—Gibraltar Lighthouse; Judges Jurisdiction; Extension.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BAINES, from Huddersfield and Macclesfield, by Mr. MILLS, from Malmesbury, by Lord TEIGNMOUTH, from Bayswater, by Lord MORPETH, from Doncaster, by Sir F. BURDETT, from Bradford, by Mr. G. W. WOOD, from Kendal, and by Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from Chester, against encouraging Idolatry in India.—By Mr. C. LUSHINGTON, from five Inhabitants of Scarborough, to be protected from a notification signed by the Clergymen in the neighbourhood of Scarborough, that the Registration Act was not evidence of Baptism.—By Mr. BAINES, from Huddersfield, and by Sir C. LEMON, from Penzance, and other places in Cornwall, against the Beer Act.—By Mr. LEIGH, from the Rural Dean and Clergy of Malmesbury, against the Parochial Assessments Bill.—By Mr. WARD, from Bangor, in the province of Ulster, in favour of the Appropriation Principle.—By Viscount MORPETH, from Temperance Socie-
646
ties in Dublin, against the Suspension of the Spirit Licences Act.—By Sir T. D. ACLAND, from Bath, against the grant of any further powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; from the Clergy of an Archdeaconry in Somersetshire, against the Parochial Assessments Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from Kilkenny, that the Banking system in Ireland might be placed on the same footing as in England and Scotland.—By Sir INGLIS, several, from different bodies of Clergy, by Mr. GOULBURN, from Clergymen of an Archdeaconry in the Diocese of Exeter, from Clergymen in the northern division of the Diocese of London, and from Clergymen in the western division of the Diocese of Oxford, against the Parochial Assessments Bill; from Brailesford (Derbyshire), against the Annual Grant to Maynooth College; and from Preston, in favour of an Amended Factory Bill.—By Captain ALSAGER from the Rural Deanery of Andover, against the Parochial Assessments Bill.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.
Mr. Baineshad some questions to put to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control upon a subject which involved the character and honour of this country. He had given notice of his intention to put those questions some months before, but had never had an opportunity. They concerned he thought the honour of the East-India Company. His first question was, whether, in the year 1833, there had not been sent out to India an instruction to the following effect, namely, "that the interference of British functionaries in the interior management of native temples, in the customs, habits, and religious proceedings of their priests and attendants, in the arrangement of their ceremonies, rites, and festivals, and generally in the economy of heathen worship, shall cease; that the pilgrim-tax shall be everywhere abolished; and that, in all matters relating to their temples, their worship, their festivals, and their religious practices, the native subjects be left entirely to themselves"? The next question was, whether, although five years had now elapsed since the instruction went out, it had not been uniformly disobeyed? The next inquiry was, how it was, that no attention had been paid to the instruction, since it was so strict and imperative? The next inquiry was, whether any further order had been sent out to enforce the first order, and, if so, what was its date? Lastly he wished to know whether there would be any objection to place on the table a copy of the last order, and whether any measures had been taken to enforce it, so that for the future the people of this country might have some ground upon which they might rely, to hope that the grievance complained of would be redressed?
Sir J. Hobhousesaid, that before he gave an answer to the questions that had

647
been put to him, he ought to preface it by expressing his pleasure at the discreet line of conduct which his hon. Friend had pursued, as he could assure his hon. Friend that he had done very well indeed in not making this subject a matter of public discussion, as he must be aware, as well as he (Sir J. Hobhouse) was, that this was one of the most delicate subjects that could be treated of with reference to our Indian government. He thought, therefore, that his hon. Friend had acted perfectly wisely in not making a separate and entire debate on this subject. The questions put by his hon. Friend were of such a nature that he thought he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to them. It was perfectly true, that in 1833 a dispatch had been sent from this country to the government of India with the purport and intention ascribed to it by his hon. Friend. It was perfectly true, with reference to his other question, that this dispatch had not hitherto been acted upon. With reference to the other question, whether or not the court of directors had subsequently taken any steps to carry their former orders into effect? he had to inform his hon. Friend, as he had done before when a similar question had been put to him, that the court of directors had sent out two despatches, directing that their former order should be carried into effect with as little delay as convenient. Nevertheless, he had to confess that there still remained something to do with respect to this subject, and he was free to own that in his opinion the time was come when the court of directors must issue from this country a dispatch in more positive terms than had hitherto been used, and which should prevent the possibility of any mistake or misapprehension as to its intention. Having these opinions, he had no hesitation in saying that he had pressed on the court of directors the necessity of taking such a course. Within a few days—he might say hours—the subject had been discussed in the court of directors, and he could assure his hon. Friend that he should make a point, as responsible Minister of the Crown, and he hoped the court of directors would agree with him, but at any rate he would say distinctly that he should make a point of using that discretion which, by the act of Parliament, belonged to him in his position as President of the Board of Control, to direct such a dispatch to be sent to India as would render it impossible for
648
any functionary there to make a mistake. He could assure his hon. Friend that there should, as far at least as depended upon the home authority, be no mistake as to the compulsory attendance of any functionary, military or civil, upon a worship of which he conscientiously disapproved. There should be no compulsory participation in such worship; and he would take care, and he trusted the court of directors would agree with him, to have such a dispatch sent out to India as would perfectly satisfy the most tender conscience. Having said thus much, there only remained for him to refer to that part of his hon. Friend's statement which related to laying any dispatch that might be sent out on the table of the House. His hon. Friend, if he considered it, must see that this would be not only a very inconvenient, but at the same time an unconstitutional course to pursue, to lay on the table dispatches before they were sent out, or seen, or acted upon. He had, however, no hesitation in saying, that he should, when the proper time came, have not the least objection to making these dispatches public. He had not only no objection, but in justification of himself on this most important subject, he thought it necessary that there should be no secret, no concealment as to what had been done by himself and the Government, and in fact, he should make the dispatches public, not only to satisfy the public, but in order to show that he at least had a proper sense of the duties imposed upon him.
Mr. Bainessaid, that the answer was perfectly satisfactory.
Subject dropped.

TITHES (IRELAND.)
Lord J. Russellmoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Tithes (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. D. Brownerose, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, to move, that the bill be read that day six months. He threw himself upon the indulgence of the House, and he hoped that it would grant to him its attention for a very short period. In the first place, he seldom intruded upon it; and, secondly, he was forced to do so by a conscientious conviction that he had a public duty to perform, from which he could not shrink, by the wish of his constituents, and by that distinct expression of public opinion throughout Ireland, which forced upon the minds of all the representatives from that country a far

649
different consideration of this measure than that proposed in the bill suggested by her Majesty's Government. He most unaffectedly assured the House, that he despaired of obtaining their attention when he considered how disproportionate his own abilities were to the magnitude of the question he presumed to entertain, and when this painful reflection arose in his mind; that however important any Irish question might be, as affecting in its abstract principle, the social happiness of that country, it did not on that account so much obtain the attention of the House as it did in consideration of how far it might be a matter of party trial to persons contending for place, and in consideration of the adventitious circumstance of who might be the person who called to it the attention of the House. He particularly despaired of obtaining the attention of her Majesty's Government, when he recollected, that when a Gentleman placed immeasurably beyond him, of great talents, and enjoying the general esteem of all parties in that House, called upon the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to combat the arguments which he propounded, he was treated by that noble Lord with all the dignity of official indifference, the noble Lord leaving this impression on the country, that this matter no longer being a subject of party trial, only merely affecting the happiness of Ireland, was no longer worthy of the consideration of the leader of that House; but he would not shrink from his duty, as it particularly devolved upon him, on account of the extraordinary silence of the Irish Members, a silence which, when contrasted with the loud and distinct declarations of the inhabitants of that country, was singularly unaccountable, as he was of opinion that those Gentlemen should either declare to their constituents, that they differed from them in opinion, or manfully avow an acquiescence in those opinions to that House. He, however, could not pursue that course, but he must denounce this bill as pregnant with evil, and declare that the secession of her Majesty's Government from their professions, was calculated to deprive them of the confidence of the people of Ireland. He took the speech of the noble Lord, the representative of the Irish Government in that House, as the analytical apology of the rest of his colleagues. A speech more unsatisfactory to Ireland, or
650
to those who wished that the character of the present Administration should be maintained, he had never heard. He wondered that the noble Lord had not the prudence to remain silent. The gist of the noble Lord's speech was, that he still adhered to his opinions with respect to appropriation, but that he would carry a bill, bereft of that principle. Now, he (Mr. Browne) thought, that when the opinions of a statesman were not made the elements of his political conduct, they were of no value to any one but himself, and that it was not prudent in a Minister of the Crown to declare, that he was about to act contrary to his avowed convictions. The noble Lord had stated, that he passed this bill, because it would tranquillize Ireland. This was the question at issue, and this assertion had become the most perfect "petitio principii" he had ever heard: He would ask the noble Lord, from what demonstration of public opinion in Ireland, favourable to that bill, had he come to this conclusion? And as excitement in that, or any other country, must arise out of the popular impulse, it was only by such a demonstration, he could arrive at such a conclusion. He held in his hand a summary of the proceedings of different meetings held in Ireland, comprehending more than a million of human beings, where not a single sentiment favourable to this bill, had been recorded, and where the united voice of the country had exclaimed against this unnatural compromise. He would not trespass on the time of the House by reading the entire of these resolutions; he would slightly advert to one or two, emanating from the most important meetings. On the 1st of July, at a meeting of the counties of Kilkenny, Wexford, Kildare, and Carlow, 150,000 persons present, Mr. T. Boyse, of Bannow, a Protestant gentleman, of the highest respectability, in the chair, it was resolved, that nothing short of a total abolition of tithes, would satisfy the Irish people, and that after the proposed reduction of thirty per cent., they would seek for thirty per cent, more, and afterwards for thirty more; and even should the residue of ten per cent., being a tithe of the tithe, remain, they would still resist its payment by every legal and constitutional means. At a meeting of twenty-two parishes, South Wexford, where upwards of 50,000 persons assembled, similar resolutions were passed, and it was

651
resolved, and he would call the serious attention of the Government to this resolution, "That should the present Session of Parliament terminate, and the petitions of the Irish people, with respect to tithes, remain unheeded, they should consider themselves justified in having recourse to the most stringent measures to relieve themselves from that unjust impost, and to abstain from the use of exciseable commodities, if the Session were allowed to pass without a final arrangement of the question." This resolution reminded him of resolutions which were passed in 1775 in Massachusetts, which were then unheeded by a Ministry, as wise in their generation and as capable of calculating the progress of coming events as the present. Yet America had separated from this country. He would not pursue the allusion. In every part of Ireland, similar meetings had been held, denouncing a compromise, and calling for the total abolition of tithes; yet the noble Lord felt justified in stating, that this bill would tranquillize the country. He widely differed from the noble Lord; he should like to know, where the noble Lord found, at the present time, or at any time antecedent to it, the slightest shade of popular thought extended to this measure. The people never expressed a single sentiment even in favour of the loudly-trumpeted appropriation clause. When that principle was made the corner stone of an Administration then dear to the people of Ireland—when it was made the sine quâ non of their political existence—when the hon. member for Dublin was prudently silent with respect to the total abolition; and, above all, when the hostility of the Tories to appropriation, was likely to endear it to the people of Ireland, the people of that country repudiated the paltry compromise, and asserted their national dignity in asserting their national consistency. The principle of total abolition wears upon it the strength of a century; it has been cemented by oppression; it received since 1829, an irresistible vitality from religious tolerance; and were we to be told by the noble Lord, that this impotent measure would eradicate that principle from the minds of the people? The noble Lord said, that thrice they scaled the perilous breach, and thrice they were defeated, and that was a reason they should desist from their undertaking. Was such a principle to guide men in any physical or mental enterprise? Was it with
652
such a spirit, that the barons of England wrested from the tyrant John, the charter of their liberties—was it with such a spirit they obtained their Habeas Corpus, and Bill of Rights? Was it with such a spirit, that many a gallant and hon. Member of that House passed the fatal ditch at Badajos? Was it with such a spirit, the hon. Member for Dublin raised his powerful voice in defence of the liberties of his country, when, in 1799, the walls of the Royal Exchange were lined with an armed soldiery? And was it with such a spirit, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, propounded his scheme of reform to a listless House of Commons, and did not desist until he accomplished that great measure, which will hand down to posterity the noble name of the house of Russell, associated with credit and honour with the history of the country? He would wish to be instructed by what defined opinion of statesmen was this principle of timidity to be recommended. The noble Lord was reported to have said,
"He could not propose to that House to agree to certain amendments, because a large majority of the other House did not agree to their propositions. He knew full well on another subject, now a matter of history, on the matter of the contest between this country and America, from its beginning those who contended for justice to America, were scarcely at any time more than a fourth part of that House. He had been told by a near relative of his own, that he divided with Lord Chatham when there were only four persons in the House, who so divided in favour of conciliatory measures. It was not, therefore, because there were large majorities in favour of a system, that the House ought to yield to such majorities. He was sure, if the House of Commons should, as it did in the American war, concur in acts of oppression and misrule in respect to Ireland, they would, in the end, be compelled to avow, that their measures had been inefficacious, and endeavour again to repair their error by a tardy, and perhaps ineffectual submission. Let the House, however, reject those measures, and it would be to the people of Ireland what this assembly ought to be."
Such were the sentiments of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in 1836, when the Lords' amendments to the Irish Corporation Bill were brought down to that House. He would ask the noble Lord, was he prepared to use similar sentiments, when certain amendments should again be brought

653
down for the consideration of the House of Commons? If he did so, they would contradict the timid declaration of the Secretary for Ireland, and be worthy of that high character for consistency, which distinguished the noble Lord in his advocacy of reform. But he heard it said, that consistency was not, in the opinion of modern statesmen, a quality necessary to a Government; that the great principle which should guide modern Administrations, was that of expediency; and what would the country say was the meaning of the word?—that it was expedient to keep themselves in office. He thought, that men could not lose their political consistency, yielding to no impression from without, without a certain loss of political character. He did not mean to say, that they should adhere to the same opinions, when the country disagreed with them, for as all legislation should reflect the opinions of the community, and as those opinions were subject to change with time, the mind of the Legislature must keep pace with time. But when men seceded from principles, which, at one period, they considered to be the essential quality of their political existence, without any external change, they did that which was dangerous as an example, and calculated to annihilate their political reputation. He should be told, that this was a factious speech, that it was dangerous under any consideration to disturb the executive: he could not assent to that proposition, which preferred executive good to legislative good, or rather, to he should say, executive harmlessness; for the merit of the present Administration lay more in abstinence from doing evil, than in any positive good they had effected. He disagreed with that declaration, for those who controlled the powers of legislation would soon wield the sword of the executive, and this was the case at present. The Whigs administered—and the Tories dictated, the laws. It was an evident proposition that if matters were allowed to continue, an increasing Conservative constituency in England, a decreasing reform one in Ireland, that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, must come into office; and as they would come in through the weakness of the reform party, that the sooner they did so the better, for the more strength the Reformers would have left to resist them. The reason he dissented from the present measure was, that it would
654
either fasten tithes for ever upon the Catholics of Ireland, or create a servile war betwixt landlord and tenant. The latter was the more likely consequence to ensue, and he was told, that that should be an inducement to accept the bill—that landlord and tenant, suffering a mutual inconvenience, would unite for their total abolition. Now, as this could only be procured by a resistance to rent, and the collisions consequent, he must say, that it was a most unholy means of arriving at an end. As to its fastening tithes upon the people of Ireland, if this social irruption did not take place, it was equally as true. It might be said, that after the expiration of present leases, the tenants would be relieved from the payment of tithes, but what quantity of blood might be shed in the mean time! You would not, then, have men subdued by the feelings of religion, who had other sources to look to in the religious zeal of the community, seeking the tenth of the produce of the soil, but you would have those in whom the whole right of the soil existed, with a spirit inflamed by evil passions, exasperated by a denial of the whole of those rights. And even if the leases were to expire to-morrow, this bill must necessarily fasten the tithe upon the Catholic soil of Ireland, for no Catholic hereafter who by industry might have acquired the means to purchase property, could purchase it in Ireland, without having attached to it this degrading impost. He was told that 25 per cent. was a boon and ought to be an inducement to accept this measure. That might be the case if it were a pecuniary inconvenience which the people of Ireland suffered in the payment of tithes: but it was not so; if it was, the inconvenience of paying rent would be felt greater in the same proportion as the rent exceeded tithe. This was proved by the fact of nearly all the tithe sufferers having paid their rent. It might be said, that the peculiar method of collection procured that inconvenience, but that he denied; for take an acre of land paying 20 s. rent, and 2s. tithe, you would say that the inconvenience arose from the peculiar mode of collecting the 2s. tithe. It did not so arise; it was voluntarily submitted to, when we considered that the 20 s. had been paid, for if the tithe defaulter had commenced with the 2s. the inconvenience could not exist. He would state one instance which could be multiplied by a

655
thousand, and which would distinctly prove that it was not a pecuniary inconvenience the people of Ireland suffered. In Longford, there was a bill filed by the rev. Mr. Digby for tithes due of the annual amount of twopence halfpenny. The tithe defaulter resisted, and afterwards compromised his costs for 50 l. Take this proposition:—Suppose two parties of equal means, one liable to a larger, the other to a smaller amount of tithes, both resisting under the old law. Suppose the new law placed the man liable to the larger amount on a level with the man liable to the smaller amount under the old law; the man liable to the smaller amount having resisted before, why not suppose the man reduced to his level to resist under the present bill, or supposing the deduction to be the relief required, why did the man liable to the smaller amount resist under the old law? As long, therefore, as a fraction of it remained, encumbering the soil of Ireland, the same resistance would exist; for it was a political repugnance, which existed in the minds of the people to contribute to a Church from which they derived no spiritual benefit, and which was hostile to their country. He wished that tithes should be subject to a revaluation, and disposed of to the first estate of inheritance; that out of the fund created existing interests should be provided for, and in future, that the voluntary system should be introduced. He advocated this conscientiously, as he could not recognize any human or divine right to tithes. The Church had no right which the history of Protestantism did not prove, that the constitution could disturb. He invited any man entertaining a contrary opinion, to tarry in any town in England, and to enter any cathedral, and he would have, wherever he fixed his eye, a grim evidence of the mutability of the possessions of the Church. Let him enter into that Gothic temple, where a late pageant reminded him so strongly of Catholicism; where ceremonies were borrowed from the Vatican, to place the crown of England on the defendress of the faith; let him enter it, and when he heard the service of a new religion chanted in a new tongue, let him reflect that there once the Te Deum rose to heaven, and that there once chanting the sacred liturgy of the dead, according to the ritual of the Church of Rome, the sacred choir followed the dust of England's proudest monarchs
656
to their last repositories; let him reflect, and he would find in all around him an incontestable evidence of the mutability of the possessions of the Church, and the power of the constitution to devote them to what purposes they pleased. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his amendment to the House.
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment. He maintained still, as he had always done, that no attempts to settle the tithe question in Ireland could be successful which did not include the principle of the appropriation of its surplus revenues. Divested of this principle the present bill must prove a mere delusion.
Viscount Ebringtonhad ever considered that the existence of a Church Establishment in Ireland so disproportionate to the wants of the community was a stain and a disgrace on the institutions of the country; and he should have found great difficulty in bringing himself to support the measure if he thought that it would tend to prevent that reduction of the Church Establishment which at no very distant period he hoped to see accomplished. With respect to the principle of appropriation, if in the present state of things he saw any prospect of carrying that principle into operation—no consideration should induce him to acquiesce in a bill which did not include it. But if the struggle against tithes were still to go on, notwithstanding this bill, the burden would be on the shoulders of those who were much better able to bear it, and who, he hoped, would carry on the war with effect. He should support this measure, therefore, not as the best which he could wish to be carried into effect, but as the best which the present state of parties held out a hope of obtaining.
Mr. Wardsaid, that parties were of no value in the State unless they persisted in carrying out the great principles by which they had been united; and he regretted to see the noble Lord, who deservedly stood so high in the country, giving his sanction to such a measure as the present, and which he, for one, could never consent to. He agreed with the noble Lord, the Secretary of War, that palliatives could never avail; and though he had supported the appropriation principle, from a belief that it was calculated to conciliate the support of all parties in this country, one advantage was to be gained from its present abandonment—

657
that it drove them to look at the root of the evil, and convinced all candid men that they never could expect to settle the question of the Irish Church without reducing its revenues to the wants of its members. As he had so often troubled the House with his sentiments, he merely rose to enter his valedictory protest against the bill.
Sir W. Somervillesaid, that the objections of the Roman Catholics to tithes did not so much rest on the amount of the sum which was levied from them in the shape of a tax, as on their conscientious abhorrence of contributing to the support of a Church from which they dissented. He asked whether this bill would not be the means of appropriating twenty-five per cent. of the Church revenue in the very worst manner in which it could be appropriated, namely, by putting it into the pockets of the landlords? Why not apply this surplus of twenty-five per cent. which the bill proved they had at their disposal to the object of satisfying the wants of the people under the Poor-law Bill? There never was a more unjust anomaly than that which the present state of the Irish Church presented. He knew an excellent man—a clergyman in his own neighbourhood—who had to serve his own tithe processes on his Catholic parishioners, who amounted to thousands, whilst the Protestants numbered only six. He firmly believes, that this measure, even as a palliative, would fail; and he frankly avowed that, believing as he did that there never would be peace, tranquillity, or happiness, in Ireland until the Church was placed on its proper footing, he should assist his fellow-countrymen by every means in his power in their efforts to get rid of this monstrous burden. Why should he struggle for the Irish Church as it at present stood, when he knew that, looking at it in a political point of view, it had endangered the union between the two countries, and in its social effects it had disorganised the whole frame of society. Then, as to its religious character, he firmly believed, as a Protestant, that if the Legislature had contrived a plan to prevent the spread of Protestantism, they could not have hit upon any instrument more effectual for their purpose than this Established Church, which had not at the present time, and never had, a parallel in the civilised world. Unless this question was settled in the manner
658
which common sense pointed out, all efforts to direct the industry and energy of the Irish people into the channels of trade, manufactures, and commerce, would prove ineffectual. But if the Legislature were once to settle the question on rational grounds, he did not think, that five years, or half five years, would elapse before hon. Gentlemen opposite would be surprised at their blindness in so long resisting the extension of those rights and privileges which, to be useful, must tend to cement all classes, and which must always be dangerous when confined to a small class of the country. Notwithstanding his opinions of the imperfection of the bill, he would support it for the sake of peace.
Mr. Grotedid not feel justified in giving his vote without stating, in a very few words, the reasons which induced him to give his support to the amendment. He knew it was quite impossible to say anything new on the question of Irish tithes; and if there was any novelty in the present debate, it was owing to the discrepancy which was to be traced between the premises and the conclusions of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in support of this bill. He was quite sure it was impossible to make a more convincing or effective speech than that delivered by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and by what means he brought himself to support a measure from which he stated his conviction it was impossible to derive any good, was more than he could imagine. The noble Lord, the Member for North Devonshire, too, prophesied the entire failure of this measure. It would, he said, be the means of transferring the payment of tithes from the weaker class to the more powerful, and he anticipated from the change only increased odium to the existing constitution of the Irish Church. Now, he disapproved of the Irish Church as much as any man could do; he had been as unreserved as any man could be in the expression of his abhorrence of the monstrous principle, and the equally monstrous effects of that establishment, yet he must say, that if he believed, that the indirect effect of a bill, and not intended by those who proposed it, was to produce increased hostility to the Establishment, he should not, for that reason, be willing to give it his support, if to the principles contained in it he had a conscientious objection. Very possibly this bill might

659
strengthen, in the minds of the Irish and of the English people, the objections now so strongly and so justly entertained to the Irish Church; but that would supply no reason to his mind for assenting to a bill which contained principles that he could not sanction. The hon. Member for Kilkenny, who seconded the amendment, excluded from his objections to the bill the grant of money which was proposed. On that point he could not agree with his hon. Friend; for, looking at the grant of money as an integral part of the bill, he must say, that, amongst his other objections, that occupied a most conspicuous place. He held the grant objectionable on the score of principle, both with reference to the state of the Treasury, and as to its mischievous effects on the minds of the Irish population. It was in vain, that he and other Members entered their protest the other night, in the hope of excluding from the bill this most mischievous provision. But since their efforts had been unavailing, and the grant remained in the bill, he felt compelled to say, that if he had no other reasons against it, that would form a conclusive reason against his voting for the measure in its present shape. He did not mean to say, that if a plan for the settlement of the Irish Chnrch question were proposed, founded on just principles, and which he believed would prove final and satisfactory, that he should object to a certain payment from the English Treasury, asked with such a view. And he was quite certain, that however strict the views of economy of any Gentleman on his side of the House might be, he would not object to a grant which would clearly have the effect of closing a wound which had been so long left bleeding. But it was to him a strange and painful phenomenon, that every Gentleman who spoke in favour of this bill confessed it would not effect the object for which his support was given. Even its advocates predicted no good consequences from it. It was as much as they—it was as much as any man could say, that it would be the means of postponing the litigation and disputes which now prevailed, the sources of the differences being still left open, with an acknowledged expectation of the same contests being renewed in a very short time. He could not conceive how the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, who had made a speech the other night which he
660
recollected with the greatest satisfaction, and in which he admitted, that the difficulties of the Irish Church were only adjourned, without any one of them being settled by this bill, could give his consent to so dear a purchase by the people of England of a mere hollow truce. He refrained from making any allusion to the principle of appropriation, and although he must confess, that the altered tone perceptible on that side of the House with regard to that question did indeed afford a melancholy proof of the way in which great principles were made subservient to party purposes, and although he thought history would record this as one of the most discreditable instances of tergiversation, yet he thought it useless at the present time to attempt to impart interest to a subject which had been consigned by both sides to oblivion. But seeing, that this bill would impose a large charge on the people of England; seeing, that it did not settle any of the disputes or difficulties of the Irish tithe question; and seeing, that it left the main anomaly not only without correction, but without mitigation, he should give his decided opposition to this measure, and register his vote for the amendment.
Mr. M. J. O'Connell: Although he agreed in most of the sentiments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, yet, as an Irish representative, and a well-wisher to Ireland, he felt justified in voting for the third reading of this bill; and he did so on this simple principle, that whilst he believed it would effect great temporary good, no future mischief could possibly result from it. He owned he was surprised at the charge of inconsistency launched, not only against her Majesty's Ministers, but against a large body of their supporters, on the ground of their having abandoned the appropriation principle. And he must complain, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had not quoted correctly the resolution of 1835. His hon. Friend read the words as if they ran, "no settlement can take place;" whereas they really were, that "no final and satisfactory settlement could be arrived at, which did not involve the principle of appropriation. Now, did any Member of her Majesty's Government, did any Member at this side of the House, or did the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) pretend that the present proposal was meant as a "final and satisfactory" adjustment of

661
this most important question? When he heard that question answered in the affirmative, he should admit, that the charges of inconsistency so freely dealt out against those who, though they supported the appropriation clause, felt bound not to negative the present bill, were well founded. His hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. D. Browne) knowing, he supposed, that a distinguished foreigner (Marshal Soult) was that night in their gallery, seemed fired by his presence with unwonted ardour, and insisted that, whilst they had the principle of appropriation to fight for, they should never desist, however repulsed from the breach, or however diminished in numbers, until they perished in the attempt. It struck him at the time his noble Friend was delivering this strong appeal, that the quotation might not unnaturally have occurred to him,
"Of the three hundred grant but three
To make a new Thermopylæ."
He did not see, that there was anything unmanly in not struggling for a principle which was at present unattainable, nor did he consider it inconsistent with honesty and public spirit to take a measure as good as he could get, because it was not as comprehensive as he could wish. There was no use in concealing the fact, that such was the excitement generated by resisting the rational demands of the people, that the appropriation principle, which would have given satisfaction in 1835, would be treated with scorn in 1838. The sentiments expressed at those meetings to which his hon. Friend referred, were equally condemnatory of this bill and of the measure which his hon. Friend blamed the Government for having abandoned. Though he did not think the people of England were totally free from blame in the apathy, or he should, perhaps, rather say, in the religious prejudice, which their conduct exhibited on this question, the affirmation of the principle of appropriation was now rendered useless, so far as the demands of the Irish people were concerned. He knew what pains had been taken to disseminate unworthy prejudices in the minds of the English people. Like Scrub in the play, when those who pandered to narrow-minded bigotry, and uttered the cry of "murder" and "thieves," had failed, they raised that of "popery." There was no
662
doubt, that that cry had been raised throughout every part of the country, and the opposite benches testified how well it had succeeded. But as he was convinced, that the people of England were a rational and thinking people, he had no fear, that they would remain permanently wedded to error, but common sense and justice must soon resume that sway which it seemed they now unfortunately did not hold over their minds. There were two things which tended especially to point out the enormous injustice of the Irish Established Church; one was, that its revenues were on a scale befitting the church of a nation, and the other, that it was devoted to the service of a minority. And of what minority? Of the ignorant of the destitute, and of the hard-working classes, who had not the means of supplying themselves with religious instruction? No, but of those who incessantly and almost insultingly boasted, that they were, to a great extent, the aristocracy of the country, that they constituted a majority amongst the squirearchy, that in the magistracy they greatly preponderated, that in the learned professions they had more than their share, and that amongst the merchants, traders, and more comfortable artisans, they were also to be found in considerable numbers. This, then, was the minority as described by themselves for whose exclusive benefit a church of extravagant revenues was supported. He did believe, that when the people of England came calmly to reflect on this anomaly, and to consider in what circumstances the other religions in Ireland were placed, this state of things could not long endure. He was delighted to hear the manly expression of sentiment on the religious consequences of the present state of the Irish from the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Somerville). He fully participated in the hon. Baronet's belief as a Protestant, that no system could be devised which would more effectually check the progress of the Protestant religion. It had been said by the hon. and learned Sergeant, the Member for Bandon, that the demands of the clergy fell short of their rights. About a century ago the question of tithe agistment was raised in the Irish Parliament, and he had extracted from the journals a few passages, which showed how the result, of which the hon. and learned Sergeant complained, was brought about. The first was as follows:—

663
"December 6, 1735. Petition complaining of the new demand for agistment tithes referred to a Committee, who on the 22d December reported 'that the allegations were proved.
"March 5, 1735 (O. S.). Petition of Samuel Low and others, also referred to a committee, and, on the 18th March, report made, 'that the petitioners have fully proved the allegations of their petition to the satisfaction of the Committee, and deserve the strongest assistance the House can give them."
These and two other resolutions were agreed to, and the following resolution—
"That the commencing suits upon these new demands must impair the Protestant interest, by driving many useful hands out of this kingdom; must disable those that remain to support his Majesty's establishment, and occasion popery and infidelity to gain ground, by the contest that must necessarily arise between the clergy and laity"—
was carried on a division, 110 voting for it, and only 50 against it. And this resolution was carried by a House of Commons, which gave decisive proof of its Protestantism by resolving, on the 16th December, 1735, nemine contradicente,
"That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, setting forth, that the reversal of the outlawries of persons attainted for treason in the rebellions of 1641 and 1688, or the enabling any of them, or their descendants, to sue those Protestants who have purchased estates forfeited by those rebels under several Acts of Parliament, will be dangerous to his Majesty's person and Government, and the succession in his royal house, and highly prejudicial to the Protestant interest of this kingdom."
As the land, however, ceased to be used for grazing, and agriculture advanced, the resistance to tithes increased, and the incomes of the clergy became proportionably diminished. Even in the provinces in which Protestantism prevailed most, there were so many cases of pluralists, sinecurists, overpaid rectors, and underpaid curates, that he could not abstain from mentioning a few to the House. The hon. Gentleman read the following list:—
"The Rev. Charles Le Poer Trench, rector, Dunleer Union, diocese Armagh, 531 l. 17 s. 1½d. Population of Union, Protestants of Established Church, 289; Roman Catholics, 4,925; Protestant dissenters, 1. Also rector of Athenry, diocese Tuam, 902 l. 15 s. 0½d.; Established Church, 170; Roman Catholics, 7,454. Has also two prebends, Faldown, worth 92 l. 3s. 4d.; Ballywoulta, 21 l. 3s. 1d. Non-resident in both benefices, being vicar-general of Clonfert,
664
where he lives; has a curate in each benefice, and pays each 69 l. 4s. 7½d.
"Rev. Charles Cobbe Beresford, rector of Termon M'Guiske, diocese of Armagh, 1,267 l. 6s. 10½d.; Established Church, 1,722; Roman Catholics, 8,249; Presbyterians, 941; parish contains 41,000 acres. Rectory of Killesher, diocese of Kilmore, 1,211 l. 3s. 10 d.; Established Church, 2,457; Roman Catholics, 2,641; contains 21,000 acres. Two curates in Termon M'Guiske, 75 l. each; one in Killesher (where rector does not reside) 83 l. 1s. 6½d.
"Rev. William Athill, rector of Findouagh, diocese of Clogher, 828 l. 6s. 11 d.; Established Church, 3,519; Roman Catholics, 7,084; Presbyterians, 1,400. Also rector of Magheracalmoney, same diocese, 575 l. 15 s. 5½d.; Established Church, 3,586; Roman Catholics, 3,298. Resides in latter parish, and has one curate at 80 l.; in Findonagh one curate at 60 l. a-year, and forty acres of land rent free."
Resistance to tithes, continued the hon. Gentleman, was not confined to the Roman Catholic districts of Ireland, but had extended to the Presbyterian and Protestant North, in proof of which it was only necessary for him to remind the House of the case, which had lately appeared in the newspapers. (The hon. Member quoted a case brought before the Court of Exchequer, Dublin, in which the defendants, in a tithe process, were Presbyterians.)
He felt satisfied, that these facts, when they came to be known, would produce an impression on the minds of the people of England, and enlist their feelings of fair play in favour of the claims of the Irish nation to a reform of these enormous and crying abuses. It might be asked, what remedy could be devised for these evils? The Roman Catholic Members of the House were often taunted for wishing the church to which they belonged to share in the emoluments of the Protestant Church establishment. As a member of the Roman Catholic church himself, he begged distinctly to state, that there was nothing to which he should so strongly object as to see that church placed in the invidious position of deriving its support from a State provision. He wished it to be understood, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland repudiated any connexion whatever between their church and the State. Then came the question of whether there ought to be any appropriation of the funds of the Protestant Established Church other than that which was now made. For his own part, he was decidedly in favour of what was called the voluntary principle;

665
but, at the same time, he was strongly of opinion, that if a portion of the enormous revenues of the Established Church were applied to the purposes of general education in Ireland, agitation in that country would cease, and religious tranquillity be for the first time established. Unless something of that kind were done, he was satisfied, that the days of the Established Church in Ireland would be numbered.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the question we are now called on to discuss is this—whether we ought to vote for the third reading of this bill, or whether we should consent to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Mayo. That amendment proposes to postpone the bill for the period of six months, and this is, in my mind, tantamount to a declaration, that the attempt that has been made for the settlement of the tithe question has altogether failed, and that there is no prospect whatever of our coming to an agreement upon any satisfactory principle upon which the future settlement of the tithe question can be made. This appears to me to be the effect of the amendment proposed to the House, and the proposition which this House would affirm by adopting that amendment. Now, then, Sir, the bill before the House contains two enactments, in both of which I concur. In the first place I fully concur in the future conversion of the tithe into a rent-charge. In the next place I fully confer in the transfer of the pecuniary burthen of tithe from the occupiers, who, in general, are Roman Catholics, to the proprietors and landlords, who, in general, are of the Protestant persuasion. I concur also—and concur most fully—in that enactment of the present bill, which sets at rest—and sets at rest for ever—the whole question of arrears; and so far as the operation of the bill is concerned, I think that setting aside the question of arrears, which might remain as an element of discontent, is, in itself, a very great advantage. Entertaining, then, those opinions with respect to the present bill, I find it impossible to assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Mayo. Now, let me ask the House, if we consented to take that course, what would be the consequence? Why, this—if we rejected this bill, we should leave the tithe question not only in the state in which it has been for the last five years, but in even a far worse state; for, after the declaration of Parliament, rejecting
666
this bill, you would altogether exclude the prospect of any satisfactory settlement of the question whatever. From the views which have been expressed at the other side of the House in opposition to this bill, I am unable to infer anything definite. One hon. Member gets up and says, that he feels bound to oppose the present bill, because he is anxious to have this question settled upon rational grounds. Another gets up and says, that he will never consent to have this question settled upon any but a just principle. They deliver themselves thus of vague and indefinite generalities, but they will not condescend to tell us what they mean when they talk of having the question set at rest upon rational grounds and upon just principles. Indeed, Sir, I am surprised at the course that has been taken, and the ground on which the opposition to the third reading of this bill has been assumed. I had hoped, considering the length of time during which this question has been agitated, that men who felt bound to oppose it, would have done so upon broad and intelligible grounds. But, instead of this, we are met with some vague generalities—the expression of a wish that the question should be settled upon rational grounds and upon just principles. I ask hon. Gentlemen, what they mean by these assertions? I can easily understand those who express a definite opinion. One hon. Member stated, that he would be satisfied with no settlement short of the application of the voluntary system. Now, I thank that hon. Gentleman for the candid and practical declaration of his opinion. I believe, that in the candid avowal of his, no doubt, sincere opinions, that hon. Gentleman will do more to place the question on intelligible grounds than those who dissent from everything they hear proposed, and ask nothing more definite than the settlement of the question upon just and rational principles. With respect to the principle of appropriation, about which so much has been said this evening, I shall say nothing whatever. I know full well, how easy it might be to raise impediments of pride, which might prevent any settlement of the question at all. I will merely say, that I have always thought, and still think, the adoption of that principle, in any legislative measure, is, in every way, calculated to prevent a practical settlement of this question. In referring to what took place in 1835, the settlement was then re-

667
sisted, because one of the principles on which it was founded, was the appropriation principle; and I must say, that I am more and more convinced, by every successive debate on this question, of the justice and propriety of the course which I took in resisting the appropriation principle. I ask you, who resist the present bill, and demand the settlement of this question on just principles, to say, whether you now consider the appropriation principle a just principle. The hon. Member for Sheffield had said, that principles ought not to vary with the position of parties, whatever they might do with the lapse of years? You tell me, that the appropriation principle would be rejected by the people of Ireland now as worse than useless, and I ask you to say, would that principle, which you tell me now would be rejected, have been just three years ago? In what did the justice of your principle three years ago consist? One of the grounds on which this bill is objected to is, that the settlement cannot be satisfactory, inasmuch as that the Church of the minority is greatly overpaid, as compared with the Church of the majority. Now, supposing this, how is it possible that, according to the views you express, you could have effected a settlement by deducting a limited sum from the revenues paid for the maintenance of that Church, and appropriating an indefinite surplus, at an indefinite period, on the grounds set forth at the time? Now, how can you assert, after what has since keen stated, that such an arrangement would have given satisfaction? Where was the binding nature of the compact? What would there be still, even after having adopted that principle, to prevent the hon. Members opposite, or any other hon. Member, from attempting to establish the voluntary principle? I showed you, that it was a delusive settlement. By deducting one-fifth, you acknowledged the principle, that you still retained, what were called enormous revenues, for the support of the Church of the minority. Now, was this calculated to strengthen the Church? Would the hon. Member for Kilkenny acquiesce in that course? It was on the ground that I have stated, that I felt bound to resist the appropriation principle. I cannot understand those who say, they are anxious for a settlement of this question, and yet propose to reject this bill. I think some settlement of this question
668
necessary, and, upon that ground, I give my consent to the present bill. I cannot understand public men who say, that they will support this bill, because they hope that it will increase the evils of the Church. I think it would be better for the noble Lord to resist the measure altogether, than support it on the ground that it was calculated to accumulate the evils of the Church. I think, indeed, that it would be better for the noble Lord to resist the bill, if he had made up his mind that the present arrangement was calculated to entail upon the Church more evils than those under which it already suffers. Neither can I understand the course pursued by the hon. Member for Drogheda. That hon. Gentleman says, "You may pass this bill, and I, as a member of the Established Church, will not originate any subsequent agitation; but if my poorer neighbours shall think fit to renew agitation, they shall have my co-operation." I can understand his scruples as a member of the Established Church against the commencement of agitation, but I cannot understand his feelings when he says, that if persons, influenced by motives in which he has no participation, shall commence agitation, he will not only not lend his assistance in quelling that agitation, but that it shall have his co-operation. When the hon. Gentleman says, that his whole object in supporting this bill is to put down agitation, I confess I cannot understand the meaning of this public notice, that if the peasantry shall think fit to recommence agitation, they may know where to find a colleague. Sir, this bill, which we are now called on to read for the third time, includes three enactments—first, that Irish tithes shall be converted into a rent-charge, this enactment to be applied universally, wherever the case may require it; secondly, the arrears of the million are to be remitted; and, thirdly, it deals with the existing arrears, which are not covered by the million, and provides that a grant shall be made by Parliament of 300,000 l., by which grant that class of arrears shall be altogether extinguished. Concurring, as I do, so much in some parts of this bill, and deeply anxious as I am to see this Session close with some successful attempt at the adjustment of tithes on just principles—the principles of relieving the occupying tenant, and transferring the charge to the landlords of Ireland—no opposi-

669
tion I could give to a single clause would induce me to withhold my assent to the third reading. I think, as I said before, it would amount to a Parliamentary declaration that, after five years of anxious consideration, the adjustment of Irish tithes was found to be impracticable; and that attempts for the recovery of tithes must be immediately renewed, as all hope of assistance from Parliament was hopeless. In my opinion, also, the evil would be greatly aggravated by the late approximation of opposing parties, and the failure of their united efforts. For these reasons, nothing but the strongest objections to parts of the Bill at this late period, would induce me to abandon the hope of seeing it become law. But the bill before the House being very much in conformity with that which I supported on a former occasion, and as I feel that the settlement of the tithe question has not been at all affected by anything that has occurred, since I am naturally disposed to view with favour the adjustment of the tithe question in the present case. For these reasons, I shall support the third reading, and most earnestly resist the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite. There is one enactment of the bill, however, to which I do not assent. The enactment to which I refer is that which provides, that on the grant of 300,000 l. being made, all claims for arrears of tithes on the occupying tenants shall cease. Since this bill was first introduced important modifications have been made, the first and most important of which, in my opinion, is, that whilst all claim on the instalments have been relinquished, and the occupying tenantry relieved from all obligation to pay the arrears, I think that the provision was founded in justice, and I cordially rejoice to see it incorporated in the bill. Another modification has been introduced into the enactment, which relates to the existing arrears. At first, the compensation granted was only intended to be in lieu of the arrears which have occurred within the last two years. I decidedly objected to that proposition, as I thought it most unjust that Parliament should interfere to prevent those to whom the arrears were due for the first four years receiving any compensation; and I believe the bill has been altered so as not to exclude that class of claimants from compensation. I do not say, that they are to receive an
670
equal compensation to those of the last two years, but a proportionate one for the arrears they are called on to abandon. By this means, the rights of no parties, whose claims are to be extinguished by the Legislature, will be called on to abandon those rights without at least some compensation. The state of the law will then be this—that all those who have commenced suits for the recovery of tithes before the 16th of July last, will have the option of continuing their law proceedings. With them, there shall be no interference; but, if they think fit to do so without payment of costs, they shall be entitled to their share of the compensation intended by the bill. I apprehend that is the right construction. The violence thus done, when it is done, is in that class of arrear not covered by previous advances out of the million, and in which the parties have not instituted suits for recovery. Now, I am bound to state and to maintain my opinion with respect to this. After my best consideration, I think that my proposal was the best in every respect. I think the proposal that gave an option to parties to accept the offer made by Government, or to enforce the law in cases where they thought fit, I think that proposal protected a great principle, and was every way better than the course which has been adopted. Sir, I admit, that there is considerable force in the argument of the noble Lord, in which he maintains that on the whole the option would not be very desirable. If the offer should be accepted by seven clergymen in each diocese, and the arrear insisted on by one, I am perfectly ready to admit, that his option would not be perfectly unrestricted, but at the same time we must recollect that in this case, although there might be moral obligation, there would be no legal compulsion. The principle would be maintained, so that in cases when the circumstances of the occupying tenant were as good as those of the landlord, in cases, for instance, when his rent amounted to 500 l. or 1,000 l. a-year, and where such tenant should prove contumacious the arrears might be recovered, I see no reason why Government, in such cases as these, should not reserve to itself the power of vindicating the authority of the law. By this means the other alternative, that of making past resistance effective, would be avoided. At the same time, having taken the sense of the House fairly on the subject, I have done all I

671
could to enforce my proposal by repeated argument; but I have been overruled by hon. Gentlemen opposite; nor have I the slightest reason to believe that, if I were again to propose it, I should meet with any better success. Supposing the optional principle, then, defeated, I certainly wish that Government, in adherence to their own principle, would adopt a course like this, that if they are determined to apply compulsion, and to deprive parties of their legal remedy, at the same time granting compensation, they should ascertain the full amount of arrears really due. Even suppose it is their intention to give but seventy-five per cent. on the amount of the arrears, or any other per centage, still it is necessary to ascertain the exact amount. I am perfectly willing to admit, that at this advanced period of the session there are many obstacles in the way of ascertaining the exact amount, and I deeply regret that we did not take the matter into consideration at an earlier period, as the arrangement would have been more satisfactory to all, if we had been enabled to know the amount of property with which we had to deal. I am bound to say there is great difficulty in coming to a satisfactory conclusion, and the hon. Gentleman opposite will recollect that when I resisted the exclusion of the clause as proposed by him I did so for the express purpose of closely considering the pecuniary claims of a party, which, in my opinion, was suffering grievous wrong, and which I was anxious to protect from any further injury. I have taken the best means within my reach to come to a right decision on this subject. I have had, unfortunately, to consider the question unassisted by the natural representatives of the Irish Church, and I can only say, that I have come to the best decision within the scope of my judgment for the individual interests of the Irish clergy, and the permanent interests of the Irish Church; and I now declare, in perfect unanimity with the opinions of those most interested, that from the many conflicting judgments and the extreme difficulty of the whole question, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of rejecting altogether the proposal of the Government. That proposal is, that all advances hitherto made from the million shall be remitted, and that a further sum of 300,000 l. shall be granted for the purpose of giving some compensation in lieu
672
of existing claims. Suppose I rejected the offer now made, I cannot foresee the course Government might take with respect to the remission of the instalments already paid. They might say, if the arrears are to be enforced, why not the instalments? I believe it might be competent to us, by uniting with such hon. Gentlemen opposite as entertain principles very different from mine, who object, on principle, to any grant on this question—I dare say that, by uniting with them, I might possibly have excluded the clause, and by deciding it should have determined that under no circumstances whatever should the assistance of the Treasury be offered for the settlement of tithe. I think that such exclusion would be tantamount to a declaration that Parliament positively refused all interposition. If, therefore, I had voted with the hon. Gentleman, as I might have done, I should formally and irrevocably have decided the question. [Mr. Hume: Not if you accede to the reform of the Church.] If the hon. Member mean by reform of the Church the abolition of sinecures where such exist; if he mean the abolition of pluralities on the system pursued in England; if by reform of the Church the hon. Member mean an equalization of incomes, all I can say is, that to all that I shall most willingly agree, in as far as it will not interfere with the integrity of what still remains of the property of the Church. More than that I will not consent to. But I will not consent to the alienation of Church property. I will not consent to any violation of the principle of an establishment—but this I will do, that if you prove to me that in Ireland there are districts where the working minister is badly paid, and that there are other districts in which he has too much, I will consent to equalization, and I shall do so with no other view than to effect what will best conduce to the spiritual and temporal interests of the Church. I will consent to what I call true reform, that is, such appropriation of the Church's revenues as shall make sure that in every district the wants of the Protestant population shall be adequately provided for. As I said before, if I excluded this clause I should for ever shut out the prospect of compensation, but by consenting to it I do not finally determine on its merits, but refer it to another branch of the Legislature, well competent to decide on questions in which

673
the Irish Church is concerned, and where that Church is fairly represented. That branch will decide this great question, whether the emergency is so urgent, or the circumstances so special, as, on the whole, to justify the violation of the principle of property. I will not shrink from frankly declaring my own opinion. I think, from what we know of the position of the Irish clergy, that, if this clause were now excluded, their situation would be extremely painful. I cannot exclude from my consideration the whole circumstances—I cannot exclude from it the position of the clergy with respect to Government—and I must say, that the opinions we have heard expressed by Members of the Government increase the difficulty. My own opinion is, that active interference on the part of Government, backed by a determination to enforce the law, would be completely effectual. But, at the same time, I cannot omit from my consideration that if Government does not entertain this opinion, and that some members of it profess an opposite principle, it will be exceedingly difficult to enforce the rights of the Church. Independently of this, I must consider the individual wants of the Irish clergy, and the permanent interests of the Church. If I reject this offer, I leave the clergy in this position—I shall have converted composition into rent-charge, and thus have implied on the part of the Legislature, that the present system is defective, and thus be throwing another obstacle in the way of recovery of arrears. I should be telling the clergy that all hope from the public funds was futile, and that, therefore, they had no other resource for the recovery of their arrears, but an immediate enforcement of the law. In cases where arrears have lain over for four years—observe, not in the cases where suits have been instituted—if I object now to any offer for the settlement of the question, I cannot conceal from myself, that in the South of Ireland, any attempt to enforce the tithe would be attended with extreme difficulty. So much for the individual interests of the clergy. For the general interests of the Church, I should say, that the new system admits conversion into rent charge, under circumstances most likely to prejudice those interests. In the north of Ireland the landlords have already undertaken the collection of tithes, so that it is in the south the new law will principally operate. In the south the
674
arrears are due. I should then have contemporaneously a conversion of composition into rent-charge, and a general appeal to the law. Under such circumstances I fear, that the prospect of a permanent settlement would be greatly diminished if I were to compel the clergy to resort to law. As I said before, I object to this provision. I wish it were more liberal—that it were possible for the noble Lord opposite to give a somewhat larger equivalent. I retain all my objection to the principles involved in this clause, namely the abandonment of legal right, and a refusal to enforce the law; but after conferring with those best qualified to judge, and having had no opportunity of conferring immediately with those interested, finding no one willing to take upon himself the responsibility of rejection, I am placed in the painful situation of being obliged to select amongst the numerous existing difficulties the one least pregnant with danger to the interests I am desirous to protect. I cannot, therefore, consent to the total exclusion of the clause from the bill—I cannot altogether abandon the hope of a pecuniary provision. I therefore consent to the clause, thinking that the principle is not finally determined by its adoption on the present occasion. I think I shall merely be giving time for further communication with Ireland, and enabling the other branch of the Legislature to determine what, on the whole, under existing circumstances, is best to be done with this question. Whether it would be better to leave the law as it stands, to give the parties their legal remedy but no compensation, or to accept for the Irish Church the Government proposal. I therefore will not oppose this clause. It would, perhaps, be more satisfactory for me to refrain from passing an opinion, but I never will take the plan of absenting myself from the House, and I therefore do not hesitate to say, that if the hon. Gentleman press his amendment I shall vote against it and in favour of the clause.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the right hon. Baronet had made two sweeping charges against those who opposed the bill, which it appeared to him incumbent on those who thought of it as he did to notice. It was a favourite remark, not only of the right hon. Baronet but also of the noble Lord the Member for Stroud (Lord J. Russell), that it was very easy for hon. Members to deal in general and

675
sweeping terms with any measure, that might be propounded by Government, yet that such persons were not to be regarded, nor their opinions heeded, either because they were ignorant of what constituted official responsibility, or were entirely ignorant of the country for whose interest it was proposed to legislate. If the latter reason were a sound one, then Irish Members would take no interest in English affairs, and English Members ought to retire when they were about to discuss Irish questions. [Sir R. Peel: I said nothing to that effect.] He had heard the remark in the course of the debate, and it was made in reference to himself; and he could only say, that it was unfortunate, that this discovery had not been made earlier in the Session, as it would have spared much time and much conflicting statement. But he would now refer to the two points thrown out by the right hon. Baronet. First the right hon. Baronet said, that those who opposed this bill were against any settlement of the question whatever; that they suggested no plan by which this important, because agitated question, could be set at rest. In reply to this, he would say, that it was enough for them to deal with the subject as it was presented to them; and that they were enough occupied in exposing the fallacies by which any object or principle brought forward was attempted to be supported. But he should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet consented to this bill, at the price of a million of money, because he thought it was a settlement of the tithe question? If he did so, the country would marvel much that the right hon. Baronet, who had taken such a prominent part in the government of the country, had never, with his facility of invention, stumbled upon the mercantile and mercenary project of settling this all-important subject by the bribe of a million of money. It was a very easy mode of legislation. But, said the right hon. Baronet, "nothing will satisfy those who oppose this bill but a recurrence to the voluntary principle." Now, he (Mr. Harvey) had never heard that assertion made in any quarter. It was true some of those who opposed the bill had expressed their attachment to the voluntary principle, believing, that it was best calculated to promote the object of christian truth; but he had never heard it propounded in that House, either with reference to the Irish or English Church.
676
The right hon. Baronet had said, "Show me any abuse in the Irish Church, and I will willingly support a measure to remedy it, and use my best endeavours to point out a means for its correction." But had the right hon. Baronet done so? [Sir R. Peel: Yes!] It was very true he had partially done so, but why did he not persevere? Why did not the right hon. Baronet now stand up and say, "I am prepared to give a million to settle this question, but I will not give any thing except in connection with that large christian scheme of amelioration which I think peculiarly called for by the present state of the Irish Church." But no—all that the right hon. Baronet was prepared to bring forward at a future period, and what he was now prepared to do was, to take the money—the only thing which distressed his mind being that the money did not go far enough. He believed, that every gentleman who with him were now opposing the third reading of this bill, would readily abandon the million of money as a moderate price to be paid for securing the great principle of appropriation. But they were not taking away merely a million, but were actually taking from the public resources three millions more. This bill proposed to forego four millions of public property. It proposed to give to the landlords of Ireland twenty-five per cent. of the tithe. That property either belonged to the Church or to the public. He contended, that it was public property. Twenty-five per cent. on 600,000 l. yearly was 150,000 l. yearly, which at twenty years' purchase produced three millions sterling. That money was to be put into the pockets of the Irish landlords; and yet the right hon. Baronet took credit to himself, as a champion of the Church and its interests, as being opposed to all appropriation. But this was appropriation. The noble Lord the Secretary at War, in a speech which it was impossible to praise too much, had intimated that it was not unlikely, that some endowment would hereafter be proposed for the clergy of the Catholic Church. Now, he had long thought, that the time might not be very distant when some experiment of this sort might be made; and, though some Gentlemen in that House who belonged to the Catholic Church might protest against such an experiment, yet he was not prepared to consider the Catholic priesthood so much purer than all other priesthoods as to infer, that they

677
would resist the temptation, however coy they might be in some of their advances to it, if it should be decidedly pressed upon them. But where would the Government find the funds? Would the landlords come forward and give up the twenty-five per cent. which was now proposed to be remitted to them? Supposing they should not, where would the money come from? They could not expect it from the Protestant clergy. No! it would come from neither quarter; but, for the sake of the peace of Ireland, and for putting down agitation, it would be suggested, that, as they had provided Catholic priests for Catholic criminals in gaols, so they ought to provide Catholie priests for Catholic christians elsewhere. As he had said, the other night, the subject was so large, it so opened all Ireland for discussion, that it was impossible for any individual, however much he might concentrate his views, within a fair period of time, to state all his objections to the provisions or the principle of this bill. He, however, had no hesitation in giving his objection to it on various grounds, but chiefly because it was thought that they could purchase the peace of Ireland by any payment of money. It would be harsh to suppose, that they could deal with that country in this vulgar manner. The people there were struggling, not against tithes, because of the money payment, which was trifling to all, but on account of the injustice of the establishment of a Church in the midst of a people, millions of whose numbers adhered to the faith of their fathers, and were adverse to its discipline and principles. He did not, therefore, fancy that this bill could, or ought to be satisfactory to the people of Ireland; they could scarcely expect that the detestation of that people could be thus controlled, and, that their claims would be quenched by the grant to defray claims, in themselves trivial. He was sure that he spoke within bounds when he said, that the tithes in England were five shillings per acre, and he also spoke within bounds, when he asserted, that in Ireland the tithes were under fifteen-pence an acre; in many places they were considerably less than one shilling, whilst in England, in many places, they were more than eight shillings. He denied, however, that the Catholics had greater reason to complain of the Established Protestant Church, than had the Dissenters in
678
England. He was not surprised that the Catholics should be opposed to the smallest payment to a Church, from the doctrine and discipline of which they dissented; but it was part of their discipline to support an establishment, and, if they could effect their wishes, an exclusive establishment. So the Scotch Presbytetians of a certain class had no right to complain, for they also advocated an establishment, and only dissented from this, because it was not their own. It was not so, however, with the Protestant Dissenters, they were against every establishment, whether of one class or the other; to a state Church of any sort they were alike opposed, and yet, it was with this class, composed of as many millions as the Catholics of Ireland, that they dealt most lightly. He thought that the nonconformists, the great depositories of steady morality in this country, and who were opposed to an establishment, ought to be considered relative to the imposition of burdens on account of the Irish Church, whilst they were denied the same advantage as they were conceding to the Catholics. These considerations all crowded upon his mind, and led him to think that they were not reflecting in their course as sound statesmen ought to do; but that to get rid of a transient difficulty, they were making a grant of English money, whilst they were laying a foundation, and establishing a principle, the extent of which they could not at present fathom. Heretofore the Conservatives had always held themselves out as the enemies of all misapplication, as they termed it, of the revenues of the Church to any but the one purpose of affording religious education to the people; they yet denounced the appropriation clause, which only gave the chance of procuring some 50,000 l., some fifty years hence, and still they were eager to support a bill which appropriated money to themselves, for he did not forget that he was addressing Irish landlords, and English landlords also, who would not disapprove of the application of the same principle. They would take twenty-five per cent. for themselves, and yet they talked of a grant of one million of money to tranquillise Ireland.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the charge which his right hon. Friend beside him had made against the hon. and learned Gentleman and those with whom he acted was, that it was easy for them to state

679
their objections to what they considered not to be a satisfactory adjustment of great political differences, and to raise abstract theories to oppose a question of great moment; and his right hon. Friend had said, it was easier for the hon. Gentleman to take this part than, like those in official situations, to bear responsibility, or, as the results of their conduct, to contemplate the benefit of the public. His right hon. Friend did not charge the hon. Gentleman with having spoken on questions with which he was not locally connected, or on which he had not obtained accurate means of information; but he confessed that if his right hon. Friend had made the last charge against the hon. Gentleman, the speech of that hon. Gentleman would have given a fair vindication for the charge. For he could attribute only to ignorance the hon. Gentleman's great and impartial misrepresentations of the conduct of both parties in the House on almost every part of the great questions before them. Whether he considered the hon. Gentleman's assertion, that the amount of tithes in England was five shillings per acre, or that the arrears of tithes in Ireland for two years, amounted to 2,400,000 l., he knew not which displayed the more ignorance or the more reckless assertion, without inquiry. The hon. Gentleman said, that the arrears were 2,400,000 l. [No, no! from Mr. Harvey]. Why that was the whole basis of his argument, and the amount considerably exceeded the whole amount of arrears in Ireland for the four years. Part of the composition which was charged on the occupiers was unpaid, but of the whole amount of tithes considerably more than one half was paid by the landlords, and was not dealt with by that bill; and of the part charged on the occupiers more than one half had been paid by the tenants, and the amount which they had to deal with, even if they left out other deductions, the total amount of outstanding arrears could not amount to one-fourth part of the sum mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He must, however, say, apart from the pecuniary consideration, the hon. Gentleman had equally misrepresented matter of far more consequence than pecuniary matters. The hon. Gentleman said, that if his right hon. Friend supposed that a grant of money would have the effect of making a permanent settlement of the Irish church question, how strange it was
680
that no such proposition had struck him before. Now he thought that the hon. Gentleman was in the Parliament of 1835 and would he tell him what provision of the present bill was not introduced in the bill which his right hon. Friend had officially brought forward? Was the provision relative to the conversion of tithes into a rent-charge not introduced—was the allowance of 25 per cent. not introduced—was the remission of arrears not introduced? These were the three leading features of the bill introduced by his right hon. Friend, and but for the objections then made on the other side of the House that measure would have been the law at the commencement of the year 1835. The hon. Gentleman then said, that it was easy to propose reforms, but that there was no alacrity in completing them. Now hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, were not to be charged with vague generalities. The hon. Gentleman, however, charged them with vague generalities, and asked had they proposed to cut off sinecures?—had they proposed to cut off superfluous salaries?—had they suggested a more equitable distribution in the Irish church? Was the hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago he had moved for leave to bring in a bill, the object of which was to regulate the very details which the hon. Gentleman mentioned? He thought it was probable that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who had refused him leave to bring in the bill: he knew, however, that he was refused; it was introduced into the other House—it was sent down to this House—it was asked for by the Lords, and yet this House had refused to take it into consideration. He knew also, that the Government had last year introduced a similar bill, that it had been read a second time, and that it was then abandoned—why, he could not tell. No objection that he knew of was made by his friends; he knew, that they were anxious that it should be introduced, but they were told by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it was such a complicated measure that it would prevent a satisfactory settlement. So far for the charge of vague generality. But if the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied, why did he not submit his own suggestions to the House in a bodily shape? But the hon. Gentleman added, here you are abandoning all your principles: "you

681
object to the appropriation clause, but you consent to plunder the Church of 25 per cent; here is the appropriation principle in the most objectionable shape." Was it an appropriation—then why did they turn his right hon. Friend out of office in 1835? Was the reduction of 25 per cent. an appropriation? Why was this put forward? Because, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they could not embody in a bill the appropriation principle, and to cover themselves when they were forced to abandon it they now said that the principle of appropriation was contained in this bill. What, however, was proposed by it? Simply to charge on the landlords of Ireland what was now chargeable only on the tenant. What had he (Lord Stanley) proposed in 1832? Was it not a reduction of 15 per cent., and why did he cease in 1834 to form part of the Administration? Because he would not consent to the appropriation. Yet he consented to the reduction of 15 per cent. on account of the landlord's risk and the pecuniary loss which they would sustain, in consideration of the greater security which the Church would obtain. Lord Hatherton had, in 1834, proposed to make the payment compulsory on the landlords, and had given them, as he was bound to do, at least the same amount of deduction as he had consented to, 15 per cent. Was there any appropriation in that? Why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that so far was there from being any introduction of the appropriation principle in those proposals that the principle never was introduced except by the Government which succeeded his right hon. Friend. Yet they were now told that when the landlords were rendered chargeable with a burden to which they were not up to this time liable, and when a remission was made to them, that they admitted the appropriation principle. Because they increased the liability of the landlords, it was but common sense and reasonable justice that they should be thought entitled to some remission. It was impossible to say with accuracy what that amount should be; he (Lord Stanley) thought that 30 per cent. was too much, and for himself he would say that 25 per cent. was a larger allowance than he would have wished to have been given. He knew, however, that they could not argue a question of this kind upon mathematical principles: he knew that they must deal with it according to what, in the
682
opinion of those who were called upon to deal with the subject, was a fair compensation for the increased liability of the landlords. This was the broad distinction between this and the appropriation principle: with the one he saw good grounds for dealing, the other he had resisted, and he always would resist the alienation of Church property to secular purposes. The learned Gentleman said that, after all, the grant would not produce peace. This he admitted; but it was only a necessary subsidiary to something more important. They relied for its success upon the transfer of the payment to the affluent from the poor—from the pauper tenant to the solvent landlord—from those to whom the payment was disproportioned to their means to those to whom the payment was easy—a transfer which, while it relieved those who had scruples, would fix the payment on those who could have no such scruples, if they were Protestants. What a large proportion of these were Protestants? And even if they were not, under what liability did they purchase their estates? Now, if he purchased an estate which was liable to a mortgage, and if the mortgagee, not being a Christian, should apply the interest which he paid to the maintenance of a Jewish synagogue, did that form a fair objection to the payment of interest? Ought he to oppose the payment because his scruples of conscience led him not to approve of the application of it to a Jewish synagogue. He would have accepted the estate liable to the payment, and so had the landowners in Ireland theirs. Where, however, could they better place this payment than by transferring it from those who were poor in circumstances, and who were opposed to our religion, to those who were in easy circumstances, and were of the same religion as ourselves; from those who were easily liable, on account of their numbers, to be excited, to those who, in the association of parties, were not likely to be actuated by the same reasons? Further than this, they did not expect that this measure would lead to tranquillity, nor did they expect that it would produce peace, unless it were made subsidiary to a measure for the non-enforcing of the arrears. He did not, therefore, say that the grant would produce peace; but it was essential, as a temporary object in settling the question on a new basis, to remove the arrears. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman desire that

683
the arrears should be enforced—would he charge the landlords with the composition without making any allowance—would he assist the clergy in enforcing their demands—or would he discharge the arrears, giving to the clergy no compensation? If the hon. Gentleman would do this, then he would leave him to point out any violation of principle, for there was only one—and that was caused by a rejection of his right hon. Friend's amendment; for he admitted, that there was a violation of principle in compelling any man to surrender his property against his will, without receiving a fair equivalent. He objected to this measure; but the question for him to decide was, whether he ought to resist this bill, and to perpetuate the existing system; and he confessed, that after consideration, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of this course. It would be easy for him to vindicate his consistency; he might say, that from first to last, he had opposed injustice, and that no question of expediency should lead him to depart from the strict line of abstract principle; it was easy for him to say this, but in what difficulties would he place the country? And if he did consent to this measure, he did so for the purpose of supporting a dereliction of principle in the Government to which he (Lord Stanley) was opposed. When called upon by his constituents to explain his course of conduct, it would have been easy for him to say to those constituents, that he had been overborne by the Government, that he had done all he could to throw an obstruction in the way of the principle proposed; but he must also in justice have added, that he had also thrown an obstruction in the way of a settlement of this question. He preferred, therefore, to subject himself to some reproach from the public, rather than to endure the reproaches of his own conscience for having contributed towards the continuation of the dissensions in Ireland. He did not share in the sentiments of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire. He had heard, with unfeigned regret, from a nobleman, professing attachment to the establishment, that he rejoiced to think, that they were transferring resistance to the Irish Church, from the weak to the powerful, and that he supported this measure, because he thought, that it would lead to the overthrow of the Established Church in Ireland, He, however, founded his
684
support to the bill on an entirely opposite principle. He was compelled to declare in the face of the public, that the law could not be maintained. He was compelled to consider what was the state of the Irish Church, and especially what had been the state in which individual clergymen had been placed during the last four years, aggravated as it had been according to the authentic statement of her Majesty's Government. He supported the present bill then, because in the main, it led to good, because he hoped that it would lead to peace, because he trusted, that the House would relieve the pecuniary embarrassments of the clergy of Ireland, because it would render the Church more secure, and less obnoxious to the people, and because it would have a tendency to uphold more firmly, that establishment which some hoped to see subverted, but which it had been his object through life to maintain.
Mr. O'Connellwould only trespass a few moments upon the attention of the House. He confessed, that he had seldom experienced greater pleasure than he had done in listening to the speech of the noble Lord, not on account of the mental power which it displayed, for that to the noble Lord was easy, but because the noble Lord and he were at length perfectly agreed, that the present system of tithes in Ireland, could not be maintained; for it was a fact beyond doubt, that tithes could not remain as they now were: there was something in them so anomalous, so inconsistent with policy, and with a statesmanlike view of Government, that an experiment was at length to be made to maintain tranquillity, and to improve the system. So far they were agreed. But he did not think, that the noble Lord's Jewish simile was at all applicable. It was not to the debt, but to the purposes to which it was applied, that the Irish objected. Tithes were not like a personal debt, like that mentioned by the noble Lord: they were a debt which the Catholic ancestors of the Irish people bequeathed to the Catholic Church. The Catholics of Ireland gave the tithes for Catholic purposes, when even the name of Protestant was not known; but an Act of Parliament took them away from the Catholics, and gave them to a small minority of Protestants for Protestant purposes; and it was on account of the comparatively small portion of those to whom they were devoted, coupled with the recollection, which would

685
never be effaced, whence the tithes had their origin, which was the foundation of the objection to the tax, and which made the noble Lord, in order to save the principle of application, consent to an experiment to maintain them. He understood from the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that the bill might be altered elsewhere. He might have mistaken the right hon. Baronet, but of what value would the bill be if it were altered? He trusted, that if it were changed, the Government would abandon it. That, he thought, was the best way of dealing with bills, which were so interfered with, as to take away their utility. If the optional principle were introduced, of what value would the bill be? Indeed, he thought, that the Government had left one ingredient in it, which, he feared, would take away its chance of producing tranquillity, by exempting from its operation all those cases in which suits had already been instituted. These were the very cases which at present created the greatest vexation. They might tell the clergymen of the Established Church, that they might make some arrangement, and that they might make some abatement or another, but if hon. Members opposite, expected any good results, he was afraid, that hon. Members would deceive themselves. He rose principally to recommend this point to the attention of the House. Every considerate man ought to make an arrangement at once, either to take a portion of the costs, or to settle with his attorney; this might be done out of the money already in the hands of the clergy. A fund had been largely subscribed in Ireland, and he believed, also, in England, to enable the clergy to carry on their suits; he did not think, that it was exhausted, and disturbances would continue if the Protestants of the Established Church did not procure some abatement of the costs in the suits commenced against the occupiers; this did not, however, apply to the suits against the landlords. It was most important that some arrangement in this respect should be made, and he was sorry to venture to prophesy that many of the clergy would not be found willing to make this sacrifice. He knew a case in the county of Cork where the parishioners offered to pay the tithes on an abatement of 15 per cent., but the titheowner preferred giving 20 per cent. by granting
686
the tithes to another person, and he bound that gentleman not to remit one farthing to the occupiers. If this spirit were followed up by others, the bill would have little of healing in it. Here was an option left to the clergyman, and hon. Gentlemen would be able to see how the tithe owners would avail themselves of it; how they would be willing to mitigate the costs, to give relief; and by the results they would see how far the clergy would avail themselves of the option. One great advantage which the Protestant clergymen would derive from the bill, would be the remission, first suggested on this occasion by him (Mr. O'Connell). He said, that they would derive great advantage by the remission of the 640,000 l., for although their claims against the tenants, as well as the landlords, for the arrears were clear, yet those claims were not available, and, consequently, the clergy received a bonus from the remission; and it ought, therefore, to be the desire of the friends of the clergy, both in and out of that House, to instigate and to advise the mitigation of the claims for costs. He repeated, that if this bill were altered in the House of Lords, if an option were inserted in it interfering with its present principles he for one should feel himself entirely disengaged. He might have misunderstood the right hon. Baronet, but if he were right in his opinion of what had fallen from him, he said, that, if the principle of option were introduced in the House of Lords, he, for one, would vote against the bill when it should come down again to that House. The question of the appropriation clause had been introduced into their debates, but there were two sorts of appropriation—a useful one, when it was proposed to apply the surplus to good purposes, such as education and the like; and a bad principle, when it was given to the landlords or to any other body. The truth was, that in these last discussions they had confounded both those classes, because each was an appropriation; now the former appropriation was a good principle, but what was now discussed was bad. Before, it was proposed that the tithes should be collected by the office of Woods and Forests at a cost of 2½ per cent., and all that was by this bill given above that amount was an appropriation to the landlords; it was not 25 per cent., it was true, but it was 22½ per cent; and it was not only a bad appropriation, but it

687
was a clear sacrifice of legal property. He owned, for his part, and he was candid enough to admit that he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Devonshire—he believed that the fact was as the noble Lord had stated it, and he announced to the great supporters of the Church of England, that they had never aimed so destructive a blow at the temporalities of that Church as they had by assenting to this bill. Why, Lord Mountcashel, who was not favourable to the Catholics, and who he believed belonged to that class in the establishment who had been called by the hon. Member for Southwark, Evangelists, with all his evangelism had presided at an anti-tithe meeting in the county of Cork, a tumultuary and determined meeting—tumultuary on account of the numbers who were assembled. Gentlemen of the western division of Cork, who, when there were orange lodges, for they were told that they had ceased, held high offices in the body, had lately assisted at a meeting called to petition agaist tithes. He knew that in many instances the landlord would pay the rent-charge and not charge the tenant, but this would not be general; and those who could not get this payment from their tenants would be in perpetual hostility with them, or if they did not wish for such hostility, nor yet to pay this charge out of their own pockets, a class of Whiteboys would be thus created such as they had never had before, and they would be aiming a blow at the Protestant establishment from their extreme zeal to keep it up. They might hope for a time for a lull, a cessation, but common sense would in the end prevail. It would be no longer in the power of persons to carry a county election by talking of the heavy blow which Lord Melbourne was going to give to the Church of Ireland. It would not be necessary, for a few years at least, to abuse Popery from the hustings, and he, therefore, hoped that a period of common sense would arrive in England, and that the English people would look distinctly to facts. He would ask whether it was not a maxim of their common Christianity, the doing as you would be done by? And as the people of England would not endure to support an Established Church for a Catholic minority—as the people of Scotland would rather die to the last man than support a Catholic establishment for a Catholic minority, so he thought that common sense in England, and the still more
688
powerful motive in Scotland, might prevail in Ireland, and that they would in time come to the determination to leave the wealthy Protestant gentry to support their Church, as the poor Catholic population supported their own. There was nothing like the state of Ireland on the face of the globe. Even the Turks had never inflicted upon the Greeks the payment of money towards the support of their mosques. It was only in Ireland that such a thing existed, and why should it exist there? The people of Ireland supported a hierachy with four archbishops, twenty-seven bishops, deans, archdeacons, parish priests, and curates, without exacting or the power of exacting a single farthing, except from those to whom they administered. They boasted of their Protestantism. Why did they not trust to it to maintain its own clergy? They talked, the noble Lord who spoke last, at the close of his very eloquent speech, talked of his attachment to the Protestant Church. Why did they not dignify that Church by keeping its hands out of the pockets of those who did not belong to it? As long as they insisted upon this what sensation could they expect to raise but those of plunder and oppression? He was rejoiced at the sentiments that had been uttered by the noble Lord the Secretary at War. He trusted that a long career of utility would be open to him—a career of utility of which they had proof in the advocacy of principles that entitled him to the foremost station in the Government of his native country. Those sentiments would go out of that House, and be confirmed by every rational and good man, and would give a hope that the connection would become a real union between the two countries. He did not think that they were exhibiting any wisdom if they thought that the shifting the burden of tithes from one side to another would render it more easy. They were giving up their attempt to recover tithes from the poor, and he could tell them that the richer party would defeat them.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, that he had expressed an opinion favourable to the introduction of the optional clause. He had done no such thing. There was the alternative of leaving the law as it stood, and abandoning the present grant, or of accepting the grant, and he preferred the latter course. Of course the other branch of the Legislature, in which the

689
Irish Church was more fully represented and in which questions relating to property were looked to with greater vigilance would have to decide which of these alternatives to accept. At the same time, as he had before stated, his opinion was in favour of accepting the grant.
Lord J. Russellshould not think it necessary, seeing the great impatience of the House, to restate the opinions which he had stated on a former occasion upon this question. He must say, that the opposition made to the present bill, and the various reasons given by hon. Gentlemen for rejecting the bill, had failed to convince him, that the course taken by the Government was not the most expedient, that they could pursue. Although the hon. Member for Southwark had found fault with him for saying,—not, by the by, quoting him correctly—that it was easy for persons having no responsibility to object to any measure, that might be brought forward, yet, he must say, that the whole of his speech convinced him further, that it was very easy for a person of ingenuity to make objections to a bill, and to show, that it was contrary to the ordinary principles on which legislation was founded, and yet there might be no better course for Government or Parliament to pursue. Some hon. Gentlemen were in favour of the voluntary principle, and others called for the total extinction of tithes, but it could not be expected, that either Government or the majority of that House would pursue either course. Again, they had been reproached with not following up the appropriation clause for the benefit of all classes in Ireland who would receive religious instruction. That course might, no doubt, have been adopted by Government. But would any of those Gentlemen who reproached him for not taking this course venture to say, that he thought a bill containing that clause was likely to be passed, or was likely to attain the object of establishing that principle in the statute book? The question was between doing nothing whatever, not moving a single step towards removing the evils, that existed in Ireland, on this subject of tithes, and adopting a bill to which the Legislature might be brought to agree, a bill like that before the House. He must say, that the person who would ask them to rest without producing any measure would fail to convince him, that that was the right course, for it was one from which no
690
possible advantage could be obtained, by which the evils existing in Ireland would be continued; and those conflicts to which the hon. Member for Drogheda (Sir Wm. Somerville) had borne testimony would be continued, if they did not propose some measure on this subject. It was easy for them to say, that their measures had been rejected by the House of Lords, that they retained the same principles, but that, seeing it was impossible to carry any measure, they abstained from bringing forward any measure on the subject. That might be considered a very easy course, and more consistent with the opinions they had formerly declared, but would that be a course from which the people of Ireland would derive equal benefit as from the present. On the contrary the hon. Member for Drogheda, although he disliked the provisions of the bill said, that he did not feel authorised in voting against it. Was not this testimony? Those persons who lived in Ireland, and who saw the evils, that were produced by tithes, and the conflicts arising out of the collection of them, thought it better, that some legislation should take place. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for London (Mr. Grote), with his usual calmness, and in his most dignified tone, had at the same time made a most severe and bitter attack on the Government, stating, that this was another melancholy instance of postponing principle to party, and he charged him (Lord J. Russell) with tergiversation The hon. Gentleman had a right to his own opinion, that it would be better to introduced a bill containing the voluntary principle, or any other; but he had no right to blame others, acting with a deep sense of responsibility, with what he called postponing principle to party on this subject. With regard to his own opinions on this subject, he must say, that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) knew, that those opinions were not taken up lightly, or introduced for the first time with a view of depriving the right hon. Baronet of office. His opinions had been frequently stated before to those with whom he was connected in politics or by friendship. He had stated them amongst the advisers of the Sovereign; he had stated them in that House; and those opinions having been stated, the opinion of the party to which he belonged inclined in favour of his noble Friend, and not in favour of him. The hon. Member had, therefore, no right

691
to say, that it was for the sake of party, or with a view to party, that he had originally maintained those opinions, If he thought it best for the sake of Ireland not to introduce that principle in the present bill, it was because he had been convinced, as he had already stated on repeated occasions, that he should not attain any successful result to Ireland by proposing that principle; that in proposing it he should be deferring indefinitely the mitigation of the evils of the tithe system; and he thought, therefore, that it was better for Ireland, for the sake of the Irish people, to propose a bill containing the provisions of the present bill. What were those provisions? Did they improve the condition of Ireland? And in what state did they leave the various interests embarked in it? It was universally admitted, that the condition of one great class was improved—he meant the condition of the small occupiers, of whom the hon. Member for Drogheda said, that they were by this bill entirely relieved, and of whom the hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that in most cases they would obtain an entire remission, having to pay their rent without the deduction of the rent-charge which was the equivalent for tithes. According, therefore, to the testimony of those Gentlemen, and according to what was evident from the bill itself, there would be a great improvement in the condition of those persons from the provisions of this bill. But what was the condition of the tithe-owner relative to the tithe-payer? The condition of the land-owner would be this:—They had no right to tell him that they would force him to take upon himself the whole of the rent-charge, to which he was not liable by law. They had no right to tell him that the whole one hundred per cent. was payable by him, he not being legally liable to the charge. What, then, did they propose? That the landholder should be liable for the payment of a rent-charge to the clergy in place of the composition for tithes, but that a certain deduction—thirty per cent., as he had proposed, but twenty-five per cent., as it had been fixed, should be made as an equivalent to him for having a charge imposed upon him for which he was not liable. But the landowners would in the end obtain a very considerable compensation. In the first place their tenants would not be subject to perpetual vexation and conflicts with the titheowner, and in
692
consequence of the tranquillity that would ensue, the value of property would be greatly increased; and, although the landowner might not immediately receive the whole of his rent-charge, he would do so after this act should have been in operation for a few years, and the distinctions between rent and tithe should cease. The question would be what was a fair rent for a good tenant to pay for land? and not how much of it was rent and how much tithe. He could not suppose that this measure would produce tranquillity in Ireland, without supposing that ultimately all differences between rent and tithe would be lost sight of altogether. He must say that one observation of his noble Friend (Lord Ebrington) had hardly been correctly represented by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel). His noble Friend had said that there would still be a contest for some alteration in the Church; but the contest would be of a very different nature, because, instead of being a contest supported by physical resistance on the part of the poor and humble occupier, it would be the constitutional and moral resistance of the landowners, representing through Parliament their opinions with regard to the Church, and having a natural influence on the deliberations of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet understood his noble Friend very differently from him, for that was certainly the way in which he understood his noble Friend's observation; and he did think, in that sense, it was a very fair observation to make, namely, that those persons who would wish hereafter to make a change in the institution of the Church, would be persons who would not attempt to do so by resistance to the law, but persons who, from their situation in life, their property, and their station, could make their sentiments differently understood, and that the contest would be like any other constitutional contest. He did not think, therefore, that his noble Friend's observation was open to the comment which the right hon. Baronet had made upon it. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had found fault with the bill because he considered that it contained a very unjustifiable grant of the public money. He thought that the sum devoted to this purpose was far from being a useless and far from being an unreasonable sacrifice of the public money, and he indeed thought that there were few objects to which the

693
public money could be devoted that were so easy of defence. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said, that the better way would have been to have ascertained the amount of the arrears. He was not of the same opinion. He had but one other observation to make. As the right hon. Baronet had said, it was perfectly competent to the House of Lords, if they thought fit, to reject this arrangement. It was not competent to them to alter the arrangement. Having said, that they would devote a portion of the public money to certain purposes for the Lords, to modify or alter the application of that money was not consistent with the privileges of that House. It was consistent with their Lordships' privileges to reject the grant; and he had no doubt but that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would be disposed to concur very much with them if they took this view of the subject. He (Lord J. Russell) certainly hoped, considering the benefits that would accrue from this bill, that it would be accepted as a whole. He considered that this bill would be a very considerable mitigation of the evils that afflicted Ireland on this subject. He did not expect, he could not expect, that the great body of the people Of Ireland would be satisfied with the state of the Protestant Church; but as far as the Church was concerned, he thought that this bill would render it more secure, and, as far as the people were concerned, he thought it would render them more tranquill and more satisfied.
Major Bryansaid, he did not think this measure would satisfy the people of Ireland, although it might for a short time procure tranquility.
The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 148; Noes 30;—Majority 118.

List of the AYES

A Court, Capt.

Bramston, T. W.

Adam, Admiral

Bridgeman, H.

Alsager, Captain

Broadwood, H.

Archbold, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Ball, rt. hon. N.

Brotherton, J.

Bannerman, A.

Brownrigg, S.

Barnard, E. G.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Bellew, R. M.

Bryan, G.

Benett, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Canning, Sir S.

Blair, J.

Chapman, A.

Blake, W. J.

Childers, J. W.

Blennerhassett, A.

Chute, W. L. W.

Brabazon, Lord

Clements, Lord

Bradshaw, J.

Corry, hon. H.

694

Crawley, S.

Maher, J.

Curry, W.

Martin, T. B.

Dalmeny, Lord

Meynell, Capt.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Morpeth, Lord

Denison, W. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Dick, Q.

O'Connell, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

East, J. B.

O'Connell, M.

Ebrington, Visc.

Palmer, C. F.

Egerton, W. T.

Palmer, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Palmer, G.

Estcourt, T.

Parker, J.

Estcourt, T.

Parker, M.

Evans, G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Farrand, R.

Perceval, Col.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Follett, Sir W.

Phillpotts, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Pinney, W.

French, F.

Polhill, F.

Gordon, R.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Power, J.

Goulburn, H.

Praed, W. T.

Graham, Sir J.

Price, Sir R.

Grant, F. W.

Protheroe, E.

Greene, T.

Pusey, P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Redington, T. N.

Grey, Sir G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Hastie, A.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Hawkins, J. H.

Rich, H.

Hayter, W. G.

Richards, R.

Henniker, Lord

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Round, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hodgson, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Hogg, J. W.

Sandon, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Scrope, G. P.

Hoskins, K.

Sheppard, T.

Hotham, Lord

Smith, J.

Howard, P. H.

Smith, R. V.

Howick, Visc.

Somerville. Sir W. M.

Hurst, R. H.

Stanley, Lord

Hutton, R.

Stewart, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Stock, Dr.

Irving, J.

Sturt, H. C.

James, W.

Teignmouth, Lord

Jones, T.

Thomson, C. P.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Townley, R. G.

Knight, H. G.

Trench, Sir F.

Knightley, Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Labouchere, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lascelles, W. S.

Vivian, J. E.

Lefevre, C. S.

Westenra, J. C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wilshere, W.

Leveson, Lord

Wood, C.

Lincoln, Earl

Wood, T.

Lowther, Col.

Yates, J. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Lygon, hon. General

TELLERS.

Mackinnon, W.

Stanley, E. J.

Macleod, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Chalmers, P.

Fielden, J.

Collins, W.

Finch, F.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Grote, G.

695

Hall, Sir B.

Salwey, Col.

Harvey, D. W.

Style, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Hector, C. J.

Turner, E.

Hutt, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Langton, W. G.

Villiers, C. P.

Leader, J. T.

Warburton, H.

Lushington, Dr.

Ward, H. G.

Lushington, C.

Worsley, Lord

Marshall, W.

Martin, J.

TELLERS,

Morris, D.

Browne, D.

Muskett, G. A.

Hume, J.

Bill read a third time.
Some verbal amendments having been made in clause 38 on the question that it stand part of the Bill as amended,
Mr. Humerose to move that the 38th clause be excluded from the Bill, on the ground of the purposes to which it appropriated various sums of money, amounting to nearly one million sterling. He was pleased at the discussion which had taken place on the bill that evening, as it would enable the people of England to see the reasons on which this money was to be voted away. The noble Lord opposite had told them that night that he had adopted the principle of expediency, because he saw no other principle on which he could support this measure. He begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that it was not to the amount of the money that the people of England would object, but to the purposes for which, according to this clause of the bill, that money was to be applied. When the noble Lord himself, on a former occasion, brought forward a measure for the reform of the Irish Church, he (Mr. Hume) and others supported it, because it provided for the abolition of the sinecures of that Church. All their hostility was directed against the system on which that Church was supported, and not against the Church itself. What they objected to was the principle that the Establishment should be maintained as a dominant Church in Ireland—and they looked upon the payment of this money as a sort of payment of black mail. Were they, as guardians of the public purse, doing their duty in consenting to it? It was pledging the Treasury to the payment of a million more in addition to the existing deficit of the revenue, which was sufficiently great without any further addition to it. The noble Lord had said that the hon. Member for Southwark was mistaken as to the amount of the arrears, and that only one quarter of them
696
remained at present unpaid. But if all but that one quarter had been paid, then he held that the remainder ought also to be paid. It was the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had themselves, by their conduct on former bills, introduced for the purpose of settling the tithe question in Ireland, brought the Irish Church into the position in which she was at present; and they now had recourse to the noble Lord (Stanley) who came forward to assist them in propping it up. The hon. Member concluded by moving the exclusion of the clause.
Mr. Harveysaid, that he could not allow the statement which had been made by so high an authority as the noble Lord (Stanley) with reference to the observations which he had addressed to the House that evening to pass uncontradicted. The noble Lord had imputed to him an ignorance of the subject before the House, because he had said, that the arrears due to the tithe-owners in Ireland during the four years preceding the present might amount to 2,400,000 l. But he had not said it was so. He had only said, that the arrears might amount to that sum—and surely if in 1832, 1833, and 1834 tithes did not exceed 1,000,000 l. it was not an unfair inference that a very much larger amount of tithe would be due at the present time. But if it was only 300,000 l. that remained uncollected, then he would say that that sum ought to be collected as well as the rest—and it was a farce, until it was proved that it could not be collected, to call the tithe debtors the poor people of Ireland. If the state of the law in that country was such that it could not be enforced but at a ruinous expense, was that a reason why they should forego the property in tithe? Why not bring in a bill to facilitate the collection of tithe? The noble Lord said he supported the bill because it would tend to the tranquillity of Ireland, first, by reducing the amount of tithe to be paid by twenty-five per cent.; and, secondly, by the payment of the arrears. But the arrears were due from those who borrowed the money of this country—and why, if the Irish people were so poor, were the people of England to pay the debt? The Church of Ireland ought to supply the fund out of its own overgrown resources—for it was notorious that the Irish hierarchy possessed upwards of 600,000 of the finest acres in the country, and some of their product ought to be made avail-

697
able in cases of emergency like this. The payment of these arrears ought not to come out of the Treasury of England, which ought not to be robbed for the purpose of paying what was due from the so called poor of Ireland to the wealthy proprietors of that country. They would next be called upon, he supposed, to pay the debts of persons confined for debt in Ireland if they sanctioned such a principle as this, Peace neither could, would, nor ought to be purchased at such a price—and when the noble Lord asked him why he (Mr. Harvey) did not bring in some bill of his own on this subject, let him ask what chance any bill would have, even of an introduction into that House for the reform of the Irish Church, if moved for by a Protestant Dissenter? He would most cordially support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 96; Noes 39: Majority 57. Bill passed.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Hodgson, R.

Alsager, Captain

Hogg, J. W.

Alston, R.

Hope, G. W.

Archbold, R.

Hoskins, K.

Ball, rt. hon. N.

Howard, F. J.

Benett, J.

Howard, P. H.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Howick, Viscount

Bernal, R.

Hurst, R. H.

Blackburne, J.

Hutton, R.

Blair, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Knightly, Sir C.

Bridgeman, H.

Labouchere, H.

Broadley, H.

Lascelles, hon. W.

Broadwood, H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brownrigg, S.

Lowther, J. H.

Bruges, W. H L.

Macleod, R.

Bryan, G.

Martin, T. B.

Chapman, A.

Maule, hon. F.

Clements, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Curry, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Dalmeney, Lord

O'Connell, D.

Douglas, Sir C.

O'Connell, M. J.

East, J. B.

O'Connell, M.

Egerton, W. T.

Palmer, C. F.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.

Ellis, J.

Parker, M.

Evans, G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Farnham, E. B.

Perceval, Colonel

Ferguson, R. A.

Perceval, G. J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Phillpotts, J.

French, F.

Pigot, R.

Goulburn, H.

Power, J.

Graham, Sir J.

Pusey, P.

Grant, F. W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Richards, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Round, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Rushbrooke, R.

698

Russell, Lord J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Sandon, Viscount

Vere, Sir C. B.

Sheppard, T.

Verner, Colonel

Smith, J. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Stanley, Lord

Waddington, H.

Steuart, R.

Wilde, Sergeant

Stock, Dr.

Wodehouse, E.

Sturt, H. C.

Wood, C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Yates, J. A.

Thomson, C. P.

TELLERS.

Thompson, Alderman

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Townley, R. G.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Leader, J. T.

Baines, E.

Lushington, Dr.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Lushington, C.

Brodie, W. B.

Marshall, W.

Brotherton, J.

Martin, J.

Chalmers, P.

Morris, D.

Collins, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Craig, W. G.

Protheroe, F.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Salwey, Colonel

Duckworth, S.

Style, Sir C.

Duke, Sir J.

Thornley, T.

Easthope, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Fielden, J.

Wallace, R.

Finch, F.

Warburton, H.

Grote, G.

Ward, H. G.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W. A.

Harvey, D. W.

Wood, G. W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Worsley, Lord

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Hume, J.

James, W.

Hawes, B.

MAILS ON RAILWAYS.
On the question that the Mails on Railways Bill be read a third time,
Mr. Easthopesaid, that, before the bill passed, he wished to enter his protest against the language which had been held against those who opposed the bill as it was introduced to the House. Those who had taken an interest against the bill had been represented as a set of men who desired to appropriate the Post office revenues to their own uses. The proprietors of railways had been held forth as a set of rapacious adventurers, reckless of all principles of justice and fair dealing. He felt particular regret, that any one connected with the Government of the country should have sanctioned such a tone as this. No desires or feelings of this character actuated the individuals who were so grossly maligned. Parties connected with railway interests were held forth to the public as though on their trial; and, forsooth, on their trial for what? For promoting at their own risk great national undertakings, of the value and public utility of which there were now pot two

699
opinions, and without the prospect of any advantage beyond that which Parliament itself had declared to be equitable. Any hon. Gentleman who looked at the evidence before the railway committee on this subject would find, that that evidence was all one way, and the resolutions moved under the auspices of Government all the other way. The bill, as it was first introduced, was in utter defiance of all the acknowledged principles of the rights of property—of all the principles which had ever been deemed essential to the security of the property of the country: it proposed to take possession of the property of railways, without any remuneration whatever. This proposition was in absolute defiance of the evidence taken before the committee, in defiance of all the great and acknowledged principles of justice, whilst those who opposed the bill were held up to the country as a set of rapacious adventurers, eagerly bent upon appropriating the Post-office revenues to their own benefit. Again, they were told, that if, upon the original introduction of railway bills, it had been claimed to insert a clause by which mails should be passed along the railways free of charge, the claim would have been readily conceded; and it was said, that the public interests had been injured by the non-introduction of such powers in the first instance. Now, he did not mean to say but that there might have been parties connected with the original promotion of some of these bills, such as the legal gentlemen, whose interests in them were mostly temporary, and the engineers, whose interest was in their construction: he did not mean to say but that these parties, in their anxiety to secure their temporary advantages, might have given their assent to what he (Mr. Easthope) should ever consider a most monstrous proposition; but he would put it to the House whether it was to be borne, that individuals who had advanced their capital in undertakings in which they could not be by any means certain at the time of realizing a return were to be stigmatized as rapacious adventurers, because they claimed what had been guaranteed to them by Parliament? And he would ask, whether it was honest or proper on the part of the Government, to sanction a measure by which the property of railway proprietors was invaded, and by which the rights secured to them were so shamefully infringed? He was
700
sorry that a Government which he had generally supported, should be justly considered an anti-railway Government. The bill was far from creditable to them; it would afford them no advantage which they could be proud of; and when this precious bill was compared with the evidence, and whenever the discussions upon it were fairly considered, he should not envy them any merit or credit they might think to derive from their original bill, or from these discussions. A vast deal had been said about the whole of the Post-office revenues being assigned over to the railway proprietors. What was the fact? In the commencement of two or three of the railway bills there was a proposition made by the Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-general at the time, to introduce into them certain stipulations, which were to be the measure of the advantage, or payment, to the railway proprietors; and what said the evidence? That that which was taken by the railway proprietors as a remuneration for their services was not equal to what the Duke of Richmond, by his minute, intended to give them. The Duke of Richmond never contemplated passing the mails along railways without payment: he never, for a moment, conceived the idea of taking possession of the lines of railroad without any remuneration to the proprietors. Nothing of this sort had been started, yet it was with great facility assumed, that had such a proposition been made to the proprietors of railways they would have readily assented to it. It had been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a former stage of the bill, why any consideration should be given to proprietors in respect of "the enormous and improper amount paid by them for land?" He, in return, would beg to ask where would be the equity, the honesty, of refusing them a consideration in respect of the sums they had paid for land? Had not Parliament itself dictated the principle on which land should be paid for? Was not land essential to the formation of railroads? Obviously. Why, then, were they to be asked to waive their claim to a consideration in respect of what they paid for land? If what had been really expended for land in the original construction of railroads was, in some instances, improper and enormous in amount, let it be remembered that the companies had paid it under the dictation of the Legislature, and that land was essential to the

701
formation of railroads. The fact, as he believed, was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apprehended a considerable reduction of the Post-office revenue by a reduced charge for postage, and, at a time when it was even uncertain what would be the extent of duty prospectively required to be performed by railroad companies, it was sought covertly to cast a great part of this additional burthen on the railroad companies. Thus they were abused as rapacious, and charged with being grasping in their intentions, by parties who sought by fraudulent legislation to throw burthens upon them, against every principle of reason and justice. A bill more destructive of the rights of property, more unfair and unjust towards individuals, than this bill, as originally framed, had never been introduced into Parliament; and, if he were to be denounced because he felt indignant at the measure, he was content to be so denounced. The bill, in its present state, was sufficiently hard and stringent upon the railroad companies: as originally proposed it was characterised by gross dishonesty. As, however, it had been freed from its most obnoxious qualities he should not oppose the third reading.
Bill read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Affirmations—Read a third time:—Revenue Departments; Securities; Turpentine Penalties.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of HAMILTON, from Limerick, in favour of the principle, but objecting to some of the Clauses of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord HATHERTON, from Staffordshire, and by Lord BARHAM, from Rutlandshire, against Idolatry in India.—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from Perth, against certain parts of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a place in Yorkshire, for the Amendment of the New Poor-law.—By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from Leith, against the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
The Lord Chancellor moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Church Discipline Bill.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to put a stop, if possible, to the further progress of a bill which, in his conscience, he firmly believed to be the greatest blow that ever was struck against the Church of England, as a church. The bill professed to effect that which, he contended, it was beyond the competency or the power of any Christian Legislature to effect. The bill, in fact, went to put an end to the existence of any ecclesiastical court having the power to decide causes involving the correction of clerks, except the Court of Arches; it went
604
to deprive the bishops of a power which they had long exercised in their respective dioceses. Now, he must be permitted to say, that their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, and her Majesty, ail joining in this legislative act, could not effect that which this bill presumed to effect, because there was a jurisdiction given to a Christian bishop which no human laws could interfere with. He would ask, if there were any amongst his right rev. Brethren near him who supported this measure, how they could reconcile to themselves the main provisions of the bill, when they considered those texts of Scripture from which he had been in the habit hitherto of deducing, and from which the most learned theologian had always deduced, the divine origin of episcopacy, and the power with which it was clothed? Those texts, upon which every theologian relied, gave a great power and jurisdiction to the bishop, even to the extent, where it was necessary, of pronouncing excommunication. That power it was now sought to take from the episcopal body by the provisions of this bill, and he should resist to the utmost any such attempt. In arguing this question, he was forced to refer to sacred authority. He was unwilling to quote Scripture in that House; but on this solemn occasion he was compelled to do so. In the 1st Epistle to Timothy, the special order of St. Paul was, "Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses." And in the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, bishop of Crete, it was set forth, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject," or excommunicate. These texts, and others of a similar nature, which might be quoted, proved the divine origin of episcopacy, and of the power which was attached to it. Now, he would ask such of his right rev. Brethren as might support this bill, how they would dispose of this important question, how they would reconcile their abandonment of the authority thus conferred on them with the rule laid down in Scripture? Not only was it the direction of St. Paul that they should exercise this power, but it was clearly recognized in the office for the consecration of bishops. When the bishop was consecrated, a question was asked by the officiating archbishop or bishop, and was answered by the applicant for ordination, which question and answer he should read. The ques-

605
tion was, "Will you maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in you, quietness, love, and peace, among all men; and such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within your diocese, correct and punish according to such authority as you have by God's word, and as to you shall be committed by the ordinance of this realm?" Here an independent authority, the authority of "God's word," was clearly recognised. There was, it was true, a further power committed to the bishop "by the ordinance of this realm"—a power to enforce the authority derived from a divine source. The law of the land only gave additional strength and force to the power which the bishop originally possessed "by the word of God." What, then, was the nature of those bishops' courts that were now sought to be done away with? They were intended to enforce the spiritual power of the bishop, and were as old as Christianity itself. They were courts which, formed for such a purpose, and based on such authority, whatever their human laws might affect to do, could not be extinguished. When the applicant for consecration was solemnly asked the question which he had read to their Lordships, he answered—"I will so do, by the help of God;" and, having thus answered, he could not be released by any law that man could make from the sacred obligation which he had thereby incurred. Human law might deprive a bishop of his see. In that case he, of course, had no place in which to exercise his jurisdiction. But he maintained, that, without depriving him of his see, no human law could prevent him from the full exercise of his episcopal jurisdiction. He spoke advisedly; but he spoke not in a spirit of defiance, when he said, that should this bill become law, he should not feel himself at liberty to obey its main instructions or directions. To other laws he would cheerfully conform; but this would be a law, if the bill were passed, that would strike at the very root of the essential discipline of our Christian Church; and he felt, that he should be a traitor to that Church if he supported it. He plainly and openly, then, declared, should this bill pass into a law, that if a clergyman in his diocese conducted himself criminally, he would call on that clergyman to answer to him for his actions, on his oath of canonical obedience. Over the clergyman's civil state he had no power; but he had power over him in a
606
spiritual point of view, "and," (said the right rev. Prelate) "before his master and my master, I will remind this erring clergyman of his folly or his vice, I will reprimand him for it; and if he will not obey the remonstrance, I shall proceed to that sentence, which this bill tells me I shall not pass—I shall proceed to excommunicate him. Then, if this be done, your Lordships in Parliament may pass a bill of pains and penalties against me, you may deprive me of the seat which, I now hold (but of which I shall never make myself unworthy); you may rob me of my see, you may take from me my robe, but my integrity to Heaven I shall maintain inviolate." The bill, if it passed, would work a monstrous injustice. It would transfer all that power which properly belonged to the bishops of this Church to one court, the Court of Arches. Now, he had written to the chancellor of his own diocese as to what was the uniform practice in that diocese with respect to cases brought before the bishops' court, and that gentleman stated that the uniform practice, so far as he knew—was a practice followed by the best and ablest men. The chancellor of the diocese stated—"Within my experience, and I believe always, the bishop has himself presided at the hearing and the giving of sentence. After the pleas have been completed, and the evidence taken, according to the ordinary forms of the court, the whole is submitted, with the observations of the proctors on both sides, to the bishop; or if there has been a hearing by counsel, the bishop has always himself been present, and the bishop has always himself given the sentence as judge." Now, the bill, if it were passed into a law, prevented the bishop from thus proceeding. The third clause of the bill set forth, "that all suits now pending in any ecclesiastical court (other than the Court of Arches) shall be and the same are hereby removed and transferred before the Court of Arches; and the same suits, and all suits for the correction of clerks now pending in the Court of Arches, shall there be proceeded in, either according to the law and forms and in the manner heretofore in force and use in the said court, or in the manner directed by this act with respect to suits hereafter to be instituted, according to the discretion of the judge of the said court; and the decisions of the court of Arches in such suits may be appealed

607
from, and such suits proceeded with before the judicial committee of her Majesty's most hon. Privy Council, as if this act had not passed. Now, he would ask of the most rev. Prelate, was it ever known in the history of the Church, that the court of the metropolitan should have jurisdiction in provincial cases, except where the bishop himself was the party accused, in cases of laches or dereliction of duty. He spoke most confidently when he said, that no such practice ever prevailed; and he asked his right rev. Brethren, if any of them disputed the doctrine, to state the grounds upon which they founded their opinion; and, if they did not dispute it, he called on them to say how they could agree to a bill which introduced an entirely new and hitherto unknown practice. He knew, that the Archbishop in one point differed, with respect to his authority, from the provincial, until this country threw off its connexion with the Church of Rome, and exercised an original jurisdiction. But this was not the case since the Reformation. And on what was that original jurisdiction founded? It was founded on the fact, that the Archbishop was the representative of the Pope, as the head of the Church. It so happened, that some centuries ago the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed jurisdiction in the see of Hereford; but that claim rested simply and solely on the fact, that he was the legate of the Pope. And he must argue, that the supremacy of the Pope having long since been put an end to, the Archbishop of Canterbury could not lawfully, according to the essential discipline of the Church, exercise an original jurisdiction in any diocese whereby he interfered with the power of the bishop. But this bill went further. It attempted to do that which be never supposed, that the most presumptuous Legislature would have insisted on. He considered the Archbishopric of York to be as independent of Canterbury as Canterbury was of York, and yet by this measure suits instituted in the archdiocese of York were to be submitted to the Court of Canterbury. He should be glad to know, had the bishops of the archdiocese of York given their assent to this bill? He knew not. But he thought, that if such assent had not been given, it was most improper to have introduced this measure. But he might be told, that at some private meeting of
608
bishops a majority had assented, not to this bill, but to some measure of a similar nature. But he must say, that that House, in dealing with such sacred rights as this bill affected, ought not to be worked upon by any such proceeding, however worthy the individuals who were parties to it might be. It ought to be clearly proved to their Lordships, that the assent and consent of the parties who would be affected by this bill had been unequivocally given before they agreed to it. No such proof had been afforded; and if any right rev. Prelate stood up and stated, that an assent was given at some particular meeting, he must declare, that in his opinion such was not the way in which assent should be given on so important an occasion. He must further say, that an assent given in such a manner was by no means sufficient. He would ask was there one bishop of the archdiocese of York, who heard the observations he had made, who would make an answer, when he asked of him on what principle known to the Church of Christ had he given his consent, if such consent had been given, to a bill that took from the bishops that power which they possessed by divine authority? It was the object of the ancient temporal law of this land to endeavour to prevent the free subjects of this nation from being harassed by ecclesiastical suits instituted far from the diocese in which they resided. With that view, the 23d of Henry 8th, c. 9, was passed. That statute was introduced just before the Reformation, when men's minds were most alive not only to the corruptions, but to the usurpations, of the Church of Rome. At that time, and before Henry had separated from the Church of Rome, a bill was brought in and passed, which prohibited process from being sued out in the Archbishop's Court, with reference to cases originating out of his jurisdiction. The Archbishop was restrained from calling persons before him in cases occurring in different dioceses, unless where the bishop was afraid of proceeding against the accused party in his diocese, was guilty of any important omission, or had neglected his duty. With these exceptions, the statute of Henry 8th forbade, that to be done which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack now called on their Lordships to do. It would not, he presumed, be considered any disparagement to the

609
noble and learned Lord who now presided in the Court of Chancery, and who was Speaker of that House, to observe that the bill to which he had referred was passed when Sir T. More was Lord Chancellor. It was passed under the sanction and authority of that most virtuous man, who, though he yielded up his life rather than recede from his conscientious belief in the supremacy of the Pope, yet, on behalf of the King's subjects, opposed the idea that individuals whose cases might be investigated in the provinces, should be called on to answer in the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. To the 10th and 11th clauses of the present bill, he felt the strongest objections. The 10th clause enacted, "that when all the several pleas in any such suit shall have been made up, and before any witnesses shall have been examined, but not afterwards, it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese to whose authority the defendant may be subject, or if he is subject to the authority of more than one bishop, for the archbishop of the province to enter a noli prosequi in such suit, provided the judge of the said court shall have made such bishop or archbishop a special report, that in his judgment the suit is frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise improper to be proceeded with." Now, the prosecutor might be Heaven knew whom; but the bishop, not being the prosecutor, having nothing to do with the matter as prosecutor, was called on by this clause, at the suggestion of a third party, to enter a noli prosequi. Now he would ask the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, whether it was ever known that a noli prosequi was entered at the instance of a party having nothing to do with the suit? The 11th clause enacted, "That when all the several pleas in any such suit shall have been made up, and before witnesses shall have been examined, or afterwards, it shall be lawful for the judge, on motion in open court, on behalf either of the promoter of the suit or of the bishop of the diocese, to whose authority the defendant may be subject, or, if he is subject to more than one bishop, on behalf of the arch bishop of the province, to suspend the defendant from performing any spiritual offices during the pendency of such proceedings; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese within which such defendant may be beneficed, licensed, or serving, to provide in the mean time
610
for the performing the duties of the cure, by sequestration or otherwise, as in the case of non-residence." This, he contended, was contrary to a principle of the canon law, both ancient and modern, which provided that the bishop himself should pronounce sentence in case of suspension or other penal visitation. He should unhesitatingly say, that in point of public policy a more unjust and inexpedient measure never had been presented to either House of Parliament. There was nothing that could more tend to dissolve the connexion between the bishop and his clergy, than to take out of the hands of the bishop jurisdiction over the conduct of the clergy of his own diocese. If the bill passed into a law, he should be obliged to send them to the metropolis for every offence of which they might stand accused. But, apart from considerations of this nature, the importance of which could hardly be overrated, he must call their attention to the fact, that the bill involved most important private interests, and involved them in a manner that gave impunity to guilt, and robbed innocence of its best protection. Could anything he so calculated to work injustice, as that an act of the Legislature should declare, that a man was not to be called to account for real or alleged misconduct in the country where he was best known. The man might live, or the offence might be committed in Durham or in Cork, but the legal proceedings must take place in London. In accusations against the clergy, as against other individuals, but especially in cases affecting the clergy, it was of the utmost moment to know what sort of reputation the accused bore in his own immediate neighbourhood. Surely, it was there, that men could best judge of the probability of charges. If the clergy were deprived of the advantages which a local trial gave them, could anything be easier than for any malicious man, having a long purse, to terrify into submission any neighbouring curate, against whom he might think proper to prefer an accusation, for what country curate would attempt a defence in Doctors' Commons? Having said so much on the merits of the bill itself, he should trouble the House with a remark or two on the subject of authority. The noble Duke opposite, one of the greatest and best of reformers, when he was at the head of the Government in the reign of George 4th, had his attention

611
directed to a case long pending in the ecclesiastical courts, and which by the conduct of one of the parties had been transferred from one court to another, until such a delay had taken place, and until such costs were incurred, that hardly any adjudication could lead to a just result. Thereupon the noble Duke issued a commission to inquire into the state of the law, and to report to the Sovereign thereon, suggesting such remedies as to the commissioners might seem most expedient and best calculated to remedy the evils to which he had directed their attention. That commission included the most reverend prelate then in the House, it included several of his right rev. Friends; amongst the commissioners was the noble and learned Lord opposite, and several of the most eminent judges of the land. They proceeded to the task which the noble Duke had assigned them with the greatest zeal and industry, and made such a report as was not often made. Those commissioners gave their opinion decidedly in favour of preserving to the bishop his ancient jurisdiction over the clergy of his diocese, although they thought he might delegate to his chancellor jurisdiction respecting disputed wills and other questions of that nature; the report distinctly stated the doctrine relative to the canon law in this particular, and this he found to be in exact accordance with the opinions which he had taken the liberty of stating to their Lordships on the subject of the present bill. The language which the commissioners used in their report was this:—"With respect to the tribunal which we recommend, we remark that it will restore to the bishops that personal jurisdiction which they originally exercised, and which was afterwards delegated by them to their chancellors and officials. The doctrine of the canon law is, that although the trial of causes of certain descriptions may be properly intrusted to a lay judge, to the bishop himself belongs inquisitio correctio punitio excessuum scu amotio a beneficio." Agreeably to this principle, the power of deprivation is reserved to the bishops in person, and the same principle seems to apply to the case of suspension, and to the infliction of any other censure which may affect a clergyman's spiritual functions. Their Lordships, of course, would not overlook the fact, that the name of the framer of the present measure was included in the
612
commission. The noble and learned Lord who brought it in, might have acted as midwife; but the parent of the bill was one of the commissioners. He begged the House to contrast the declarations of the report with the measure then on their table, which violated every recommendation of the commissioners. For example, the commissioners said, the bishop ought with the aid of an assessor, to hear and determine all matters relating to the conduct of the clergy. His right rev. Friend near him had said, that great advantages would accrue if the whole of the recommendations of the commissioners were attended to; surely, then, that right rev. Prelate must now vote against the bill. It was expected, that the report made at the instance of the noble Duke would, in 1834, have led to some measure; but, as their Lordships were aware, no such result ensued. The Session of 1834, was called "the do-little Session;" and certainly nothing in that year was done with reference to the measure in question. It was stated, however, by Sir John Campbell, in 1835, he not being then Attorney-general, that when he had filled that office, a bill in accordance with the recommendations of the commissioners had been prepared; but he and his Friends thought, that if brought in, there would, at that time, be no chance of its being carried. This led to the year 1835; and thus was he enabled to say, that his late Majesty's Ministers had expressed sentiments diametrically opposed to the present bill. In 1834, 1835, and 1836, successive Ministries declared in favour of adopting the recommendations of the commissioners. The most rev. Prelate near him, said, in reference to the measure introduced by the noble and learned Lord opposite, that the subject was one of extreme difficulty and importance. The most rev. Prelate called upon every Member of that House, lay and spiritual, to use their best endeavours for the purpose of making the bill as perfect as possible. There was not a whisper against the principle of the measure; it underwent some slight alterations in Committee, but the bill passed their Lordships' House unanimously. It was, however, not passed by them till the 2d of August, when there was no hope of its passing the Commons. In that hon. House, it was not even read a first time; and they did wisely and well on so short a notice not to take the bill into their consideration. The year 1837 was

613
allowed to pass without any renewal of the bill, and now, at this late period of 1838, a totally different measure was laid on their table. A very learned personage, who had been a member of the commission, had told them in terms, that he thought the scheme agreed to in 1832, to be wholly impracticable. Now, this same learned personage had agreed to the report of the Committee in 1832, calling upon Parliament to agree to that very project which, in 1838, he declared that he had always thought calculated to increase the existing evil, and, in short, impracticable. That learned personage was now in the decline of life, and his opinion, which might have possessed much weight when he was six years younger, was, at present, of considerable less value in his (the Bishop of Exeter's) estimation. He could answer for it, that the report which was thus pronounced to be impracticable, had been carried into effect in his (the Bishop of Exeter's) diocese and elsewhere. It was true, that the bishops had been asked, whether this scheme was agreeable to them; but at the first meeting which had been held upon the subject he (the Bishop of Exeter) had arrived rather late, and he had been obliged to tell the meeting that, upon a matter of such grave importance, he could not make up his mind at once; but at the same time he did not shrink from fairly stating his belief that the measure would involve an extinction of the practical functions and authority of the bishops. He was unable to attend the next meeting; but he had been favoured with a copy of what he understood to have received the sanction of a majority of the bishops. No bill was, however, at that period submitted; and he had gone down to the country, not knowing that his brethren had assented to any measure of this description. Upon his arrival at the place of his destination in the country, he found, among his Parliamentary papers, one which struck him with very considerable surprise—namely, the bill which was now upon their Lordships' table; a measure, which, so far from having, like other bills, been elaborated with any ordinary degree of care, had sprung forth a perfect Minerva from the head of the noble Lord, complete at its birth. Almost immediately afterwards, the committee upon the bill was, he found to his infinite astonishment, appointed. Upon his ascertaining this, he started
614
forthwith to town directly after dinner, to oppose its further progress. It was a measure affecting the most important interests and essential functions of the clergy, on behalf of whom he earnestly appealed to their Lordships. The clergy of this country had not yet had an opportunity of knowing one fraction of the provisions of the bill. If it was a bill for the regulation of master chimney-sweepers, it would have been proceeded with in a more careful and patient spirit. Surely, it was not to be endured that such a bill should pass from their Lordships to the other House of Parliament, in the absence of many of those who would be the most likely to give it a careful consideration, to be dealt with by a summary process, and hurried indecently through the House. He, therefore, did not believe that their Lordships would grant a third reading to the bill, but that they would rather agree with him when he proposed, that it should be read a third time that day six months.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that if hard words and insinuations could secure the fate of this bill, its doom might be considered as sealed. If, according to the right rev. Prelate's statement they had been influenced by a desire to devise a measure which would become destructive to the legitimate influence of the bishops as well as to Church discipline generally, they would have just fixed upon the present bill; and yet, according to the right rev. Prelate, the measure had emanated from individuals who were entitled to the highest respect. The right rev. Prelate had paid some compliments to him which he was aware, that he did not deserve. He had also alluded to the very eminent judge who presided over the court of Admiralty, and he had indulged in insinuations, which he had heard with the utmost concern, with respect to that revered judge's faculties being impaired. Now, he could say from personal knowledge, that those insinuations were unfounded. But the attacks of the right rev. Prelate were not confined to that revered judge; but he had chosen to impute to the Lord Chancellor, that he did not act in this matter upon his own motion, but was prevailed upon by the representations of others to take charge of the bill. Now he would scorn to shelter himself under the wing of others, or to decline to take to himself his full share of responsibility in this matter. The bill, however, which had

615
not been framed without consulting the entire bench of bishops, for no fewer than two preliminary meetings had taken place, which were numerously attended. Upon one of those occasions the right rev. Prelate had attended, and objected to the bill, but certainly not in the terms of reprobation which he had chosen that night to employ, nor anything like those terms. There was, he believed, only one other Prelate who objected to the bill upon that occasion, and who did so simply on the ground, that he was satisfied with the working of his own court. He was requested by that body of bishops to carry the heads of the bill to the Lord Chancellor, as having received their approbation, and they being desirous, that it, should be carried into effect. He did not imagine that their Lordships would be much influenced by the assertion of the right rev. Prelate as to the interference of this bill with the inherent rights of the Church. Most of the right rev. Prelate's observations upon this subject applied to a perfectly different state of things from the present, when the Church was an independent society, not at all connected with the State, and its affairs were managed by its own officers. Referring to the Reformation, and especially to the Revolution a great deal of business was committed to them which did not properly belong to them, and yet was judicially disposed of by the chancellors nominated by them. The case which had been referred to by the right rev. Prelate afforded a very sufficient illustration of the evils attending upon the old mode of proceeding in the ecclesiastical courts. At present either party might appeal, from the courts of inferior jurisdiction, or from the diocesan courts to the Court of Arches. Now, this was the state of things from which the bishops who had acted with him were desirous of relieving the Church. According to the plan now proposed, there would be only one appeal to one of the courts from a final sentence or from a decree having the effect of a final sentence. But it was said, this was taking away the jurisdiction of the bishop and transferring it to another court. But a cause might at present be removed at any time to the Court of Arches; at least, this was the case both with the inferior courts and the greater part of the diocesan courts. It was extremely desirable that cases of this kind should be heard before a sufficient court,
616
one competent to decide the questions which came before it, and to carry its decrees into execution, with a bench of advocates who were able to do justice to both parties. Would the right rev. Prelate say, that the courts at present in existence furnished any such means? The consequence of the continuance of the present mode of procedure would be to continue the inefficiency of the present state of things. When the right rev. Prelate spoke of innocent persons being dragged up to London, it was no more than they were exposed to at present, and he considered that it would be much better for them to have their cause heard before one competent court than to be subjected to an inquiry before a court of inferior jurisdiction, and then to have the cause removed to the Court of Arches. With respect to the feelings of the clergy on this subject, what other feelings could they have but a desire that justice should be done on those who were a disgrace to the clergy? He was sure that there was not a respectable clergyman in England who contemplated being dragged before this tribunal, He would, however, tell their Lordships what the clergy did object to in the bill of 1836, the history of which had been given at so much length, and that was, a provision that the clergy should serve on juries, to judge their brother clergymen. To return to the present bill, their Lordships would recollect that the present courts must be presided over by bishops who could not retire, like the judges, when they were superannuated or infirm. But the court proposed would always be competent, and as its jurisdiction would be extended over England and Wales, there would be no questions about local jurisdiction. He hoped he had shown, that there was nothing new in the Court of Arches taking original cognizance of these cases. The alteration suggested would also much diminish the expense of the present process. He repeated, that he made himself responsible, not for the details of the bill on anything he did not understand, but for the principle on which this bill was framed. If he was wrong, as very likely he might be, and he was shown that he was wrong, he was very ready to give it up. He had been actuated by no other motive than a desire to make the discipline of the Church as effective as possible, and of removing a blot which had long shamed the Church—namely,

617
that offences had been committed with impunity by clergymen, while any attempt to punish them by prosecution bore more severely on the prosecutor than the prosecuted. He should not shrink from the odium of unpopularity which such unfair observations as he had heard that night might tend to create against himself and other authors of this bill. He was not disposed to weaken episcopal authority, nor to invade the privileges of the forum domesticum. The right rev Prelate said, that supposing a measure of this kind to pass, he would avail himself of the spiritual powers given him by the supreme head of the Church, and that he would call on the offending clergyman, by his oath of canonical obedience, to repent of his errors, and to amend his life. But did this bill interfere with the forum domesticum? Did it not leave the full exercise of those powers to every Bishop on the bench? Of those powers the Bishops could not divest themselves, but so far from being weakened by the bill, they would be strengthened when it came into operation. It was impossible to suppose that any Bishop would carry on a prosecution against a clergyman when he might carry his object into effect by the milder methods of persuasion and reproof. A prosecution was only resorted to when the reformation of a criminal was hopeless, and he had no other course to pursue. Some invidious attacks had been made upon the 10th and 11th clauses of the bill, which gave the Bishop power to suspend clergymen pending prosecutions against them: but after the bill had been read a third time he would propose a clause which would, perhaps, meet the views of the right rev. Prelate. He would not now go further than to say, that ecclesiastical courts had been before their Lordships for many years, and had been the subject of frequent discussions, and that it was now time to put an end to it, in order, that the enemies and friends of the Church might not have it in their power to say, that crimes could be committed by clergymen with impunity. No remedy could be proposed for the existing evils which were admitted, that would not be met by objections from some parties; but still he held the principles on which the bill was now opposed by the right rev. Prelate were erroneously founded, and that, as no mode of amendment could be expected to give universal satisfaction, he trusted their
618
Lordships would now allow the bill to be read a third time.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to answer two questions put to him by the most rev. Prelate. The most rev. Prelate had asked if he could prevent a cause being now brought originally from the provincial or diocesan court into the Court of Arches in London. He begged most distinctly to say, that he could. The most rev. Prelate said, that the report contained directly the contrary; he would put the report into the hands of the most rev. Prelate, and entreat him to point out the passage. He had, as was his duty, made it his business to ascertain what was now the practice, and he had asked his own chancellor whether he granted letters of request ex debito justitiœ or ex gratiâ, and he had been informed, that so far from being a matter of course, he (the chancellor) always deliberated whether or not he should grant them, and had added, that there was then a case in his court in which he had refused them. He had learned also, that it was impossible in all the cases of the correction of clerks to find a single instance in which by letters of request the causes had originated in the Court of Arches. The next question put to him was, as to the party who pronounced now the sentence of deprivation. As the law now existed, the sentence was pronounced by the bishop, not coming up to the Court of Arches, but in his own diocesan court. If the sentence was appealed against, it came to the Court of Arches, and then went back to the diocesan court, where the Bishop pronounced sentence. He protested, that such was, he firmly believed, the state of the law at present.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he was that some of the right rev, bench who had served on the commission should have an opportunity of addressing the House on this subject; but as none of them rose he was desirous, mixed up as he had been with this question, of offering a few observations to their Lordships. He entirely agreed in what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate in the very candid and temperate statement which he had made with respect to the object he had in view; he was sure that no man who knew the most rev. Prelate as he (Lord Brougham) had long had the happiness to do, or any one who by reputation knew the most rev. Prelate could have the slightest doubt of the entire and absolute

619
purity of his intentions—of that purity which had influenced the whole of the most rev. Prelate's career. The most rev. Prelate might now differ in opinion from those with whom he had before agreed—he might now have a new view of the subject from that which he entertained when on the commission, and this was an additional ground for confidence in the candour of the most rev. Prelate. But it was one thing to give the most rev. Prelate credit for candour, and it was another thing to consider he had been wrong in his views in 1830—again in 1832, and again in 1835, when a bill on this subject had been most fully discussed in Committee, and without opposition. He (Lord Brougham) had listened with the utmost attention, as he always did, to every thing that fell from the most rev. Prelate, especially upon ecclesiastical matters, and with an extreme desire to learn what had produced so great a revulsion and change of sentiment in one who had agreed with him (Lord Brougham) on a former occasion. He had listened with profound respect to the most rev. Prelate, but from the beginning to the end of his speech he had been unable to discover any single shadow of argument against the report of the commissioners, or against the bills founded upon it three or four different times by the Government of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), by the Government of the noble Viscount near him (Viscount Melbourne), and by the Government of Earl Grey—bills all intended to give that report full and immediate effect. The arguments of the most rev. Prelate had been confined, not to a comparison between this and former remedies, but between this bill and no remedy at all for the present defective state of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He had no wish to interfere between the two right rev. Prelates, both of whom were eminent ornaments of the Church, but he could not help feeling but that the right rev. Prelate was justified in complaining that the recommendations of the commissioners had been so completely departed from in the present bill. The most rev. prelate appeared to be surprised at the strictures passed on this measure by theright reverend relate. He (Lord Brougham) would only say on this point—
"Tantæne animis cœlestibus iræ"
But he thought that the most rev. Prelate
620
did not state the facts of the case quite fairly when he referred to the extreme case of Mr. Free, and asked whether for such a case of delinquency there should not be provided a remedy. The right rev. Prelate, however, did not say that such a state of things should be allowed to continue, for he distinctly stated it was a very bad state of things, and that a remedy should be provided, but that the present measure would not be an efficient remedy. He (Lord Brougham) agreed with the right rev. Prelate that there should be a remedy, but that the former one that was proposed was infinitely better than that proposed in this bill. The most rev. Prelate said, that the court recommended in the report of the commissioners, and proposed in the former bill, was not so perfect a court, as there was not so much legal knowledge in it as there was in the court of Arches. The report did not propose, as had been supposed, that the Bishop should preside in this court; but it recommended that he should have an assessor. It did not propose, that the Bishop should be personally sitting in foro domestico, but that he should be there by deputy. The present bill, if passed, would take the immediate jurisdiction from each Bishop, and would provide that all cases should come up to Doctors' Commons from all parts of the country, even the most remote. Therefore, if the conduct of a curate residing in Wales was called in question the case must be brought up to London; and the same with a poor parson in Cumberland, in Berwick-on-Tweed, or at the Land's-end. According to this bill every case must originate in Doctors' Commons, although the commissions had unanimously recommended that the case should in the first place be heard before the Bishop or his assessor. He was satisfied that it was better that the matter should commence in this way, as was proposed in the other bill, than that every matter of this kind should be dragged up to London. Now, this bill would really disable a Bishop from proceeding in case of delinquency if he was at all anxious as to the amount of the expenses he was likely to incur. The Bishop of the diocese, be it recollected, was liable to all the expenses of this proceeding, for he must defray the charge of bringing the witnesses up to the Arches Court, and their maintenance here, and the employment of counsel, and all the

621
other heavy expense of proceeding in this dilatory court. He entertained great respect for Sir John Nicholl and his nephew, Sir Herbert Jenner; but, notwithstanding all his respect for these learned judges, he must most strongly object to the mode in which the business was conducted in their court. In their court the judge never saw the face of a witness, but the evidence was taken by depositions, and the form in which it was taken was as objectionable as the system which existed in the old court of session in Scotland before it was reformed; and the form of the pleadings in this court was in conformity with the inconvenient, verbose, and antiquated mode provided by the civil law. Instead, therefore, of examining the witnesses vivâ voce on the spot where the character of the poor clerk might be known, the whole of the parties were to be dragged up from the most distant parts of the country to Doctors' Commons, where the witnesses would not be questioned in open court, but where they would have to make depositions which would have to be written out, then printed, and, after the lengthened proceedings on one side and the other, judgment might be given; then the case might be carried to a Court of Appeal, and the whole proceedings would have to be gone over again. This bill, therefore, had first the bad quality of preventing a Bishop doing his duty, unless he were willing to incur the responsibility for the heavy expense that necessarily would be entailed by such proceedings as were directed in this bill, in this most expensive court; and, secondly, it enabled a malicious person—if there could be such a being on the bench of Bishops—to subject the clergy of a diocese to ruinous expense, by adopting proceedings against them in this court. If they went on legislating in this way, by passing a bill unanimously, for two consecutive years, and then in the following year passing a measure every enactment of of which was contrary to those in the previous bill, he did not see how they could obtain any respect for the proceedings of that House. He did not see how they could ever hereafter get men of great learning and acquirements to act as commissioners if their labours were to be treated with the contempt which they had been, by adopting in this bill, principles directly at variance with their recommendations, There were
622
fifteen commissioners, men the most eminent for their learning and acquirements, who had inquired into these matters, and after they had expended, much time and pains on the subject they unanimously adopted a report, to which they affixed their names and signatures. The report gave the reasons why the commissioners adopted the various recommendations contained in the result of their labours, and all of which recommendations had been embodied in the bill which had wisely been suggested by them. He had entertained not the slightest doubt on this part of their labours, and he had himself introduced a bill which he might almost say had been prepared by the commissioners for the carrying out the object which this bill was brought forward for the purpose of effecting. The same measure had been brought forward twice in the other House by Sir F. Pollock, but in consequence of the late period at which it was brought forward on both occasions it had not passed the other place. In 1836 the bill, however, which he had introduced passed through all its stages in that House, but at too late a period of the Session to be passed into a law. But what did Sir John Nicholl do? After agreeing to the report and signing it he had taken active steps to call upon the Legislature not to carry the recommendations of the commissioners into effect. No new light struck him on the subject until 1838, when he found out that all the recommendations introduced into the report—which he had signed and sealed, and which he had taken such an active part in preparing—were fallacies, and that it was advisable to frame an enactment on principles diametrically opposed to those of the former bill. The only explanation which he had deigned to give was in a letter which he had sent to other commissioners, in which he said that, as an objection had been made to the recommendations of the commissioners—but he did not say from whence or what was the nature of the objections, or upon what they rested—it would be better to introduce another bill, of a different nature from the former. This bill had in consequence been introduced, and it was diametrically opposed to the recommendations which were contained in the report to which Sir John Nicholl had set his seal and signature. Now, he thought that the least this learned individual could do was

623
to lay those lights before his colleagues in the commission to see what effect they might have upon them. He would remind the House that, in addition to the most reverend Prelate, two other right reverend Prelates, of great eminence, were on this commission, and concurred in the report; there was also Chief Justice Tindal. Was the opinion of that learned judge in this matter to be regarded as nothing? There was also his noble Friend who formerly held the office of chief justice of the Common Pleas. Was his opinion to be regarded as nothing; and was he not to be informed of the reasons which induced Sir John Nicholl to change his opinion? Was the opinion of Dr. Lushington, who was one of the commissioners, and who was the most eminent practitioner in the civil courts, and who, indeed, was the author of the report, to be regarded as of no weight or authority on this subject? And here, alluding to the report, he begged to state to the House that just previous to its publication the late Lord Tenterden told him that it was by far the ablest report that had ever come from any commissioner, and he found that this high opinion of its merits was fully borne out when he came to peruse it, He had read this document most attentively, and he found that it was drawn up with much learning, and the reasons that were given for the various recommendations embodied in it were most satisfactory, and fully justified the introduction of every clause that was to be met with in the old bill. It now appeared, however, to that learned person, Sir John Nicholl, that there were some objections to the establishment of the forum domesticum in each diocese, but what they were he did not deign to state; but it was determined in this bill that in every case the parties should appear in curiâ Sanctœ Mariœ de Arcibus, which was held to be the real forum domesticum of each and every one of the English dioceses. This reminded him of the old argument that had been urged in justification of imposing taxes on the then British settlements in America, now the United States, namely, that they were held to be part and parcel of the manor of East Greenwich. That was always part of the old plea in legal proceedings regarding America, and was held to be a sound argument for taxing that country. It now appeared that the new light that had broken on the mind of Sir John Nicholl
624
was something analogous to this, and they were, in consequence, called upon to throw to the winds all the recommendations of all the other commissioners. For his own part, he was most decidedly opposed to this bill, and in favour of the old measure. He did not think, if the recommendations of the commissioners were to be treated in this way, that any man of learning or eminence would consent to serve as a commissioner again. It was clear that those who agreed with the provisions of this bill must differ in toto cœlo from all the enactments of the former one, and yet they had not beard a single reason why the former should not be adopted in the place of the latter, which was the result of the labour of so many learned individuals. One other ground of objection to this bill was the time in which it was brought forward in this House. If it passed it would be within a week of the time in which the former bill was sent down to the other House, and which was thrown out by it, in the sessions of 1836, because it came down at so late a period to be considered. Such he also ventured to foretell would be the result of the present bill, should it pass that House. They were now, however, called upon to pass this measure, and to give up their own opinions for that of one commissioner, who showed that he was fickle and uncertain in his opinions. Was it then a sufficient reason to give up their opinions merely because Sir John Nicholl had sent the other commissioners a letter, or rather verbosa et grandis epistola venit, which mentioned no reasons which could justify a change of opinion on such an important subject? It was very possible, also, that this learned person, who had so hastily changed his opinions on this subject, might do so again; they therefore should not hastily adopt the present plan. At any rate, it was clear that the bill could not pass the House of Commons during the present year, for he was sure that House would look into the report of 1832, and this alone would be sufficient to prevent their getting through the bill this Session. This bill had not been many weeks before Parliament. [The Bishop of Exeter: it was not introduced until the present month.] Under these circumstances he could not believe, that the proposers of this measure were sincere in wishing to pass it during the present Session. He repeated, that no reasons had been given

625
which should induce them to change their opinions; and he was sure that they would not so readily induce the other House to abandon their opinions on this subject. With respect to the differences that had existed between the two right rev. Prelates, he would only say that he regretted that it had taken place; but
"Non nostrum inter nos tantos componere lites."
He would only add, that he thought before the learned judge to whom he had so often alluded recommended the Legislature to pass this bill, he should go before his colleagues in the first instance, and propose to them to change their opinions; for he had not yet given any satisfactory reason or authority that could justify his abandoning the report and adopting the bill. Indeed, he was convinced that it was utterly impossible for him to give any such reasons. He must also observe, that he should tell his excellent and learned Friend (Sir John Nicholl) that if he at any time hereafter found his learned Friend's name to a report of a commission, and if he found him the strong and able advocate of the recommendations of that commission, and if he at the same time asked him (Lord Brougham) to bring in a bill founded on such report, he should say to him, "I shall pause, Sir John; for you again within a twelve-month will tell me that you and your colleague were altogether in the wrong, and that you arrived at conclusions directly opposite to those which you should have adopted; no, good Sir John; you must get somebody else to propose your measures." He trusted, in conclusion, that they would not proceed with that bill, but would adopt the amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
The Bishop of Lincolnwas understood to declare that, as one of the commissioners, he felt not the slightest hesitation in giving his support to this bill. He was as anxious to maintain the rights and privileges of the Anglican Church as any of his right reverend brethren; but he was convinced that this measure would not produce the slightest injury to any of those rights. He doubted much whether the second clause of this bill would be attended with any of those inconveniences which had been descanted on with so much eloquence by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Exeter), or that it would prevent a diocesan having recourse to the forum domesticum.
Lord Wynfordrecommended, under all the circumstances, the withdrawal of the bill for the present Session. The great grievance pointed out by the commissioners and complained of by the Court of Chancery itself was, that vivâ voce evidence was not taken in the courts of Doctors' Commons. The alteration which the commissioners had recommended in this respect was the very best that could be made, and he was at a loss to know why that recommendation should be given up. The present course was most expensive to the litigating parties, and inconvenient to the progress of public justice. In regard to appeals, he did not think that nine out of ten cases which came before the courts would be appealed, while the expenses of sending a commission into Cornwall or other distant counties would be, to many, ruinous. As to the shortening of time in the trial of those cases, the most rev. Prelate stated, that any question at issue would be settled in six months, but he feared such a period would be found much too short for Doctors' Commons. He was persuaded, that there would be neither a saving of time nor of expense by the plan proposed, and if the bill passed he made no doubt that he should hear of cases remaining five years unsettled. He was unwilling to trespass upon the time of their Lordships, but there was one clause of the bill to which he felt bound to call their attention. If sentence of deprivation was passed, it was provided by one of the clauses of the bill that the expense should be paid out of the living. To such a provision he decidedly objected, and if their Lordships were to sanction such a clause, he would ask what answer they could give if they were again asked to pass a measure for the abolition of Church-rates, and placing the maintenance of the fabric of the Church as a burden upon the property of the Church itself? He considered this a most objectionable interference with church property, and if they allowed the poor livings to be taxed for the purposes of this bill, it would be impossible to refuse to tax the property of the Church for the support of the fabric of the Church. What pretence was there for such a scheme, or on what principle could it be sanctioned? He thought it was most unjust to make the succeeding incumbent pay for the faults of others, and he could see no principle upon which a clause con-

627
taining such enactments could be supported, and he was persuaded, that if the bill containing such a clause passed, the results would be most injurious to the Church.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas not at all astonished that the most rev. Prelate should press their Lordships to pass the bill now under their consideration during the present Session. It was above ten years since the subject to which this bill related was under consideration by a committee of their Lordships' House, and since the report on which the bill was founded had been given in, and he was not therefore surprised that the most rev. Prelate, after having seen several attempts made to pass a measure on this subject, and after having seen the failure of all those attempts—he was not, he said, under those circumstances, surprised that the most rev. Prelate should have thought it expedient to attempt to prevail upon their Lordships to pass the bill under consideration, or that he should have requested the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to prepare and bring in such a bill. He must confess, however, that considering the importance of the subject, and the lateness of the period at which the measure had been brought forward—considering, too, that this was the first occasion on which the House had had an opportunity of deliberating on the bill, and considering also the difference of opinion which prevailed upon the right rev. Bench, he was most anxious, keeping all these circumstances in view, that their Lordships should postpone the measure till some future time. Having listened with the greatest attention to the discussion which had that evening taken place, he was obliged to confess that he had heard no answer to some of the most important objections which had been urged against the bill by the right rev. Prelate who had moved that the third reading should be postponed for six months. In the first place, he did not think it was quite clear that the forum domesticum, which the whole of the right rev. Prelates admitted should still continue to exist, could exist were the bill passed, and the sixth clause remain unaltered. The right rev. Prelate who had last spoken, had said, that he doubted whether the sixth clause did not deprive the bishops of their authority in this particular court. The right rev. Prelate said, there might be
628
doubts upon the subject; but surely, if such doubts existed on a point of so much importance, they ought to be cleared up, and it ought fully to be understood what authority would remain to the bishops should the bill pass. That, then, was an argument for delay, and for more mature deliberation. The right rev. Prelate had read a letter from the principal commissioner, who was stated to have framed the report on which the bill was founded, and whose opinions were entitled to the highest respect, and it appeared that he also thought that the forum domesticum ought to be preserved. It appeared also, that in the rust bill which had been introduced on this subject, certain words were inserted which tended to secure the authority of the bishops and the continuance of those courts, but for some reason, which had not yet been explained, those words had been omitted in the present bill, and he could not but doubt the propriety of that omission. He, therefore, thought that their Lordships ought to pause before proceeding further with the measure, which in his estimation required more mature deliberation than it had yet received. Then he must confess, also, that he had great objections to the clause which had been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Wynford). He could see no reason for the extraordinary provisions of that clause, nor could he approve of the principle upon which it was framed. It might be proper to provide for the payment of costs, but it was only when all other means had been tried, and every other source exhausted, and not till then, that they should make the costs fall upon the property of another, on the property of persons who were innocent—namely, the patron of the living, or the incumbent succeeding the delinquent. He never could consent to the bill without a material alteration in the clause to which he alluded. But, considering that that objection was a mere trifle compared with others that had been urged, and considering that by far the most important provisions of the bill were contained in the first and second clauses, to which their Lordships' attention had scarcely been directed, he would decidedly recommend the postponement of the measure till a future period of the present Session, or till the next Session of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the question whether this bill should pass into

629
a law this Session, was one of very considerable importance, because another measure, which the House had before it in the year 1836, had been necessarily postponed until some measure of the kind should be introduced. In that year their Lordships appointed a Select Committee, to inquire into the general question of Ecclesiastical Courts, and resolutions were adopted which were embodied in a bill which would have taken its regular course, if it had not been found that it was impossible to proceed until a bill of the description of that now before the House should be agreed upon. In order to meet the difficulty, he with the approbation of a portion of the right reverend Bench of Bishops, for he must confess they did not all concur in his views, submitted to their Lordships a bill for the purpose of establishing a jurisdiction to meet the difficulties which were in existence, and to provide for the regulation of that description of property mentioned in the present bill. When he proposed that measure, he had entertained great hopes that it would have passed into a law, for it appeared to be a scheme which would remedy many of the evils which had existed, and would effectually provide for the discipline of the Church. When its object became generally known, however, various difficulties were started by those who were most interested in it. It became exceedingly unpopular among the clergy, it received no countenance in the House, and it appeared that it was never likely to pass into a law. He had always held himself ready to give every assistance to remove any acknowledged evil, and to afford a proper tribunal, but the last Session and the early part of the present Session of Parliament passed away without anything being suggested which would remedy the evils complained of, and then the most rev. Prelate devised the present plan, which was acceded to by some of the right rev. Bishops, and which, besides, it was admitted, was most likely to be beneficial in reference to the subject now before the House. It appeared to him that the bill would be most likely to succeed, and to secure the desired object; it did no possible injury to any man, and it provided a jurisdiction less expensive and more effectual than any which had hitherto existed, and it changed that which it was almost universally admitted wanted improvement—the Ecclesiastical Courts. Therefore it was, that he did commit that
630
great offence which had brought down upon him all the vituperation of the right rev. Prelate, of helping to bring in this measure, and therefore it was, that he had also been guilty of having assisted in passing the bill through its former stages, and now of proceeding with it to its third reading. The right rev. Prelate knew well what part he had taken in the matter, and he knew quite well from what quarter the bill proceeded; but knowing this, and moved by some passion which might be agreeable in some, but not in others, to exercise, he made an attack upon him in reference to the matter. Now, these things had not the slightest effect upon him, and if the right rev. Prelate thought that he was like some other men he was much mistaken, for he could assure the right rev. Prelate that he had no feelings at all upon the subject, and he would not be led away by the temptation which had been held out to him to say one word in answer to those remarks which had been made. Now, leaving the vituperation of the right rev. Prelate, he would address himself shortly to the subject matter of complaint before the House. The noble Duke had said very rightly and properly, that this was not only a matter of great importance, but also of great difficulty. He held in his hand the Report which had been made to their Lordships in the year 1832, and the noble and learned Lord had said that, considering the great name that was attached to that report, it must be received with great respect. If anything, however, would detract from the weight to be attached to that report, it was, that he was not aware of any one member of the commission who now adhered to the opinions which he had there expressed, and to the proposition which had been made. He could name a majority of those whose names were appended to the Report who had so altered their views, and he believed that there was only one individual who retained the opinions he had expressed. He had stated, that there was no member who had signed the Report whose present opinion could be quoted in favour of it. No doubt it proposed great improvements in the system which had formerly existed; but the House must remember the very great inconvenience and expense which had belonged to the ecclesiastical courts, with regard to which there could be no exaggeration. It was a grievance which all admitted, and

631
to which all were agreed, some remedy should be applied, the only question being how it was to be done. Now, he repeated that this was a preliminary measure only, and the real question was, whether matters should be allowed to continue as they were, or whether the plan proposed would not be a material improvement? He had no hesitation in saying, that the effect of it would be a great saving of the expense and delay which were now necessarily incurred, for the very proposition which it made was neither more nor less than that, instead of the parties going to the Bishop's Court first, they should go at once to the Arches Court, all the intermediate proceedings and consequent costs being therefore saved. Yet this was the clause at which the bishops were alarmed, and which they opposed, as detracting from the importance of their office, and as taking away their authority. It was said, that it was too late in the Session for the other House to take up this bill. This might be a very good reason for the other House not to proceed with the bill when they received it; but it appeared to him, that it was no ground for their Lordships not to proceed with it. There was another measure of extreme importance connected with the Church which could not be proceeded with till this was passed; and he very much feared, owing to the tardy proceedings of the House in the early part of the Session, both these measures ran a great risk of being delayed another year. On these considerations, he hoped their Lordships would not postpone the passing of this measure.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that although he had not, in the course of this debate, heard anything to shake his opinion of the desirableness of passing the present measure, yet as it seemed to him that the general feeling of the House was against proceeding with it, he was not disposed to press it at the present time.
The amendment agreed to, and bill put off.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Prisons (Scotland) Bill,
Lord Broughamthought it was high time that some improvement should be effected in the prisons of Scotland; but although he was anxious that a measure with such a tendency should be passed, he did not think the present bill by any
632
means likely to answer the object for which it was intended. No one could, for a moment, hesitate to admit the necessity of introducing something like discipline into the gaols; but he was at a loss to know how a bill so preposterous, so monstrous as the present, could have been swallowed wholesale by another House, for which he had the highest respect, although the bills emanating from that House were sent up to their Lordships rather late in the Session. It was his intention to propose many alterations in this bill, if their Lordships went into Committee upon it. He had strong objections to the extraordinary powers given to the Central Board of Commissioners, who were irresponsible for their acts, and could not be removed without a special act of Parliament.
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, that since the bill had been read a second time, he had devoted the greatest attention to a subject of so much importance. He resided in Scotland, and had ample opportunities of knowing the state of the prisons there, which certainly reflected disgrace on the country; he agreed, however, with the noble and learned Lord, that the present bill was not likely to remedy the evil. Had it been sent up earlier in the Session, he should have recommended its being referred to a select committee; but under existing circumstances, he felt himself reluctantly bound to oppose the measure in all its future stages. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord as to the indiscretion of giving such extraordinary powers to irresponsible commissioners. It was said, that if the present bill were not passed, it would be impossible to improve the prisons in Scotland. He was not satisfied as to the correctness of that assertion; for by an Act passed some time since, new prisons might be erected in that country, and a bill might be introduced during the present Session, making such a step compulsory, not optional. The noble Duke concluded by moving, that the bill be committed that day three months.
The Duke of Richmondregretted extremely the course taken by the noble and learned Lord, and by the noble Duke, who admitted the present disgraceful state of the prisons in Scotland. A great deal had been said about the extraordinary powers given to the Central Board of Commissioners; but it would be easy in

633
Committee to introduce amendments to check that power. The state of the gaols in Scotland (with the exception of those in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen) was such, that rather than the present measure should not pass, he would wish to see a bill introduced preventing imprisonment altogether for the next twelve months, as felons came out of the gaols much more depraved than they were on their committal. He still thought, that there was abundance of time left within which to mature a useful bill, and it really was a matter of the highest necessity, that their Lordships should immediately apply themselves to the accomplishment of that object. He believed, that he need not then more urgently press upon their attention the great degree in which an uniform system was demanded in Scotland; for example, what could be more unjust than that judges should inflict the same length of imprisonment in different gaols for similar offences, seeing that no two prisons were alike in their system of discipline? He felt persuaded that the people of Scotland would not complain at having to pay 30,000 l. a-year for the improvement of their prisons, and he hoped, that the noble Duke, though he might not consent to their going into a Committee of the whole House, might still agree to refer the measure to a Select Committee, which certainly could report before the Session was brought to a close.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the bill altogether. There was not the least use in appointing a board, for the inspector and the secretary would really do the whole of the duty, and he thought, that if the bill did go into Committee, they ought to strike out the whole of that part which related to penitentiaries.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that Scottish gaols, both the buildings and the management were of the very worst description, and he felt satisfied, that to prolong the prison system of Scotland for six months would be a much greater evil than could result from the most ill-devised measure that Parliament could possibly adopt. He therefore recommended the House to refer the bill to a Select Committee.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that according to the bill itself, as it stood, the proposed enactments could not come into operation before a year and a half; if they waited till next Session, they might
634
prepare a bill which could operate nearly as soon as that, and yet be free from the disadvantages which marked the present measure.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 30; Not content 26: Majority 4.

List of the CONTENTS

DUKES.

Falkland

Richmond

BARONS.

Argyle

Brougham

Roxburghe

Mostyn

MARQUESS.

Gardiner

Lansdowne

Foley

EARLS.

Montford

Albemarle

Cottenham

Radnor

Holland

Camperdown

Portman

Scarborough

Byron

Ilchester

Plunkett

Minto

Strafford

Lovelace

Belhaven

Chichester

Carew

VISCOUNTS.

Say and Sele

Melbourne

BISHOP.

Lismore

Hereford

Paired off.

FOR

AGAINST.

Poltimore

Saltoun

Ducie

Reay

Fingall

Sandys

Torrington

Warwick

Headfort

Beresford

Gosford

Bandon

Clanricarde

Bute

Glenelg

Lyndhurst

Effingham

Delawarr

Langdale

Bathurst

Carlisle

Skelmersdale

Cowper

Dunsany

Howden

Winchilsea

Vernon

Exmouth

Segrave

Moray

Tavistock

Wilton

Sutherland

Clanwilliam

Lichfield

Alvanley

Uxbridge

Cardigan

Hatherton

Tenterden

Lilford

Charleville

Vaux

Hood

Wrottesley

Forester

Sudeley

Jersey

Barham

Ravensworth

635

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Aberdeen

Hamilton

Rosslyn

Buccleuch

Devon

Wellington

VISCOUNTS.

MARQUESS

Canning

Tweeddale

Canterbury

Lothian

Hawarden

EARLS.

LORDS.

Kinnoull

Colville

Abingdon

Montagu

Mansfield

Carbery

Brecknock

Boston

Ripon

Redesdale

Haddington

Ellenborough

De L'Isle

Wharncliffe

Rayleigh

Colchester

The House resolved itself into Committee.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that it was of very great importance that their Lordships should inform the other House of Parliament of the details of a measure to be introduced in the next year upon this subject, which would have some chance of meeting their Lordships' views. Under all the circumstances, he thought it most advisable that the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the question appeared to him to be whether this was a proper measure or not. In his opinion they would find that, if the bill now before the House were to pass into a law, it never would work with efficiency. The noble Duke had proposed to refer the bill to a Select Committee. If he (Lord Wharncliffe) thought, that in a Select Committee they could agree to such a bill as would be likely to pass during this Session of Parliament, then he should be perfectly willing to concur in that proposition, but as that, was not likely, it would be an entire loss of time. The noble Lord said, "Let us show the House of Commons what is the principle of assessment which we wish to see carried out." But it was not an easy thing to agree upon such a principle, it would take a great deal of time, and would require much more information than their Lordships now possessed, and especially from those parties who had petitioned against the bill.
The Earl of Mintoobserved; that the
636
question of assessment had been before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and had been thoroughly considered by the Scotch Members, and had met with their approbation.
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, that he was perfectly aware of the evils which now existed in the prisons of Scotland, which he was most anxious should be removed, but he did not think that the provisions of this bill would remove them in the manner in which they ought to be removed. He did not think that a delay of this bill till an early part of next Session would produce very serious results, as the real powers of the act could not be put in force till January 1, 1840.
The House resumed, bill referred to a Select Committee.

CAPTURED SLAVE VESSELS.
The Earl of Mintomoved the third reading of the Slave Vessels Captured Bill.
Lord Colchestersaid, that in consequence of the observations which had been made on the subject of the conduct of the officers of the cruisers on the coast of Africa, he wished to address a few observations to their Lordships. It had been argued that the system of bounty, or head-money, was impolitic, because it did not accrue until the vessel had her cargo of slaves on board, and, consequently, the greater part of the crime had been committed; and that the system, consequently, had exercised an influence on the conduct of the officers upon the station, who had been charged with allowing the slave-vessel to embark her cargo of slaves, for the purpose of securing the head-money. If these remarks had been made merely theoretically, he should not have felt it his duty to have troubled their Lordships; but the language which the noble and learned Lord opposite had used on a former occasion appeared to him to convey a very serious insinuation against the officers of her Majesty's navy on that coast, because he had distinctly imputed to them that they had refrained from making any efforts to interrupt the slave vessels in the course of loading. Now there was no doubt, that for a long period the cruisers did make no attempt to capture the slave vessels until after they were laden; and, therefore, to a casual observer, it might appear that they had been actuated by these motives; but then, that depended entirely on the assumption, that they had

637
some authority to take the vessels without their cargo on board. If he proved, that for a long period after the Legislature had granted the bounty, the cruisers had no authority to take the vessels until their cargoes were embarked, but, on the contrary were strictly prohibited from taking them; but that since they had received that authority the capture of vessels without cargoes had been more frequent than that of vessels with cargoes, their Lordships would see that he had vindicated the officers in this service from the charge of a breach of duty, and still more from being actuated by mercenary motives. The noble Lord cited the opinion of Lord Stowell to show that under the general law of nations cruisers had no right to interrupt the proceedings of the slave vessels, but that whatever right they had was acquired by treaties. Treaties had accordingly been entered into with Spain, Portugal, and other countries, by which a limited right to search was granted, and under which tribunals were erected for the purpose of trying the legality of seizures. But there was an article in all these treaties which prohibited the seizure of any vessel until the slaves were actually on board; and so strictly had that been construed, that it had been held not sufficient to justify the capture, though the crew of the cruisers might see the cargo of slaves landed. That view of the subject had been expressed by Lord Palmerston in certain instructions issued under Earl Grey's Government. In 1823 the Netherlands agreed to additional articles, by which vessels which were found equipped in the manner usually adopted for that service were made liable to be detained and sent in for trial. Their equipment was to be considered prima facie evidence, and the onus of proof was thrown on the vessel detained. That authority having been given in 1823, the slave trade under the flag of the Netherlands had been put down before 1830; and between the years 1823 and 1830 the total number of captives had been twenty, of which number thirteen vessels were taken with slaves on board, and seven under the equipment article. The same authority having been given with regard to Spanish vessels in the year 1836, in that year thirty-seven Spanish vessels only had been detained, of which four were released and thirty-three condemned. Of those thirty-
638
three, twenty-four vessels were taken under the equipment articles, and nine only with slaves on board; and therefore with regard to Spanish vessels, the captures of those, which would yield head money was in proportion to those which would yield none, as nine to twenty-three. Even up to the present time the cruisers had no authority to capture vessels under the flag of Portugal until the cargo was on board. In proof of the zeal and activity of their officers he would quote a letter which he had received from Sir Charles Buller, which stated, that his own vessel alone had captured nine vessels on the score of equipment and seven with slaves on board. He begged now only to remind their Lordships of the hardships to which those who were engaged in this service were exposed, from the nature of the climate as well as the service itself; and that very many gallant actions had taken place, the brilliancy of which had rarely been exceeded. In conclusion he would express his surprise and regret, that these documents having been so long on the Table of the House, the noble and learned Lord had not taken more pains in looking into them, before he had come forward and brought such serious charges against gallant men, many of whom had been twenty years in the service.
Lord Broughamwas not aware of the existence of these returns; he would, however, read them, as he was sure, from the specimen the noble Lord had given of them, they would greatly support his argument. He should refer to them, and take an opportunity before the Session closed to call the attention of the House again to the subject, and of bringing before it information he had received on the subject from persons on the coast of Africa—two of them naval officers. He should probably have an, opportunity of repeating their statements to their Lordships, and of giving their names also; but it should be remembered, that he had only repeated the statements of other persons. He did not think the observations of the noble Lord satisfactory, because he knew very well what the tendency of the head-money was. Head-money caused the cruiser to go out of sight, instead of remaining in the chops of the channel or the bight of the bay, and so far off that the entrance to the port was

639
only to be seen from the mast-head. If the cruiser remained in the fork of the port, the slaves would be relanded, because the slave-ship could not remain there for ever. The statements which he had made were founded on the report of Messrs. Oldfield and Laird, the only survivors of the great African expedition.
The Earl of Mintowas sorry that the noble and gallant Lord had caused the resumption of a discussion on a subject which had been already very fully debated; at the same time, he thought it unfair to make those charges against the navy which had been advanced. There was certainly always some danger connected with the system of rewards, and he did not deny, that head-money or prize-money might operate on some persons, but amongst brave and high-spirited men there was a sense of duty and a desire to rise to an honourable standing in their profession, which would prevail over meaner motives. He had watched the conduct of the cruisers, and in no instance had he found that they had neglected to seize a slave-vessel when they had an opportunity. Mr. Laird, in his communication, stated, that the tendency of the system of the cruisers waiting off the coast, was, to allow the slaves in many instances to escape, and contended that a system of blockade should be adopted. He (Lord Minto) differed from Mr. Laird in this particular, as he considered a blockade impracticable, and even if practicable, that it ought not to be adopted, as it would necessarily cause a tremendous loss of life. Their Lordships could have no idea of the loss of life on the African coast, and he might mention, as an illustration of the dreadful mortality which prevailed, that the loss sustained by a small squadron of eleven vessels, whose crews amounted to 605 persons, was, during the last year, not less than 142 individuals. Of these, five were lieutenants, seven masters and second-masters, eight assistant-surgeons, and five mates. Such was the loss sustained by a small squadron during the last year, notwithstanding all the precautions which were taken to prevent contagion; and if the vessels were stationed in the mouths of the rivers, or even a blockade established, the mortality would inevitably be much greater. He did not know that he was called upon to say more, but he desired that it should be distinctly understood
640
that in no one instance had he been able to trace the influence of head-money, preventing any officer on the African coast from honestly and faithfully discharging his duty. As for the tendency of any circumstance, he must say, that this was not decisive of the question. An arrangement might be such as naturally to seem likely to lead to wrong conduct, and yet might not produce it in honourable minds. Thus the great emoluments and high station of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, had a natural tendency to induce other members of the profession of the law not only to aspire at the office of Chancellor, but to attack the Government, in order to turn out the Lord Chancellor and take his place. But it did not by any means follow, that men did attack the Government for this purpose and with this view. The noble and learned Lord had alluded to a former debate, and had spoken as if he had justified some expressions which had been made use of in the other House; but at the time that that debate took place he did not know that the language which the noble and learned Lord complained of had been used, and what he meant to have said was, that it could hardly have been a matter of surprise, after the way in which the noble and learned Lord had spoken of the officers of the navy, if honourable and gallant men expressed themselves with some degree of asperity.
Lord Broughamhad always maintained that the tendency was quite decisive against the head-money system, on this plain ground, that it was either inoperative, and wholly useless, or, if not inoperative, mischievous. It could only cease to be hurtful by being useless. But he denied that he rested his case upon tendency. He showed, upon the evidence of those who had been on the coast, that cruisers stood out to sea to let the slave-ships load, and to entice them out—that is, to make them fill their holds with wretched creatures, torn by force or kidnapped by fraud from their country, and then to make them, in their escape, fling those poor victims overboard by scores to facilitate their flight from justice. This was his (Lord Brougham's) case. To say that there was only a tendency, was, therefore, a mere shallow pretext. The intention of the head-money was executed, and the tendency produced in the actual

641
event of its natural and evil consequences. He might have relied on the evidence of the travellers whom he had cited, but he disdained to do so when his own mind went along with their statements. He was of the same opinion, and the facts on which that rested were no longer disputed, for the noble Earl (Minto) himself admitted them, and so did the noble Baron (Colchester). But there was one part of the noble Earl's speech (Minto) which he at first was puzzled to comprehend. When he found him so far off from the African coast, as to be hovering about the Woolsack, and descanting upon the emoluments and powers of the Great Seal, he could not for the life of him conceive what the noble Earl was after. At first, he only thought this portion of his speech extremely stupid—(he spoke it with all respect)—very flat and tedious, and insipid, and, at so late an hour, somewhat of the most tiresome—but he soon perceived that it was all the while sarcasm in disguise. We had heard of "war in disguise," and this, it seemed, was "wit in disguise"—so thick a disguise indeed, that he questioned if all their Lordships, for whose behoof it was intended, had as yet pierced through to come at it. He, however, had. It seemed as if the noble Earl should say, to the noble Baron (Colchester), "I have no means of helping you in the way of fact—and as for arguing, I am no great hand at that; but my wit is much at your service; at sarcasm, I am no bad hand—I have never before let this out, but the truth is my talent lies that way, and you shall see how merry, and cutting, and sarcastic a creature I can be to serve you." So then his humour was this—the office of Chancellor is a very tempting prize to play for—great pain—vast rank—immense power—all this has a tendency to make men attack the holder and his colleagues, in order to turn them out—that is to say—for this meaning was quite plain, and here lay the whole sting—"You (Lord Brougham) might naturally be supposed to attack the Government for the sake of turning them out, and clutching the Great Seal—you never tried what it was like before—you must naturally be desirous of rising to the top of your profession, which you have been so long looking up to, and so you attack us in order to reach it." Now, he at once admitted that the temptation of that exalted station was great to honourable minds.—The emoluments of his noble and learned
642
Friend's place were, of course, nothing—they were like the head-money to the cruizers—they cared not a straw about it—in their way it lay, and they took it because they could not help doing so. So his noble and learned Friend did by the salary, which he cared not at all for, only he could not well avoid putting it in his pocket. But to have great power—to possess, like his predecessors, the entire confidence of Parliament and the country—to have not merely high place, but those prerogatives and powers, without which it is not felt as any honour, but rather as a humiliation, by honourable minds—to carry all the measures of reform, in Church and State, which he desired—to bring in important bills for amending the law—and above all, for improving the Court he presided over, and have them carried and not rejected by majorities of 96 to 36—to leave the jurisprudence of the realm universally improved, and all men the better for his having been in office—to illustrate his own name in the eyes of future ages by the great measures which he had instituted of wise, enlightened, and enlarged policy, measures which the confidence of Parliament and the country had enabled him to carry—these, he confessed, were attributes of his noble and learned Friend's high office, which any man of a generous ambition might well envy, and to these contemplations, he did not deny that his mind was accessible. But great wits are said to have short memories, and very great wits, like the noble Earl, have surely the shortest memories of all; else, how came the noble Earl to forget that if his attacks should turn out the Government, not he, but his noble and learned Friend not present (Lord Lyndhurst) would take the Woolsack. That was quite clear; and why the powers and profits of the Great Seal should tempt him to turn out his noble and learned and much-esteemed friend (Lord Cottenham) for the purpose of planting his other noble Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) on the Woolsack, the noble Earl had been too light and volatile in his frolicsome humour to think of explaining. He had never before done anything to make the noble Lord now absent (Lord Lyndhurst) Chancellor. He had certainly never recommended him in any way to that high office. But he as certainly had recommended, and effectually recommended, the other noble Lord (Lord Cottenham) to the office, and he verily be-

643
lieved he had never rendered a better service to the suitors of the Court where he presided, than by this proceeding, for he conceived that his noble and learned Friend made an excellent Judge in Equity, and gave general satisfaction. Why, then, should he, having set up the nine-pin, be so anxious to knock it down again? All this the noble Earl passed over, in the wit of the lightsome and merry mood he was in. Possibly, indeed, the noble Earl was not in the secret. But this was not the noble Earl's only omission as to facts—and facts which he must be aware of—though the noble Earl might not be acquainted with the one he had just adverted to. If his quarrel with the Government had anything at all to do with the Great Seal, why did he not oppose them in 1835, when the Ministry was formed? Why not in 1836, when the Seal was given to its present holder? Why not in 1837? These were known facts and dates, which there was no getting over—and the retail dealers in falsehood, who defended the Government through the press, wilfully shut their eyes to these well-known things. But, till this evening, he had never known any Minister who deemed it becoming or discreet to take the same line. Yet, surely the noble Earl must know that the quarrel, if quarrel there had been, on account of office, and the Great Seal, was complete in May, 1835; and yet, how had he (Lord Brougham) acted? If his opposition to the Government had any connexion whatever with his not being Chancellor, how did it happen that in the whole Session of 1835 he had stood by the Government, helping them at every turn—lifting them whenever he could out of the mire—keeping their heads above water to the best of his small means—saving, as far as his utmost exertions could, their existence for some months, during which they were fluttering between life and death—defending them at a moment when the least attack must have tumbled them down from their slippery position? Had he not, at the end of a laborious Session of judicial business, in which he had presided voluntarily in the House, notoriously sacrificed his own health by undertaking the defence of the Government, during the laborious month's combat on the English Municipal Bill? Had he not fought that bill through all its stages, for and with the Government, whose whole existence depended upon the
644
measure? Then, in 1836, though absent at first for three months through illness, brought on by his support of the Government the autumn before, yet for the last two months of the Session, he (Lord Brougham) was quite recovered, and announced to the Government his ability to attend Parliament, but he did not—and why? Because on two important Reform questions, he was compelled to differ from the Ministry—and he was informed by them that his opposition might be fatal as they were then circumstanced. All this was probably new to the noble Earl. The noble Earl was not in the secret. His colleagues told him what they liked about navy matters, and gave him their opinion about Quadruple Treaties, setting him down somewhat bluntly and unceremoniously—but this, which happened in 1836, they had not told the noble Earl; yet, certain it was, that he (Lord Brougham) at their desire had kept away, in order to keep them in their places. And yet the noble Earl, not being in the secret, supposed, with some of the Government newspapers, that his (Lord Brougham's) not being in office was the cause of his differing with the Ministers, and made him wish to turn them out, in order that he might again seize the Great Seal. Those newspaper authorities, however, from which the noble Earl took his facts should have known, and so should the noble Earl, that his (Lord Brougham's) opposition, even in 1837, was confined to entering a reluctant protest against the Canada Bill, which had produced a civil war, and that in all other measures he had during that Session supported the Ministry. His opposition only began, as every man in the country knew, and as these slanderous assailants alone wilfully forgot, when in November last the Government took a new line against Reform of Parliament, and other Reforms; and when on that and on their extravagant Civil List, and their Canada Bills, and the Slave Question, they had compelled him to oppose them, if he (Lord Brougham) did not mean to abandon all his most sacred and most constantly avowed principles and feelings upon the whole policy of the State. These things were quite notorious—they were facts, and at once dispelled the charges made by wilful fabricators out of doors, and at length with an indiscretion to which great wits, like the noble Earl, are too subject, brought forward by a Cabinet Minister in that House.
Lord Colvilledefended the officers of the navy, and said, that the suppression of slavers on the African coast was one of the most disgusting services in which they could be engaged. He had heard with great satisfaction what the noble Earl had said in regard to the conduct of the officers of the navy employed in that service, as he did not think the noble Earl had said so much as he ought to have done on a former occasion. In regard to the mortality to which the noble Earl had alluded, he hoped their Lordships would see from the facts that had been stated, how impossible it was for the cruizers to adopt a system of blockade, or to enter the mouths of the rivers, without hazarding in a tenfold degree the lives of their crews. It was only fair, that the noble and learned Lord, before he alluded to subjects on which he expressed himself so strongly, should be better informed on them; for he had certainly shown a want of professional knowledge in these discussions, by which he had been led away, and had thrown out against the characters of officers aspersions that were not deserved. The noble and learned Lord might be assured, that many of those atrocities had arisen out of well-intentioned, but too hasty and precipitate measures, of which the noble and learned Lord had been the most zealous advocate. In his opinion, emancipation had been granted too hastily, and if we had waited longer, the other powers of Europe might have joined with us, and thereby have prevented much of the abuse that had taken place.