The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. tiOUS4OF LORDS, MARCH 20. Aids :he Ro ROYAL ASSENT. f er of yal Assent was given by Commission to the Trans- Bill, the Exchequer Bills Bill, the Newspaper tiTi",Regulaticn Bill, and the Chester Criminal Execution of Ross e Co mmissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl 1, 1 311, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. Ro use Doke of WELLINGTON laid en the table of the the Report of the Committee on Lay Patronage. L , CASE OF' THE REV. MR. GURNEY. . , %hie°ll4' BROUGHAM said he held in his band a petition, 4, i , 'las most respectfully worded, but he would not state . theZ,` !as from, or what it was about, or any one matter in a i s " --( . L ug h ter. ) He would . merely move that it the stat hb did not intend to make himself answerable for rfL e eir ' el !ts io any_petition he might ever present. t 4 . Petition was then read by the Clerk, which was to of dne effect as was presented by Mr. TOokcLin the House 1 ,, d 1;4111rions a few days since. The petitioner stated that he Td upwards of thirty-two years Curate of St. Alien?, cie rat: :_ and prayed the House would take his case into . consi 4stil_ !ii and that they would by law effect a change in eccle hener matters, and such a reform in the Church as would lin o , tathe country and the clergy • also that they would el W as of half-pay to unbeneficed and superannuated etip,,.. l The - h. , exarn p e i,„ POO P of EXETER felt the 'full force of the excellent ta tl i ' set by the Noble and Learned Lord in not intruding 4441°dt-1014e any remarks upon this subject. The motives dir e th: l i ce .d a patron to give or withhold a living, he was . quite tio t , , ' r Lordships had never permitted to occupy their atten kieptasnd he felt that he should be doing wrong_if . he were to ol l i d . „ 11 ch a precedent in his own person ; but this much °llly b'aY on the general question, that he for one, and not who Were!lt, he could speak for four others of his Brethren Ite r i te s lting on the bench, felt most anxious for the g?o d d . , of dtLitirilcus Curates. With respect to the particular in i b u i tha t t ,? t n hoin this petition came, he would say nothing, u Rir eil u e living which he complained of not having been Ofth e to him, h e h ad given it to another curate.—( Hear. ) 11041,,,,5'1tee1l livings w hi c h h a d fallen i n s i nce he had the ho ' •. I(1.1": seat in th at H ouse thirteen had been given to Curates. 11 a ; )-- ordinaril y o f l ong standing--and all of whom Isere4l4N e " on the grounds of merit solely, for not one of -4' was connected with him in any way, indeed iii, t ai 'sa of them was known to him.--( Hear.) Three i s , disposed of otherwise. One of them he hod given to # . 114 t.) -- " A l e ',vas proud to say a most de . servihg son.--( Hear, y' 4.o 4a ',other came to him in a most singular way. TIT pa , had been bon ht by a gentleman, but when the living ki en ,, e vacant, the patron g was seized with a compunction of cond thelfnsderingthe manner in which he had become possessed b l /' v i n Yl : l ,g, , and he refused to present to it. The living was t04, 1 - ",' one, and he would have been very glad to have '' Is.), -'t on , his son ; but considering the manner was h - ." ae had become possessed of it, he found that it , ko, „ is t ,. ( intY to give it to a very deserving clergy 14$t 0 ,,„""Y1 he had done. —(Cheers.) The other and the ~W i th Inc Was really sorry to take up their, Lordships' time A„"setvli-ne: P ar ticulars—the third was given to another most 'lion s ''' clrgyman—not the Curate—because he t s l llld a tn„ to g ave it to one who was not . a plurais, ) , r dshi - r," t Pldent.—(H ear , hear.) He was obliged to t their t "Rich Wag lor the patient attention they had given to that A I n , a % a mere personal statement. tobc-I conversation was carried on (but in so low a tone, as sex tlitilandible in the Gallery), between the Marquis of C Am. fe llii. el) nke of RICHMOND, and Lord BROUGHAM. From what The °lke, "Arl.of RADNOR—we understood . it to relate to the the k minion Bill. He said, in relation to what had fallen froni t°oe t i q i iis of Camden, that he understood there had been . for k l iv 1 i' e 4 regular system of Reformation going on in the 7el t er ! L tY of Oxford—( Hear, hear,)—which had only ;c7aerill,terruPted by his unfortunate interference on a I,L ° s e tO en i ) o g. Whitbat should have been the case lig wa at Cq, if , ',now ; but such being the case, and as the I.e -I,°'e - , e 1 , 4 t 1 Y sincere, could not" be in better hands than Ono°fere convocation, he would beg leave to withdraw the t i IP. w hich he had ' given notice relative to the oaths in Theswtersitie.s.—Notice withdrawn accordingly. h i! ' i 1 11 111 , c e of RICHMOND said, in deference to the No- f the thal;cials (Camden), he postponed the second reading o A eti•-",.s' Abolition Bill to Monday sesnnight. Dqbere3ns were presented from Lanarkshire, Paisley, and e 'Eabli s e h il e s ,, h ire, to extend the Church accommodation of the ho ol ' 4 Church of Scotland, and to increase the number th 8. fit h e N ikr • Ito - NW, qtus of WESTMINSTER enquired when the ott id --n issued to enquire into the state of the poor in As tkeiltas likely to conclude its labours; and . his Lordship h° . erst °°d to su p port the necessity of introducing the illel4Ws into country.that_ li°4 w 13 , 4 : ice of WE LL Ii 4 G TON replied that the theeltatildre-14.1 proceeding with its labo . urs, and .. that report lard on the table as soon as it was ready. t c r .(l 1 , p,, MALT TAX. _ (; 11. tabi ' 1 NH aid that he had two resolutions to lay on - ov erh e, but th AM did not intend to embarrass his Majesty's vanterlllent, but at he ly i brou ht them forward as a matter of lh t lkli I.ll°lls duty rn — e ( re flear,) They referred to the Malt Tax, e d low e°osidered the great cause of demoralization among til it k ;teil e a r 4`asses, and of agricultural distress, both to landlords °,:,° 1 4 1 , 1 8 * This tax amounted to one half the whole earn co 'lart s 'Tver classes, and deprived the labouring man of those v, ll 'Plet, s at 'tome which he was entitled to. It bad caused la - re volution • habits of the peasantry, which eh . elns, in the it ',ions la,znieious to the whole c . ountry. None of the kr: (146;1:16 he had made to its removal held good. % I r w upon Malt and Hops were taken off, the tit t ee 44 1141 be greatly relieved,. and prosperity would gles to adorn his dwelling. Why were these_ taxes t _ e ,'Pos o be kept up in the time of peace, merely for h to", re d? t s upporting* establishments that were not re tie I ke t 'e felt convinced that if the House of Lords were t ,,,. -1 41 r , t lis, such an act would make the despot of Russia 1-3titcarli sthrone, and place the House on a firm basis and foundationi'liati.„.llesolotio.. ,namely, the confidence of the people. he House ' a t s hen e a n d j p o u u t m , e a d nd negatived without a di- 't he t i°l7 SE OF COMMONS, MARCH 20. trisse'AxEß took the chair . at half-past three o'clock. A „ ° ger from the Audit-office brought up returns, t fk, L r. k e i t e r i,aid on the table. P e _l' e N brought up papers from the office of the Clerk LI of the county of Middlesex.—Laid .. on the table. ‘hit O,4I°OGES presented a petition fro m . some persons kNistowe!, Praying to be heard against the Islington Market Q at t h Trom the Mayor and Corporation of Gravesend J. A e ft..nrthtleet Bill. . of I r. hopi'LLEY brought in the Northern Railway Bill. t he ptil, h;c , " ( N ) S, , ON gave notice that, on Wednesday,. the . Ist te p rett t i o ,,,_ Mu move for a Select Committee to consider of li t , ( If th„'„ue presented a few days ago from the maritime offi „aroh- on India Company, who were shut out from coin °n the cessation of trade by the Company. Ireb t ed taih PE CHELL presented a petition from Brighton, °ity(AbY is.ixty-one persons, against the Imprisonment for k h f of er, °'sMent) • Bill. He would also take that opportu q4 t.,;tir,Feting a rairepresentation of the publ ic prints with lia d Is opinions on that Bill. He was in f avour of that /li] ] h e 11. 4 t, as was stated, against it. What he said was `lvo tii s sorry that many of his constituents thought the t sir , j. 11 ' be very injurious to their interests. THE FACTORY BILL. P ke t ' V esti'lCET presented a petition from some place in N1 1 , (4 )' 13; 1 1:ling of Yorkshire, praying for a revision of the supported the prayer of the petition, which 41. PeD the table. I t A THE CHURCH. t 1 -14 1 948 pi a • O SVVALD presented several petitions from I ,e lles ee s in Sc o tl an d, pray i ng f or t h e erect i on o f new h e Nis e '' for ar, ti of ibe B ELFAST took the oaths and his seat as " W A le county o f A ntr i m . piss, a 2 1 . 1 P pres ente d a pet i t i on f rom the Rev. Maurice' thei4l.lnlater of th e E sta bl is h e d Ch urc h, an d Rector of a tiohP'titio4sedferdshire. The Hon. Member obs as erved, that the peti ktill)rote w as one of a very singular character, h., Yi h sted against the maintenance of the Protestant bier- Cel an , _ thed 4, Part and parcel of the Church of England. He ; l if guilt much in mind and conscience in conseuence 04, 4 Ch ',lnch he considered to be attached to that branch " 4 iire " in consenting to be supported by tithes wru , th- l' ti ti t . e nl cl P ( l 3 e who were unwilling to pay them, and who de !ttat.l°lte ral or spiritual benefit from the Werarchy. The qteotii,Acuserved, that if the law ere appealed to, he la w of tlktiL onfer no right, and Christians could accept no r ight se 1 02 0 k at „e with their faith. He entreated the Hon ine. subject not only in a legal point of view, but NC t e it w 'th a strict regard to Christian principle, and r_e t4 Ili , the , superior law of God. In the prayer of the , 1 1.13 ` . 0;":,u:31Y concurred, and begged leave in conclusion, ti 1 1.13 .4 A r ie, t able of the House. th Jll.'t' ORD coul d not concur in the prayer of the pe . -_ Proit presented, for he was of the decided opiuion, that if I,74.tith4e,stant Established Church in Ireland was in anyore illit4 Ivoulel2, the downfal of the Established Church ofF g- t lkit tollow as a necessary consequence. He cou ld . no Press his feeling, that there was a well intentioned. (.1141g Most mistaken and a most mischievous expression of tO.q, eoeintained in the petition of this clergyman of th e . 11 47 1 'ati flgland. He felt himself bound to make this st e 4 t becaus e he was personally acquainted with the 1 :: :: :101:11 1GLztleman from whom it proceeded . . He had q 4 '"g t of lc' , many years, and he had entertained for him highest personal respect, because in the dis %44 h e I t l ."0 duties that devolved upon him in the pariah to 1 4, 1 0 ct. no individual was more exemplary in his t tt AiB th e refor e -t e it was that he felt himself bound to repeat Ihi alNy a most mistaken and mischievous, but h tv well intentioned expression of feeling on the part of gal ereild individual. If tithes were odious to the people, as th'entl em e in comeen opposite contended, let them be commuted, so Velam due to the' der ymen of the Established Church Vti,tl)os, t o be secured to them. But it was unjustifiable lt„:° unmerited odium these gentlemen for claiming A Q ll ° ls t i;,? s nlY their undoubted right, hut the only means they s 116 \z•-i tence. •LntirLEstaN said it was the system that was odious. °4t. t FO RD —If it were the system, alter it ; but why edfitoirmt,..ethspeasPsirnogtestant clergymen for proceeding sratheir dues under that system. He ought to apolo upon the time of the House, but ° a et noli3dt:lzu expressing his feeling, that a . Protestant t'e44lstah be found to pursue a course so mischievous r A crt, • LIA V ' t t,^e tier ,ES explained that the petition did not object . to 4:elered 4ilY2 but to the Church, receiving tithes for which 4. 1 A" ~. spiritual services in return. Said if the Rev. Gentleman had been ac- " r i v ed a l Id pro from Verne !rara Plan ter► I remains the The Emn ing: ship ActeoA, V., moderate: Rio Janeiro,. Cybele, ---, Susquehanna , mn Palermo. t o ; Reform , Amelia, Roe , ; Abemr , 2becca• Joe"' adoes ; James nah. looth, London. ton, Loudon . ates, re, from St. ion, Connelly, and the lower Wainfleet to for Wakefield, to London, has ts stranded on ;its, was driven r Rio Janeiro, Douoas, iESS. DAY, which Week. DAY. r)—Adjourno, n and Hana Per to be CO''s" ly, to mov e for ure of Orange the opinion of from the CO ln' ny Correspond; rtment and tnf nt of a bod) ° lajesty's retail, rs appointed o a ilitia Estimate° . and of, )f su pp l y .) for y, to move ta , nterbury CO f Supply). tors of Dibboo Irmy Estinuti; respecting a Meeting at ', to move, rmat its most efl' which have üblic money . lesign and e%e lONS. o f :OMMUtatOn Relief of the from Chatl' ° !' to the ,trade !d c of Mae, a' Sark. f t he cons id er o Committee 00 tker to a Select over Canada' C. C. E DAV. thv 31anage• to the 'f le ir a view t o t Tioxs• t ,t lg him to 00 v ersity of e rs Offie n Law am yl on than ag' nvenient Places range Societi° , rin i t y of suPPre e t the outrages the corlact°f April. ,ce at three' the Br lois , ); fro►nrrepcb Ind one *, Y lailgu l cl os 4 the y o ing e d this olgi Bonds , c 0 ,0 idia Stock iu theas doing ore parti foreio e spa ,rning4 91). _A ICSet s pr f gr, th En at t" - . 0 0 t" leo L i n an ; a ny t $ 1 ;ills how 193 c°°e, 1 0 cs of coil:,, )1 a Clialtibers_os 3 vhich thea tre -f .g 10 1' P V ;,1 15 1 01V 5. 0 4 DUl'the re ' be° i s trY o f ta n, B L oO re1104 ; °1 " t P .7 1 4 at •fling 01 13f w .A seeq : l; breign spar , ' . 404' °Ile:0164 ot ic• ,Laoc 3ES• ....... , ..... •••• .. ... .............. 5 ...... 15 1. ......... P o . ........ .• 4 .0 . : .......... 41 11f • ............ . ...••••#‘, • " ... ...... .......... ••••• 5 per Cent' G 1 .. ............. 1 0 • ..... , r 604 .................. .......... ...... •••• btifT! .......... ...... leo ...•• - • " . 0 611)"' 1 4 his :. .0 . 9 ' 9 ; 0 000 i o tt• ,it 1-1"“ J ob' s ..., Y, ' bv _ it airs, LY.) quainted with the services rendered by the Protestant Clergy to Ireland, he would not have so expressed himself. It was in total ignorance of the facts that this petition was drawn out. Mr. FINN—The Right Hon. Gentleman states that this clergyman speaks in ignorance of the services of the Esta blished Church in Ireland, and he boasts of these services. Now he ( Mr. Finn) would beg to inform the House of what he knew these services to consist of. Let us take a tract of country, commencing with New Ross and continuing to Waterford, which is a distance of 50 miles, and thence pro ceed on to Tramore, which is 13 miles farther. The popu lation of that tract is 35,000 souls, and what did the House think the number of Protestants was? Only 300. There were 15 parishes, and not a single Protestant in one of them, yet they were told of 'the services of the Protestant Clergy.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") The whole country is subjected to the evils of this system. There are in several parts clergy without churches—in others, churches without congre gations—if than, the Rev. Gentleman was acquainted more fully with the grievances of this system, he would have ex pressed himself more strongly. The petitioner deserved great credit for his opinions, and it was to gentlemen of such senti ments that the Church in Ireland owed any respect that was now paid to it. Mr. WARD moved that the petition be printed. The SPEAKER, we understood, observed that such a motion was not in accordance with the rules of the House. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. IRISH CHURCH. Mr. WARD gave notice, that on a motion being made for the House to go into Committee on the Supplies for the Army Estimates, he should move as an amendment thereon, that the motion be postponed until the decision of Lord John Russell's motion on the state of the Irish Church was known. SPIRIT LICENCES. Mr. S. LEFEVRE presented petitions from Hertford. bridge, and other places in Hampshire, against the increa3e o the duty upon Spirit Licenses. MALT TAX. Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition from Crowland in Lincolnshire, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax ; also a similar petition from the Agricultural Association of that county, comprising some of its most extensive and opulent proprietors. He would just observe, in answer to an observa tion made by the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln (Col. Sibthorp), that so far from the farmers of Lincoln being unanimously of opinion that the Malt Tax ought to be kept on, there was a general desire that the duty should be taken off. PRIVATE BILLS Colonel LEITH HAY gave notice that on Thursday, the 16th of April, he would move a resolution to carry into effect the report of the Committee of the last Session upon Private Bills. An lIoN. ME➢SBER presented petitions from Kilmore and Ordbrechan, in Argyleshire, in favour of the Established Church of Scotland. DISSENTERS' GRIEVANCES. Mr. WILK S begged leave to withdraw the notice of mo tion which he had given for Thursday next, for the considera tion of the practical grievances of the Dissenters, with a view to their redress, and to fix it for Thursday the 28th of' May. His reason for doing so was this—Sir R. Peel haying brought in a Bill affecting the grievances of the Dissenters, to marriage ; and the Noble Member for Lincoln having given a notice respecting the right of the Dissenters to take degrees at the Universities, and the question of Church rates being also taken up by the Hon. Member for Exeter. Under these cir cumstances, he thought it desirable that the House should determine upon these subjects before he should submit the ge neral question of the practical grievances of the Dissenters to their consideration. The Hon. Member then presented a pe tition from the Protestant Dissenters of the Baptist deaomina tion of Frome, in Somersetshire, praying for relief. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Air. POULTER brought in his Bill for the Better Ob. servance of the Sabbath, which was read a first time, arid or• dered to be read a second time on Friday next. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. HUME brought up the report of the Committee upon printed papers, and the best mode of distributing Acts of Par liament. It was his intention to submit to the House, the propriety of acceding to the resolutions of the Committee. Mr. ROEBUCK said that each Member was furnished with a copy of the printed Parliamentary Papers, for which he paid 11. 12s. per annum ; but if he wanted a second he was charged 31. There must be a job somewhere, and he wished to know whose job it was. Mr. HUME - could assure the Hon. Member that there was no job in this case. The sum charged was that considered ne nessary to defray the expense ; but any Member could have those papers gratis, and the charge was only for carrying them to the residence of the member.. The Committee had, how ever, taken into their consideration whether the sum charged was too much, and the subject would be brought before the House. The Commons were then summoned to attend at the House of Lords to hear his Majesty's assent given by Commission to several Bills. ESTABLISHED CHURCH. On the SEAKER again taking the Chair, Sir GEORGE CLERK presented several petitions from various places in Scotland in favour of the Established Church in that country. CHURCH OF IRELAND. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said, that as there was no likelihood that any report from the Commissioners would be ready by Monday next, he wished to acquaint the House he was compelled to forego his motion for that day, and at present he could not fix any time when he should pro ceed with it. CITY OF DUBLIN ELECTION. Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the Examiner of the election petition for the City of Dublin, that a further extension of time might be allowed them to inquire into the validity of the - security tendered on that occasion. Mr. O'CONNELL—This was now Friday, and time had been given, since last Monday, to make these inquiries, and he did not think it fair, after what had occurred on Tuesday, that these extensions should be allowed. It was imperative on them, by the Statute, that the sureties should be given in and perfected within 14 days of the petition being given in, and now that time was expired.—(" No, no," from Mr. Shaw.) If this report had been in before the discussion on Tuesday last, as a matter of course, the Ballot must then have been postponed ; but the Right Honourable Gentleman with held it from the House until after that time, though he pressed the bringing on that measure in opposition to his motion, and though the sureties are precisely the same, in order to deprive him of any advantage it might give him. He would ask the House whether it would be fair to act on this petition. If it had been any other case than his own he would have made such an appeal as he felt convinced would persuade the House to agree with him, but in his own he was deprived of that advantage. Mr. SHAWLSo long as the petitioners thought that peti tion would have been acted on, they did not think it right , to extend the time, or to inquire so particularly into the security ; but now that another petition had been substituted for that, they thought it necessary to be.satisfied as to the responsibility of the petitioners.__ _ _ Mr...O'CONNELL could not understand why the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite so anxiously insisted upon this report. It was alleged that no advantage would be gained thereby ; but it would not be insisted upon for nothing. He submitted to the House, that the petitioners, having lapsed the time, they could not now come before it and ask leave to bring up 'the report: The SPEAKER made a few observations, which were luite inaudible. Mr. O'CONNELL could see no reason- why the House should now enlarge the time.—(Cries of " Hear, hear:") By keeping back the report; the opposite party had done this— they had thrown it upon him (Mr. O'Connell) to make the motion for the postponement, which had they brought in the report earlier, would, have been their postponement. Was that fair ? Was it he would ask, reasonable ? And if it was not so in any other person's case, why should it be so in his ? Sir J. CAMPBELL coincided in the view of the question' taken by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. He thought the application of the opposite party was most unrea sonable.—( Hear, hear.) _ _ Mr. F. SHAW would not urge the matter upon the House if it was its pleasure that he should withdraw it. He had now another matter connected with this subject to bring before the House— Mr. 0' C ONNEL L—Then you withdraw the report ? Mr. SHAW assented. He had now to call the attention of the House to a matter which personally affected the character of an individual who acted as agent to the petitioners. though he fully agreed that whatever was stated by an Hon. Member in this House should be received with great atten tion, and have all the sanction of an oath, he conceived it would only apply to such Member's own case, and not to the case and statements of a third party, who, he contended, ought not to be shut out by any declaration of any Hon. Member. Mr. O'CONNELL objected in point of order to the intro duction of any name and statement, unless they could be met by a counter name and statement. Mr. SHAW explained that he intended to relate the state ments of the petition only. Mr. O'CONNELL acknowledged himself to be under the correctk.n of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he certainly un-. derstood that he intended to refer to affidavits.--( Hear.) Mr. SHAW—No ; the facts related to the petition only. Mr. O'CONNELL then would put it to the 'House whe ther such statements should go forth to the public without counter statements ?—not that he was afraid of investigation : he desired nothing but investigation. Mr. GO ULBURN spoke to order. An Hon. Member, in presenting a petition, had a perfect right to speak of its contents. After a few words from Mr. RICE, who was inaudible in the gallery. Mr. SHAW proceeded to state the facts detailed in the petition. The petitioner on the 11th instant went, in company with another person, on business wholly uncon fleeted with the present matter to Sir Robert Sidney, who in point of fact was the agent o f t h e ot h er side. He saw Mr. O'Connell, who desired Sir Robert Sidney, as his agent, to ask a petitioner to hand ov er a not i ce i n re f erence to t h e Dublin petition, which was given, and he said he would be prepared on the 19th to go on. After joking on the subject, he asked, " Do you mean to treat us with all the petition ?" to which no positive answer was returned; and Mr. O'Connell went away, but returned so after , and said, addressing i Sir R. Sidney —" I think t fair to tell you, that if you coin plete the recognizances, I wil l let go th e o th ers ; but all depends upon your not turning me round upon a point of form." This he repeated several times ; to which Sir R. Sidney replied—. To be sure, I understand you fully—yea mean to make yourself secure." Nothing more occurred. After that conversation on Saturday, t o guar d aga i nst any fatality or failure on a point of form, a notice was posted, that on Wednesday last he would be ready with his witnesses. On Monday, two days after, the petitioner proceeded to the I THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1835. Examiner's Office to perfect his securities. Mr. O'Connell objected to one of the securities on that occasion, and the Agent states in his petition that this objection came upon him by surprize, and no wonder, because there was not a more solvent gentleman in the City of Dublin than he was. The consequence was, that the agent was not prepared to meet the objection, and at his desire, the Exa miner gave further time to enable him to satisfy them as to the reality of this particular security. The notice was then posted for the following Wednesday, and on 'Wednesday Mr. Baker appeared before the Examiner, and it was then he po sitively states that Mr. O'Connell, for the first time, objected to him that fraud was practised. Mr. Baker, in reply to that charge, states positively that he never said he would abandon the petition alluded to, but in the jocular terms already mentioned. The petitioners further state the fact, that Mr. O'Connell himself, on the Monday following, ap plied to the Examiner for a certificate to the effect that Mr. Baker had not posted his notice in time, and in con firmation of that, he refers to Mr. Rose, a clerk of this House. That gentleman will corroborate the statement that Mr. O'Connell, on the Monday following, applied to him for a certificate in order to find fault with the notice'which he (Mr. O'Connell) said was not posted in time to examine the securities. The petition further states, that on Monday, when this form was used against him, and the postponement in con sequence had taken place, he informed Mr. O'Connell that he would proceed, on the Wednesday following, to perfect the security objected to. Under these circumstances, he said, it was that he first heard the accusation of fraud. He positively asserts he never stated to any one, that it was his intention to abandon the petition referred to, unless he failed to perfect the securities in the other petitions, his object being to avoid the expense and inconvenience of prosecuting many peti tions. (Hear, hear, hear.) The petitioner complained of the charges made against him, and prays the House to enquire into the statement.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) On the part of Mr. Baker, he (Mr. S.) challenged enquiry. In conclusion, however, he begged to add, that the statements of the petition were verified by affidavit, and he referred to another Gentlemen, (to Mr. Rose) as to the truth of what he stated. Mr. S. entreated the House, in justice to the character of Mr. Baker, to suspend its judgment until the decision of the Committee on this question was made known. The affidavit of the petition was then laid on the table. Mr. O'CONNELL—If this affidavit were in a shape in which I could prosecute it for perjury I would do so at once. There were four persons present on the occasion alluded to. One of them was a young gentleman, a client, of the name of Maton, who came in, on business, to the office when the conversation commenced.—(Hear.) The agent for the petitioners came in, and stated his willingness to abandon the petition in question, but he did not state any thing that made any distinct impression on his mind on the subject. But as he was going away, Mr. Maton having gone, he came back, and in the presence of four witnesses, emphati cally gave notice to him, and his colleague, Mr. Ruth ven, that he reight disembarrass or disengage—the only doubt, then, on the subject, is as to which word he used--our minds altogether of the petition in question, for they certainly would not proceed upon it. There were four persons present when this was said, and those four were ready to prove in any Court of Justice the truth of what he now stated. The third petition 'had been signed by five persons, and there were only four names to the other two peti tions—the fifth of those persons had not been served with notice, as he did not notice that the third was only signed by three per sons. He (Mr. O'C.) sent notice to Dublin only as to the four. The object of the petitioners was to make a point before the committee, in order that I may not have a Commission, because I have not served the parties with notice. I desire inquiry, and that inquiry under the sanction of an oath.—( Hear.) Let the Hon. and Learned Recorder, when he leaves this room, lay a wager if he puts this question in the stage of a de claration on the file, and leave it to the verdict of twelve men. —(Laughter.) There is one circumstance which the Hon. and Learned Recorder has mentioned, and only one which I have reason to contradict, and that is this false statement.— Hear, hear, hear.) He said that on Monday evening I went to the Examiner, and inquired whether he had posted on the preceding Saturday the list. When I found it repeated that they would not proceed upon the two petitions—when I found a notice in the hall upon the subject, having written to Dublin that day to stop the witnesses, and having given up going to any agent and holding a consultation, I came down to the House, and when I found that notice posted up, I said this must be some trick, and long before coming into the House, I met my freind Sergeant Perrin, who advised me not to bring the matter before the House. Sergeant Perrin accompanied me to the Clerk of Recognizanc es , and I in quired how it happened that, after M r . B a k er had stated so and so, he had posted up the notice. The Clerk said it was not Mr. Baker who had done it, but that he himself, find ing the recognizance in the office, had done so. I did not make any inquiry of Mr. Baker.--( Hear, hear. ) I went to ascertain how, after he had told me that the notice should not be posted up, it had been posted. These are the facts of the case ; and I repeat, that let me have my witnesses in any Court of Justice, before any criminal tribu nal, I shall convince them of the truth of them. The facts are recent, and cannot have escaped the recollection of the witnesses. Mr. RTJTHVEN would not trespass on the House, but he was anxious to repeat the statements that had been made by his Hon. and Learned Colleague. Mr. SHAW rose-amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke." He was willing to consent to any mode of inquiry that the House might think proper. Mr. O'CONNELL wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to accept the wager he had offered him.--( Hear.) Mr. SHAW wished to have no arrangement with the Hon. and Learned Member —any mode the Speaker might lay down would answer his wishes. He wished to know from the Hon. and, Learned Member, how a letter written on Monday could stop witnesses coming on Thursday ?—(Hear.) Mr. O'CONNEL L said that no witnesses would be required on Thursday or Friday. No business would be done as these lists would be exchanged on that day. The letter written on Monday would arrive on Wednesday, and the witnesses would be in town on Saturday.—( Great cheering.) Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had asserted that what he yesterday stated upon the authority of the Mirror of Parliament was not the fact ? Sir R. PEEL really believed that the extract from the Mirror of Parliament, which the Hon, and learned Member had read, was as nearly correct as possible. He was really surprised that the Honourable Member would have thought it worth his while to ask such a question.—( Hear.) The Hon. ,Member had stated in the course of his speech last night that he had no confidence in the present Govethment bringing in any measures for the relief of the poor in Ireland, because when the Noble Lord ( Althorp) ,had proposed that a Commission should be sent to inquire into the Poor Laws, that he ( Sir Robert Peel) was the man who had proposed that the same Commission should be sent to Foreign Countries. What he ( Sir R. Peel) had stated was, that such was not the fact, nor was it the fact._ He had never made so absurd a proposition ;—lie had sug gested that after hearing very long, desultory, and ineffectual debates on the Poor Laws, he well recollected having said, that there was a constant contradiction of facts on both sides, and he had suggested to (Lord Althorp) the policy of sending a Commission to Ireland to institute an enquiry. He ( Sir Robert Peel) had also stated that Committees had failed, although the expense attending them was great, and that it was impossible to obtain correct information—at the same time he had said that while this Commission was making its in.. quiries, it would be advisable to make inquiries in foreign coun tries, as to the Poor Laws and their probable effects, but this was to be done simultaneously through the Foreign Office. • He had some reason to believe that his suggestions had been acted upon—( Hear, hear)— and that the Foreign Secretary of State did make these in quiries —( Renewed cries of " Hear, hear")--as to whether a legal provision was made for the poor, and what had been its effect ? He ( Sir Robert Peel) had therefore . stated, and he thought with good reason that the Hon. Gentle man opposite had misunderstood him ; and, therefore, if that was his ground for saying that no confidence should be placed in the present Government, such a statement was incorrect. Mr. F. O'CONNOR was perfectly satisfied with the ex planation. Mr. HUME said he wished to make one observation, that there was an application from almost every part of Ireland relative to the state of the Poor Laws in that country. Mr. SHAW then rose to ask that his petition might be dis posed of, and that he might be allowed to give notice of a mo tion for Tuesday next, to refer the subject to a select Com mittee, which was agreed to. LEICESTER ELECTION PETITION. After a lengthened discussion upon this petition, upon the suggestion of Mr. GISBORNE, it was agreed that time should be given to the parties to enter into recognizances, and that leave be given to substitute another security. IRISH TITHES. Sir H. HARDING was loudly called upon from all parts of the House. Before he would move that the House should go into Ccmmittee on the subject of Irish Tithes, he desired however, that so much of the King's Speech should be read by the Clerk, as relates to the subject of tithes in Ireland. On the motion of the HON. BARONET the House resolved itself into a Committee. Sir H. HARDING E then proceeded to address the House, observing, that in rising to address himself to the House on this important question he felt more than usual anxiety. ( Hear, hear, hear.) The question was one of a most complicated character, and even if it were less difficult, it would be necessary for him to beseech the in dulgence of the House.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But when in addition to these embarrassments he remem bered that since the year 1831 this subject had been very frequently canvassed in this House, and that out of the House, popular prejudices had been excited in connec tion with it, he felt that he was placed in a very difficult position indeed ; and he thought it would be presumptuous in him, to profess to hope that this measure would be carried without considerable opposition, and even some alte ration. It might be asked, why, then, bring it forward ? He answered that the urgency of the case, and the magnitude to which the evil had arrived, rendered it necessary for the Le gislature to interfere promptly, and arrest its progress. Such was the. disorganized "state of Ireland, and the intimi dation which prevailed in that unhappy country, that it was utterly impossible to collect the tithes. It was well known that in Ireland, the man who obeyed the laws was punished, while the most turbulent and rebellious es caped with impunity. Amongst the scattered population of tha:c country, threats of violence were easily put into execution, P . Acl more feared by the people than the enforcement of the laws. Now, what was the case as regarded the freeholders ? i •Vhy, for the last four years, it had been found impossible 'A) col lect tithes ; the persons, therefore, who were entitled to tithes, called on the Government to vindicate the law ; , acre reFits7 tance had been offered, those disgraceful scenes occurred which every Christian and friend of humanity must deeply lament. Such was the state of things in Ireland, and this state of things could only be altered by measures taken for the purpose. The Clergy of Ireland, although their only means of livelihood depended upon it, had acted in the collection of tithes with the utmost forbearance and moderation. Out of upwards of 300 places where tithes could not be protsured, only thirty applications had been made for the aid of the mi litary.—( Hear, hear, and cheering.) He would therefore ask the House, whether it was fit and becoming, because the clergy were humane and forbearing, that they shoulci not have the means of securing their rights.— (Hear, bear.) He was satisfied the Legislature would pass a measure by which they would be better regulated ; but while it did so—while it agreed with the Government in applying a remedy—it would insist that such a just and satisfactory arrangement would be made in fu ture, as would put an end to the present system. The defect of this system was not attributable to the exorbitant exaction on the part of the clergy. It was in evidence on all the Committees for the last four years, that the average amount of tithe in Ireland did not exceed Is. per acre. By the return from 900 benefices, on 200 the average of tithe was only 6d. per acre. The amount was not the grievance—the grievance was, the religious feel ings against it.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) At the same time, in many instances, this was a pretext rather than a real grievance.—( Hear, hear, hear, from the Minis terial benches.) The real objections to the system arose from the practice of subletting of land in Ireland,—many of the small farms were so subdivided that it was impossible for the Tithe owners to collect the Tithe, except from a pauper po pulation—the Clergy were obliged to collect half-a-crown, a shilling, a penny, and were in some instances a farthing, from a pauper population. If the Clergyman were to forego his claim, he would be deprived of the largest portion of his income. The act of the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire ( Lord Stanley) in 1832 effected the removal of many disadvantages, by diminishing the number of tithe-payers, and throwing the payment upon the middle men, between the landlord and the occupying tenant. It appeared that, out of 900 benefices from which returns came, the number of tithe-payers had been reduced from 346,000/.. to 102,0001. This Act was of unqualified good—it substituted a fixed rent in lieu of tithe. The Act of his Right Hon. Friend, Mr. Goulburn, in 1823, was to effect a composition for tithes. That Right Hon. Gentleman's plan was a gross valuation of the tithes for 21 years, and an , average for seven years taken from the next seven. The late Government al tered that plan in 1832, by making the composition, once fixed, perpetual, and that had the advantage of relieving the farmer, who, after 21 years, and having laid out a good considerable sum of. money upon his land, was no further liable to a claim from the clergyman—the charge having then been made perpetual. That plan had a further advantage. The power of going to seize upon the land was taken from the clergyman or tithe-owner.—( Hear. ) He was by that Bill obliged to take his remedy against the next landlord above the actual occupier ; but there was in Ireland a great deal of difficulty in finding that personage out. In England there was no difficulty, but in Ireland the case was very different; and the difficulty had become so great that, in his opinion, the Act of 1832 could not be carried into operalion. But it was never intended that that Act should be permanent, as was shewn by every speech from the Noble Lord ( Stanley) upon the subject. His S avowed object was to take the burden from the poor occupier, and even his next landlord, and fix it upon the first owner. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, when he brought in his Bill of last year recognized' the same principle. He had con tended that the only effectual manner in which the Church property could be secured and rescued from the dangerous position in which it was placed was by imposing a rent charge, and investing it in the pur chase of land for Church purposes. It was upon this principle the Bill was introduced, and the Bill for Eng land also recog nised the principle of a rent c h arge , It was much the best plan, because it did away with the vexatious interference with the poorer classes of the tenantry. It appeared that in the 900 benefices to which ine had referred, the quantity of land belonging to the Protestant proprietors was 1,500,000 acres, while the quantity which was the property of Roman Catholics, was only 645,000 acres, being in the proportion of fifteen to one; and it also appeared that the amount of composition which was paid by Protestant proprietor in comparison to Roman Catholics was 191. to 1/. He said this, to show that the burthen fell, as it ought to do, upon the Protestanst, and not the Catholics. The tithes were payable on the land, and not by persons.— The Bill of last year established a rent charge, and so did that of August last, and so would the Bill he was now propos ing ; and the propriety of that principle was fully confirmed by the communications he had received from all quarters. The rent charge proposed last year was 81. ; it would be for Parliament now to consider what amount of rent charge would be an equitable one. The object of the Bill was to impose 75/. as a rent charge on the land in place of every 1001. now chargeable under the Composition Act. Now the House would recollect that by the Bill of last year, 80 per cent. was given to the clergy. All this was not rent charge, for 20 per cent. was chargeable to the Consolidated Fund ; thus, while the Clergyman got 60 per cent., deducting 2; per cent. for the expense and responsibility of collecting, which only really left 771. 10s. per cent., the landlord was relieved to the amount of 40 per cent. But though the clergyman may appear to be in a worse 'position as to the amount of income he will in reality be in a better as to the security and permanency of it, for the certainty of the conversion of the rent charge into money will give the present Bill an advantage over the last more than adequate to the increased annual revenue. The Right Honourable Baronet, in a low tone of voice, briefly went into some calculations to show that from the average re demption of rent charge of seventy-five per cent., which would be 1,5001, the landlord would be a gainer under the present Bill as compared with the former, to the amount of 250/. By the measure introduced this year, there was a pre mium of twenty-five per cent. given, making the difference between 100/. and 75/. ; while in the end on the redemption the landlord would be the gainer ; so would the clergyman by the security given to his income, and the protection given to the established rights of the Church. If the landlord should complain of the provisions of the Bill which imposed t own x w n h e i r n e t t e o r f e o s r t e w l e o v u i l e d d b o e n fi h n i a s l t l y e n b a e n s t t , :ice to the advantage o f , his tenant. h l o o en r d sh promoted by relieving the burthen of his tenant. Th e land lord s hould b e bound :u payment n to d l d to th a c o t o f n h d a i There was another point in the Bill which be wished to bring under the attention of the House. While by the former Bill the titheowner was to receive 771. 10s., which was to be gua ranteed to him by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, by the present Bill the clergyman would be indemnified to the amount of 75/. This sum of 75/. would be only guaran teed from the rent charge to the present incumbents. No such guarantee would be extended to their successors, for their income should only be taken according to the price of commodity and land at the time of redemption, and during the interval between the cessation of the rent charge and the investment of the capital in another purchase. Another pro vision of the Bill was that each incumbent was to receive the amount of his rent charge from the head landlord. If it were not paid be was to apply to the Board of Church Commis sioners, who would apply to the Crown to sue by process. This was to prevent any difficulty to the clergyman in ob taining his just right.—( Hear.) Having referred to the land lords and the income of the clergy, he would now allude to the distress of the clergy. The Government felt that no measure would be perfect, or exempt from objection, which would not bring about the a b o li t i on or t h e commutat i on o f the Composition A ct and the extinction of tithes. The rent-charge was to continue for three years ; and if not then redeemed by the landlord would be liable to be sold. There would be few arrears in consequence of the Million Act. 13y that Act v it would be recollected that advances were made in 1831, 1832, and 1833. There were no arrears for these years. There was, therefore, the arrear of 1834 due ; and as to 1835, it was in tended that the present Act should apply a remedy. The ques then, was, how was the arrear of 1834 to be got by the Clergy ? Would the House allow the military to be employed ? No, he was sure it would not. The House would deprecate such a thought.—( Hear.) Would it abandon the Clergy to their fate, and not enable them to enforce the recovery of what was their just right ? He was sure it would not adopt that course either. Well, then, would the House allow the residue of the million, which amounted to about 330,0001., to be expended in their relief ?—( Hear.) Of the million, about 670,000/. was already advanced to the Clergy, and if the remainder were now advanced to meet the arrears of 1834, much of the dif ficulties that beset the question would be removed. If persons situated as the Clergy were, were relieved from the public purse, that might 'afford some temptation to resist the law. In the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, when the peasantry found that the public funds were applied to the relief' of the Clergy, they considered tithes as already abolished, and therefore re fused to pay. It was then desirable that the Clergy should not derive any permanent relief from the public funds. But, considering the circumstances of the case, it was thought advi sable to relieve the Clergy in those years. If it was desirable then it was so now, and the objections would apply in the one case as well as the other.—( Hear, hear.) If the Clergy can not obtain their tithes, how can they repay the Government ? he'l Clergy could not repay the sum advanced for the next five years. There were difficulties connected with the nature of that loan ; f or instance, if a Clergyman who had re ceived his tithes were appointed to a living, he would be called on under the Act to repay the instalments received by his predecessor, though he had not himself received a shilling,_( Hear, hear.) He proposed then that the in stalments be remitted. That this was a necessary course the House would see on examining the state of the Ecclesiastical finances, and finding that they were in debt, and likely to continue so. When the Vestry cess was abolished in Ireland, a fund of 70,0001. a year for the repairs of Churches, and other charges, was destroyed, and as the funds of the Commissioners amounted only to 30,000/. it was necessary to make up the deficiency of 40,0001. a year. This deficiency was likely to con tinue for twelve or fourteen years, regularly accumulating, which in the course of time would amount to an immense sum ; so that the Clergy could expect little relief from that quarter. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were obliged last year to borrow 100,0001. from Government. To meet this loan they only obtained 60,0001. from those who had bought up the fines on Bishops' leases, and wished to convert these terminable into perpetual leases. He doubted whether the Commissioners could realise a sufficient sum from the sale of Bishops' lands and the purchase of rent fines to meet the exigencies of the Clergy, for the sums already received did not realise the expectations of the Commissions. There was then no other alternative but to pay the arrears of 1834 out of the residue of the million fund, and remit what was already ad vanced.—( Hear, hear.) He had abstained from mixing up with the present subject, which was the extinction of tithes, the question of the equalisation of the revenues of the Clergy, for it had no immediate or necessary connection with it. In quiry had been set on foot as to the relative revenues of the Clergy, and when the result of that inquiry was known then the Governmeut would deal with the question of equalisation in the same fearless and impartial spirit. The Clergy, too, he would assert, from the communications which the Govern ment had with them, would afford Government every aid in effecting that object. It could not be denied that tithes were the fruitful source of litigation, animosity, and public insubordi nation in Ireland ; which affected not merely the property of the Church, but the very existence of all property. It was the duty then, as it was the wish of the Government to remedy the evils which the tithe system, however just were the claims o f t h e Clergy, and however tolerant they were in enforcing them, had entailed on society in that country. At the same time was its duty to protect property an d pl ace i t on a se . cure footing, to enable them t o a b o li s h t i t h es w i t h sa f ety to the interests of the es: blishment.—( H ear , h ear .) H e f e l t the present plan was defectrvt, and the whole su bj ec t sur rounded with difficulties ; and in °ro e ; that it should be ex amined in all its details, he hoped th e H ous e 'mg": d enable him to pass the resolutions.—( Loud cheering.) The 'Mem ber then read the resolutions. Lord J. RUSSELL did not rise to offer any objection to the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition to bring in a Bill on the subject—( Cheers from the Ministerial benclies)—for any pro position that tended to produce contentment by any species of arrangement was a great desideratum. It appeared that the preset Bill was not dissimilar to the last brought in by the late Government—( Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition)— and which was so amended by the House of Commons as even to satisfy the opponents of all tithe or State provision fur the Clergy. That Bill was rejected by the Lords on the pre sumption that it was an invasion on the rights of the Church, and an appropriation of church property to secular purposes. Now the present Bill was in its essence equal to the last. What, then, was gained by the rejection of the Bill cf last Session by the Lord ?—( Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Was it the peace of Ireland, or the settle ment and security of property there ? The Right Hon. Gen tleman had alluded to the existing distress of the clergy, and to the calamities and insubordination still attendant on the collection of tithes. He said tithes were still resisted by the people, and their collection created animosity and strife, and such a system it was most desirable to see terminated. Now, the object of the Bill of last year, and its tendency, too, would be to introduce such an order of things in Ireland as every friend to that country could desire ; but that peace which could be promoted by the Bill was interrupted by its rejection in the other House. Then,'as to the state of the Clergy, how were they bettered? It seemed that they were still in as bad a state as ever; and how did the present Bill propose to amend their condition ? The last Bill gave the Clergy 77/. 10s., secured to them out of every 1001. of tithe, valued on the property under the Composition Act. The Clergy were still in a state of distress, and how did the present Bill propose to relieve them ? Why, by giving them only MI. Now, what gain was there in the change to the Clergy ? What benefit could the public derive from it ?—( Hear, from the Opposition.) Instead of placing the Clergy in a bet ter position, it placed them in rather a worse one ; and in place of relieving the public from the payment of a pro vision to them it rendered that payment perpetual and cer tain. The million which was to be advanced for the re- lief of the distressed clergy under the guarantee that it was t o be refunded by the clergy, when their tithes were collected, it was now proposed should be sacrificed and given up to the clergy. Last year it was stated as an objection to the Bill then proposed, that the Church income of the clergy was to be diminished from 1001., which the tithe composition gave them, to 601. And when it was answered that the difference up to 771. 10s. was to be made good from the Consolidated Fund, it was objected that this would secularize Church property— that it would make the clergy dependent on the State, and destroy the principle of the inviolability of Church property —a principle which was the great objection to the Bill.— ( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Now he (Lord J. Russell) maintained that the present Bill went to establish secularisation as well. The present Bill did not propose to draw the income of the clergy on all occasions from the land as the sole source from which the Church was to be main- tained. Already the principle of interference with Church property was laid down, and it was now too late to attempt to establish a contrary doctrine. The House had already reduced the number of bishoprics in Ireland, and appropriated their revenues to such purposes as they deemed it wise and just to direct it. From that fund it was now proposed to draw for any deficiency in the income of the clergy, after a redemp tion had taken place. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the difference between the 75/., and what the redeemed rent charge would purchase of other property should be made up from the Perpetuity Fund. In the point of the mode of obtain ing the revenue, and of the sources from which it was to be drawn, there was some difference between the present Bill and that of last Session. But in principle the Right Hon. Gentleman directed that Church property should be appro priated to secular purposes. He (Lord J. Russell) hoped the House would come to some definite conclusion on this all important question of secularisation. Until it was decided there could be no satisfactory arrangement of the Church ques tion, until that was done there could be no hope of bringing in any Bill for the effectual security of the peace of Ireland, for the maintenance of the Irish Clergy, or the preservation of their institutions.—( Hear.) He doubted much the propriety of such a Bill as the present. It neither did one thing or the other. It did not recognise the right of that House to transfer Church property to secular purposes, though it went to do so as much as the last Bill ; nor did it appear conducive to the end it aimed at, the final settlement of the tithe question. He would not then examine the Bill in all its parts, but reserve to himself the opportunity of discussing them in its future progress. Mr. SHAW said the Bill of last year proposed a reduction of the amount of tithe of 401. in every 1001. ; whereas the present Bill only proposed a reduction of 25/. per cent. The reduction of forty per cent. he thought much too great a bonus to the landlords—forty per cent. was a monstrous de duction to be made. It was at first proposed that forty per cent. should be taken off the composition, on the condition of the landlord becoming guarantee for the payment. To this was added two and a half per cent. for collection. Then, there was twenty per cent., which was to be paid out of the Consolidated Kind to the clergy, leaving them 771. 10s. The Noble Lord said that the clergy were better under the Bill of last year than they were by - the present. He would admit that the existing were by two and a half per cent. But that was not the point to be considered—it was not whe ther the existing clergy would gain or lose a small annual sum, but whether the rights of the Church were to be com promised ?—( Hear, hear, from the Treasury benches.) Though the last Bill professed to give a boon to the clergy it virtually gave it to the landlord, at the expense of the pro perty of the Church, and the right on which that property rested.—( Hear.) Now the present Bill did not propose to give the landlord any thing from the property of the clergy; nor did it throw the clergy for any part of their support upon the national funds, but rested that property on its proper basis—the land. It settled the question of Church property at once and for ever.—( Hear, from the Ministerial benches. ) There was no kind of property that changed hands that did not produce some loss for the time ; nor any Gentleman selling an estate and purchasing another, or removing from pos session of one property to another in a distant county, who would not be subject to some loss and inconvenience. It was the same with the Clergy on the redemption of the tithes, and the investment of their capital in the acquisition of prc perty elsewhere. Their loss, then, was to be reimbursed from _ _ the perpetuity fund. It was that loss, and that loss only that was to be made up for the clergy. That was no spoliation of Church property ; there was no sacrilege in that.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He ( Mr. Shaw) admitted the Bill of last year gave a larger income to the clergy than the present Bill. But that was at the expense of the Church itself; that addition could not be given as then proposed without vital injury to the best interests of the Church itself and the stability of Church property. Whence were the clergy to receive this increased allowance? Why, from the Consolidated Fund; and let the House observe the Consolidated Fund was to be reimbursed from the Perpetuity Fund, which was an ecclesiastical fund ; so that the clergymen were to relinquish their rightful claim to the property of the land, and receive a sort of pension from the State, which pension they would be compelled again to re pay from that property that belonged to the Church. But the injustice would appear still stronger if the nature and amount of the perpetuity Fund were considered. This reimbursement would not merely engross the whole of the Perpetuity Fund ; it would do more. The advance to the clergy from the Con solidated Fund would amount to more than three millions be- yond what the Perpetuity Fund would be able to yield.—( No, no.) At all events, considering the demands that the provi- sions of the late Bill would enable the clergy to make upon the Consolidated Fund, and the amount of the Perpetuity Fund, he would aver that the reimbursement would take over two millions more than the Perpetuity Fund could yield. The Perpetuity Fund, then, which was reserved for strictly Church objects, for the increase of small livings and the building and repairs of churches, was to be swallowed up by thq claims of the Consolidated Fund ; and this was called advancing the interests of the Church. There was no kind of property more assailable than Church property, from the relative po sition of the parties and the odium heaped upon it through the designs and misrepresentations of designing men. If it were not speedily settled there could be no security for any species of property in Ireland. He had never,:with one exception, opposed the measures of Church relief proposed during the Adminis tration of Lord Grey, and even upon that occasion—the Church Temporality Bill he alluded to—his opposition was directed to but one of its propositions—the reduction in the number of Bishops.—( Ilear, hear.) To that portion of the measure he had moved an amendment ; and to prove that it was not so much the Church revenues as the Church disci pline he attended to when doing so he distinctly offered the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to make reductions in the incomes of all the Bishops, which should be equivalent to the fund he expected to obtain by his proposal to reduce their number.— ( Hear, hear.) Upon that amendment the House divided, and it was upon that point alone that the Right Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be said to have opposed the Bill. To the principle of the proposition just developed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he was decidedly favourable, but at the same time he had some objections to its details. He saw objection in the first place to the remission of the million granted last year.—( Hear, hear.) That was a remission not to the Church but to the land. The Church only wanted to have its own property secured to it, and in order to attain that object they were willing to make a reduction of 25 per cent. on the nominal amount. Lord HO WICK rose for the purpose of expressing his earnest hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman would not call upon the Committee to assent to the whole of the resolutions which he had just placed in the hands of their Chairman, which, judging of them as he could only do from the statemen of their proposer, appeared to him to contain much that was highly and decidedly objectionable.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) What he would wish would be, that the Committee should not be then called upon to affirm them ; but that they should be printed, and a reasonable time given for their consideration before a decision was asked upon any except thoso points upon which no material difference of opinion was ---v ely to arise. He (Lord Howick) was fully agreed with his N cble Friend the Member for Devonshire upon the expediency of adopting the principle of a rent charge instead of tithes, .no• would he have the slightest objection to the introduction of a Bill—the right to consider its details being of course retained—for that purpose.—( Hear, hear.) In assenting, however, to the second p ar t o f t h e reso l ut i on, he b egge d to remind the House that it would be pledging itself upon two points, to both of which he for his part decidedly objected. In the first place, they would be pledging themselves to the re. demption of tithe in land.—( Hear, hear.) Now to such a: measure he was decidedly opposed, and he recollected to have rejoiced most sincerely that that part of the plan of last Ses sion was abandoned. The objection which he felt to this part of the resolution was, however, of a meaner and secondary con sequence to that which he entertained towards the proposition for saddling permanently on the people of this country the pay ment of the million granted to the Irish Clergy. He was most happy to hear from his Noble Friend, and he begged to say he fully coincided in the statement which fell from him, to the er Let that he considered after all that had passed, they would not h e ( Ling their duty if they passed any measures with re ference to the subject of Irish tithes until the great questicn of appropriation was Determined.—( Cheers.) He confessed he was one of these who te l .f most anxious that the whole purpose of the Government in relatio2 to the Irish Church should be stated without delay. He saw a;. - the present moment that the great source of the Irish Church li s evenue was in most immi nent danger of being lost altogether. He saw the Irish Se cretary coming forward with a declaration that the million of money which Parliament had advanced to the Clergy was lost to them, and he wanted to know what it was on this emer gency the Government proposed doing ?—(Hear, hear.) That the million advanced to the Clergy was lost he well knew, and lie knew also that unless they at once went to the root of the grievance not only that million but any other sum they might be pleased to grant would be lost, and therefore it was he desired to know the intentions of the Ministry.— ( Hear.) His mind, lie hesitated not to say, was made up upon the subject. The real grievance under which the Irish people laboured originated in their being compelled to pay for a Church Establishment for which they had no use, and until that grievance was met all that Parliament could do would prove ineffectual.—(Loud cheers.) For the Established Church, when it answered the real purposes for which it was intended, no man could entertain a higher veneration than he did, but when it ceased so to do he thought the sooner it was got rid of the better.—( Hear.) Now what were those real purposes for which it was intended? Ile would not quote his own opinions, but those of one of the highest ornaments the Church could boast of. He need scarcely say he meant the Bishop of London. That eminent divine, in a work he had lately published, said that the question whether a Church Es tablishment should be maintained or not was best answered by another question ; namely, did it, or did it not, tend to the moral improvement of the people? Now, judging the question by this test, he would maintain that the Church Establish ment was one that ought not to be continued.—(Cheers.) He judged of the Irish people by himself; and he asked the House what would be their feelings, if, sitting in a Parlia ment in Dublin, and supposing Ireland to be the larger of the two countries, they were called upon to debate the propriety of maintaining a large Roman Catholic Establishment.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Howick) knew what their feelings under such circumstances would be, and, judging of the feel ings of the Irish people by his own, he never would ask them to do that to which, were it his own case, he would never con sent. Such being his opinion, nothing could induce him to agree to the grant of one million, taken out of the pockets of the English people for the purpose of paying the Irish clergy, and he felt sure, that in that House he was not the only one who would come to the same resolution.—( Cheers.) He had merely risen to state that he wished the question, as to this part of the resolution, should be postponed to a future occa sion. —(Loud cheers.) Sir R. PE EL—I think, Sir, we can come to an arrange ment which will have the effect of preventing any difference of opinion upon the question in its present stage, and as the course suggested by the Noble Lord opposite, appears to be the most correct we can pursue—namely, to withhold all opposition to the resolutions, reserving the entire right of dis cussing the whole matter when the Bill embodying them comes before the House—l would seriously recommend it to the adoption of the Committee. The question which the Com mittee has in reality to decide, is whether we shall be permitted to present to the House a Bill, embodying the principle upon which the resolutions are founded, and accompanied with those details without which it is perfectly unintelligible. The present is but a preliminary proceeding, and as it is impossible to introduce the details of the measure to the House through the medium of dry abstract resolutions, and as the House cannot attain that position from whence it can form an accurate judg ment of those details unless it permits this preliminary pro.. ceeding, I propose it should now do so on the understanding that it is nowise pledged upon the subject, and may alter its decision when the Bill comes under consideration. The House is never considered pledged to a measure introduced in conse quence of resolutions, and that it is not so, I need only refer to the case of the Irish tithe measure of last session. In that case a resolution to the following words was proposed to a Com mittee of the whole House in the early part of the session : " Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee that com positions fortithes in Ireland ought to be abolished, in consi deration of an annual land tax to be granted to his Majesty, and payable to the persons who are liable to such composition for tithes, and of equal amount." This resolution was proposed as the foundation of a bill to be subsequently introduced and to prove that it was not considered by the Committee as a pledge of assent to the Bill I need only mention that it was carried by a majority of 219 to 42, and that many of its supporters subse qpently opposed not only the details but the principle of the measure. Now, why should we not adopt a similar course in the present case? The Noble Lord opposite says he objects to the redemption of tithe by the purchase of land. That, I admit, may be a very valid objection, and I should be sorry to ask the Noble Lord, or any other Member, to pledge him self to such a principle. But how, I ask, can we bring that question before the House until we get the fou n d a ti on f or a Bill? I mean these resolutions. (Some conversation across the table here took place between the Right Hon. Baronet and Lord Howick, which did not reach the Gallery.) lam always decidedly averse to pressing resolutions, but I must say I see no just reason why the House should withhold those now proposed. If the Committee consider that, by assenting to my Right Hon. Friend's proposition, they will fetter them selves in the slightest degree, I will not ask them to agree to it ; but when I assure them that the Government will not con sider them pledged to assent to the Bill when it comes be fore the House, I do trust they will not impede our progress by withholding their assent. With regard to the money branch of the resolution, if the House is now indisposed to its consideration, it can be made the subject of a future resolu tion ; but I am sure it will be for the convenience of the House to have in their hands the whole measure which Go.. vernment propose introducing, before they attempt to come to any decision whatever. ( Hear, hear.) Now, if the House will permit me, I will say a few words respecting the condition of this tithe question of Ireland, and I shall do so because I think it is desirable its true situation should be exposed to the House, before it is called upon for that decision to which it must soon (and the sooner the better) come. I much fear that the errors we have fallen into in our past attempts at legislation have originated in ignorance of the real bearings of the case, and, therefore, I am sure, the House will excuse my anxiety to display them as faithfully as I can on the present occasion.—( Hear.) Sir, if ever there was a question difficult of adjustment, consistently with equitable principles, it is the Irish tithe question. At the present moment, in a great part of the south of Ireland, there is, practically speaking, a complete suspension in the collection of tithes. Attempts have been made of late, and the conse quence, as the Committee is but too well aware, has been bloodshed and violence. Indeed, I may add, that it is alto gether owing to the patience and forbearance of the Irish Clergy, who have preferred seeing their families enduring the utmost privation rather than enforce their legal rights, that anything like peace or tranquillity reigns within its bounds. —( Hear, hear.) About two years ago Parliament agreed that a sum of 60,0001. should be advanced for the relief of the Clergy, and it liras provided that those who availed them selves of that grant should make over, as a security to Go vernment, their claim for the tithes then accruing. Upon their becoming due repeated attempts were made to levy them, but, although every exertion was used, and although the ap plication of military force, in aid of the civil power, was re sorted to, not one shilling was collected, and in the end, after expending in attempts at recovering more than the amount of the original grant, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to issue a notice, declaring that no further efforts would be made to regain the tithes so due to the Government. Whe ther th , s was an advisable proceeding or not I will not now stop to inquire, but of this I am convinced, that it was one of the first steps to the subsequent very general refusal to their levy. The first grant basin.- beer, exhausted, and the Clergy still continuing unable to make good their demands, a sum of one million was provided for the purpose of paying them the arrears of tithes. Out of this fund 630,000/. was advanced, upon the condition that it should be repaid at certain stipulated periods. The time for levying the tithe s now arrived, and as it is impossible to entertain the hope that they will be paid, the question is what, in this state of things, shall we do ? Time presses for our decision, and we must at once take some practical course for the settlement of the question. If you re quire repayment of the advances from the Clergy, they must collect their tithes, and to enable them to do that, you must give them the authority of Government and a military force, if requisite, in aid of the civil power.—( Cries of " Oh, oh 1" from the Opposition benches.) No I Then will you give them the civil power without the military force 7—( Cries of " No, no !" from the Opposition.) No ! not even that ? Then will you be guilty of this gross injustice—will you say to the Clergy, " We attempted to recover 60,0001., amount of tithe, but, although we had the authority of Go vernment, and were backed by the military and civil powers, we were obliged to abandon the effort ? You now owe us 630,0001., and although we will neither give you the aid of our authority, nor ,any assistance, either civil or military, to enforce your demand, we insist upon you at once levying tithe to the amount of our claim."—(Cheers,) Will you be guilty of this gross injustice to the Irish Clergy? Will you require them, unaided, to do that which, with all your autho rity, and all your resources, you were yourselves unable to do ?—( Cheers.) But, Sir, is the Government to stand quietly and see the laws of the land trampled upon ?—( Hear.) Are we to say to the Irish people, " We will permit the daily—nay, the hourly—violation of the laws without attempt ing to enforce them."—( Hear. ) few days, but the question to wh; will be this—will you relieve th( have on them, or will you enal sum from the occupying tenant with any justice impose those on the land ?—( Hear, hear.) who may have but lately come i a rent charge shall be imposed ) You may postßone it for a •hich you must s ultately come Le Clergy froT l / 4 44I9destL . u Lble the lb' Trrer .. ,„ 1, 1 jui t ti ? t — he l it )i T_ch .. 1 1\ Can , hireteglish fatidlord altsinto -'‘ -', his lind, on ~. 49, 4, met,, , tjutp, e) c. " 0 qr ..., .0. 06If ), Ktr* -- .17 *ITN . >~ ~ /l. , . ."4 , `" j ~r Drtte MSF