The Sun. — London, England, 1834-07-05 00:00:00

place the Government not ailuw the Bill to be frittered away, either to comiliate a factious enemy, or to cover the indiscretion of an imprudent friend. There was no one to Wl'om he would more readily entrust the extraordinary powers given by this Bill than to the Noble Marquis at the head of the Government in Ireland, but he could not help saying that he wished his Excellency had a better Secretary to assist him, and he hoped that before next session the Noble Earl would send him one.__( Hear. ) The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that while he was happy to find that Noble Lords approved of his Noble Friend's conduct, he did not like that the praise should all be at the expense of his Right Hon. Friend. He (the Lord Chan cellor) did not believe that any negotiation such as that alluded to had ever taken place, but a communication on the subject might have taken place, which might be very innocently in tended. He would give an instance in point which happened to himself ; he (the Lord Chancellor) had lately had some conversation with a Noble Lord whom he then observed in his place on the cross-benches, in regard to the renewal of the Coercion Bill. In the course of that conversation he (the Lord Chancellor) stated that there were two parts of the Act which he should like to see omitted if they could possibly be dropped. The one was the insurrectionary clauses, and the other that regarding public meetings. That was before he had seen any of the papers or statements regarding the present state of Ire land, but when he saw the papers he changed his opinion, and thought the clauses could not be dispensed with ; an d the consequence was, that he then came to the opinion whi c h h e had that day frankly and candidly expressed to their Lordships. Lord ST 0 URTON said that the Coercion Bill had left this House in an anomalous state as regarded the country, and as regarded Christendom and the civilized world. The Noble Earl having argued in favour of the establishment of poor laws in Ireland, referred to the evils of absenteeism, and the wretched condition of the lower classes. He had lately read in a little book on the power of steam, that one bushel of coals was equal to the power of twenty men. He thought it might be said with equal truth, that one bushel of misery in Ireland was equal to twenty bushels of agitation. Let them put down misery, and they would put down agitation. The Marquis of WE STME ATH said the speech of the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government would be a great consolation to the peaceful inhabitants of Ireland. With regard to what had been said in reference to a Right Ron. Gentleman holding an important place in the Govern ment, he must he allowed to say that he considered him one of the most single-minded and honourable men with whom he had ever met. He was sure that that Right Hon. Gentleman had been overreached by the wily individuals with whom he had communicated. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would not hold further interviews with them. Let him shut the door in their faces ; be civil to thern---(Laughter)—but let him not send for them, or have any dealings with them. The Bill was then read a second time, and it was ordered to be committed on Monday next. The House then adjourned at Seven o'clock till Half-past Ten o'clock to-morrow (this day). HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 4. The SPEAKER resumed the chair at 20 minutes past six. A message from the Lords announced that their Lord ships had agreed to the Glasgow Lottery Bill without any amendment. Lord R. GROSVENOR brought up the report of the Monaghan Election Committee, which stated that Mr. James Oswald, one of the members, was not in attendance, and the committee could not proceed without him. A Medical Gentleman in ;Attendance was called in and examined by the SPEAKER. He stated that Mr. Oswald was unable to attend from indisposition, and would not be able to attend for a few days. The Committee then ob tained leave to adjourn to Monday next. Lord ALTHORP presented a petition from Reading against the Beer Bill. Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up the report of the Committee on the London Ward Constablefs Bill. Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from Mer chants of London connected with Liverpool, against the Court of Passages Bill. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Mr. BROTHERTON begged to ask the Right Hon. the Attorney-General whether the Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt would extend to judgments obtained in the Court of Requests ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the affir mative. Major FANCOURT presented several petitions from places in Devon for the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. WILKS presented petitions from the Dissenters of Brunswick-square Chapel, London, and of the city of Litchfield, against the Church Rates Bill. Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from a place the name of which we did not hear, praying for an enactment for the suppression of drunkenness. Lord HOTH AM presented petitions from Worcester, in support of the Established Church. Mr. GOULBURN presented several petitions in support of the Established Church, and against the claims of Dissenters. Mr. H. GRATTAN presented a petition from a parish in Ireland, against tithes ; and gave notice that lie intended to move, that any Ministry who would circumscribe the liberties of the people of Ireland would be unworthy of the confidence of the people. Mr. BARING felt under the necessity of applying to the Noble Lord opposite, whether it was his intention or not to produce certain papers which he had given notice of his intention to move for, (as we understood, relative to the Commissioners of the National Debt), because if the Noble Lord persevered in his refusal to produce them, it was his intention to move for their return on Monday next. Lord ALTHORP made an observation which was quite inaudible. Mr. W. W. WYNN wished to know from the Learned Attorney-General, whether, considering the advanced period of the session it would not be better either to have the Registration Bill committed up stairs forthwith, or that it should be taken some morning early. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think it would be possible to have it committed up stairs ; but he should be happy to meet his Hon. Friend upon it any morning within the next fortnight. Mr. O'CONNELL stated that the Noble Lord oppo site at an early period of the sesssion had said it was his intention to lay a proposition before the House, mate rially calculated to benefit the Irish revenue, and also to afford relief to the Irish people, but which the House bad heard nothing of ; and he wished to know whether it was still the Noble Lord's intention to do so? Lord ALTHORP said the Hon. and Learned Gentle man had misquoted his words—his words were, that it would not injure Ireland. Mr. P. THOMSON, in answer to a question, stated that, with regard to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, the papers which had been produced distinctly showed in confirmation of information which he had otherways received that no such frauds as had been alleged had been practised in those islands. With regard to the Isle of Man inquiries were still going on, and every effort would be made to prevent frauds there. At the same time while the Isle of Man remained in the anomalous condition in which it now was, it would be extremely difficult to adopt such means as might prevent the suspicion of frauds being practised there ; and if any measure were brought forward to alter that condition, he should not be the last to give it his support. _ _ An Hos. MEMBER wished to know whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to bring in any measure for the purpose of placing the Isle of Man on the same footing as that of other parts of his Majesty's do minions ? Lord ALTHORP did not think so at present. IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES ACT. Mr. LITTLETON stated that he had intended to submit a proposition to the House at once with regard to the tithes of Ireland ; but on finding it likely that the whole House would resolve itself into a, Committee on the Irish Church Temporalities Act, h e had given notice, on Wednesday evening last, that he would move such Committee of the whole House, and consequently he now begged leave to move it. Mr. SHAW presented petitions from several places in Ireland in favour of the Irish Church. On the motion of Mr.LITTLETONthe House resolved itself into a Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill, Mr. BERNAL in the Chair. Mr. LITTLETON observed that as he had already stated the nature of the proposed alterations, it was not necessary for him now to repeat them at length. At this moment, the measure stood thus :—that compositions pay. able on Ist November next were to be converted into a land-tax from that day, payable in the same amounts, an d by the same parties ; the collection of that land-tax, was to be continued for five years, and after Nov. 1839, the own ers of the first estate of inheritance were to incur a rent charge, the amount of which was to be foux-fifths of the amount of the composition : the land-ow2iers were to be empowered to collect only the same amount from their tenants as they themselves paid. It waa not unnaturally felt that it was a considerable hardship t o leave parties subject to the rent-charge, without enabling them voluntarily to incur it, or to relieve themselves from it by r e d empt i on. The clauses relating to redemption had been struck out o f t h e Bill , but it was not to be understood that Ministers thought means might not be found hereafter to accomplish the object of redemption. In the interval, it. was desirable i to induce thos e w h o m i g h t in cur the rent-charge to take t upon themsel ves vo l untar i ly, and at an ear ly pe r iod. A considerable bonus was therefore offered, and as the machinery was contained in clauses that had been printed and circulated, it was not necessary to dwell upon it. The Right Honourable Gentleman then entered into the following calculations, with a view to show what the bonus would be at different rates of purchase. Thus, for in stance : Yrs. purchase Minus Equal to yrs. At se per Ct. Bonus, of land. of Tithes . . Minus amounts to per Ct. 28 4-sths ......... 22 ......... 2-sths ... £7B 5 6 2.1 .... ..... ... 4.sths 2-s ths ... 70 0 0 ...... 30 20 -sths But in the last-mentioned case the bonus could not fall lower than 40 per cent., because a limitation would be introduced into the bill that the bonus should never be less than twenty, por more than forty per cent. The question then arose from whence this bonus was to be paid, and it was proposed by Ministers that it should be paid upon all tithes ecclesiastical or impropriate, from the Consolidated Fund. The Consoli dated Fund was to be indemnified among other things, by the perpetuity purchase-fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In the discussion last session upon the 147th clause, it was very generally admitted that this fund could scarcely be considered church property.--( Cheers, and " No, no.") He had ascertained from Mr. Earle, one of the Eccle siastical Commissioners, that the fund for general purposes would produce an income of about 91,000/, and as the expen diture for indispensable purposes would not amount to more than 66,000/., a balance and clear surplus of 25,000/. would be left in the hands of the Commissioners, to be dedicated to optional purposes. The Commissioners were also by this time enabled to form a notion of the probable amount of the perpe tuity purchase-fund. Mr. Earle represented that it would be at least 1,200,000/. At this moment the Commissioners had 60,0001. in hand, and it would soon be greatly increased. He had no doubt that this plan would be approved by a majority of the House, and all parties felt convinced that it was neces sary to make a great sacrifice to secure the payment of the dues of the Church, and to deprive Ireland of a fruitful source of agitation. Mr. H LIME asked how much money would be advanced (vat of the Consolidated Fund? Mr. LITTLETON added, that the 25,0001. of which he had spoken was a balance in hand applicable to optional pur poses. It was impossible to ascertain precisely the extent of the draft on the Consolidated Fund, because it was voluntary on the landlords to take the rent-charge upon themselves. He had heard at 100,0001. a year. The income from the 1,200,0001. Perpetuity Service Fund would not be quite half that amount. Mr. SHAW inquired if the same regulations would apply to lay impropriators ? Mr. L ITTL ET ON answered in the affirmative. When con sidering a plan for the settlement of the tithe question in Ire land it had not been thought that a different policy should be adopted towards one species of tithe property than towards ano ther, and it was an undoubted fact, capable of proof by calcu lation, that the resistance to impropriate tithes had been stronger and more extensive than the resistance to the pay ment of ecclesiastical tithes. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a resolution to the effect, " That the Commissioners certify to the Treasury, on the Ist of Novem ber in each year, the amount of deficiency arising out of the voluntary rent charges, and that any deficit shoud be made good out of the Consolidated Fund of the united kingdom,and that the ecclesiastical commissioners should make good out of the Perpetuity Purchase Fund so much of the sums so ad vanced as shall be required." Mr. HUME did not clearly understand the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He understood him (Mr. Little ton) to say that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had at their disposal 91,0001., and that from this sum 66,0001. were to be deducted, which would leave a balance of 25,000/. Mr. LITTLETON said that he had stated, that under the operation of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, a fund would arise which would remain in the hands of the Commissioners to be appropriated by Parliament. There were other sources of revenue underthe same bill, the entire yearly aniount of which would be 90,0001., but there were charges in it for many purposes to the extent of 66,0001., and thus a balance would remain of 25,000/. Mr. HUNIE observed that that was what he had stated. Mr. LITTLETON made a remark which was nut heard in the gallery. Mr. HUME said that a considerable difference would exist between the probable sum to be advanced out of the Consoli dated Fund, and the amount that would be derived from the sources mentioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. LITTLETON observed that it was possible such might be the fact. Mr. H UME said that a large sum might be required to pay the bonus on lay tithes, in addition to any loss that might accrue on ecclesiastical tithes. Mr. O'CONNELL was anxious to know whether the Right Hon. Gentleman had taken into his calculations the sum that would be required to be deducted from the funds in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners on account of the vestry cess? Mr. LITTLETON answered in the affirmative. The whole amount they would have to pay for things necessary for divine worship, and salaries of clerks, would be 35,0001. a-year. Mr. LYNCH made two or three observations which were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. ROBINSON trusted that the Committee would un derstand the question before it agreed to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. (His Mr. Littleton's) statement was not very clear on the subject. If he (Mr. Robinson) under stood the matter, there was to be a change in the consoli dated fund, which might now be said to be a vortex which swallowed up everything. The consolidated fund was to be made chargeable for the payment of the bonus, without any charge for the repayment of the money. He, for one, would decidedly object to such a proposition. Lord A L THO Rl' said that the object of his resolution was to make good any deficit that might arise from the payment of the bonus out of the consolidated fund, and that the security should be the perpetuity purchase fund. It was perfectly fair to argue, though there was no probability of such a thing oc curring, that the whole of the land-tax could be converted into a rent-charge ' • but if such a mode of proceeding were al lowable, he ( Lord Althorp) would be justified in estimating the annuity fund at a much larger amount than he had done. It was quite true that if the amount of the deficit should exceed 100,000/. a year, that was more than the resources of his Right Hon. Friend had provided for ; but the circumstance of its ever reaching that amount was very unlikely. His Hon. Friend had stated the probable amount of the funds that would be in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners. The House, therefore, could have no difficulty in under standing the general state of the question. If the charge was not repaid out of the perpetuity fund, it would remain with the House to consider the question at a future time, in order to see whether the money ought not to be taken out of the consolidated fund. It was quite true that there would be no security as to the re-payment of the money by the lay impropriators ; but the amount which would fall on the country in the event of any deficit on their parts could not be considerable ; it could not exceed 20,0001. a year. If they, however, were to purchase the pacification of Ireland, he did not think that in an economical point of view, laying higher considerations out of sight, that it would be a bad expenditure of money.—( Hear.) He (Lord Al thorp) maintained there was a prospect of producing peace in Ireland by the present plan, as it would throw the burden on the shoulders of the landlord, whereas it had been hitherto on those of the tenant. He was sure that with such a prospect the House would not grudge the pecuniary sacrifice. Mr. O'CONNELL concurred with the Noble Lord, that if the 20,0001. to be paid yearly in the manner and for the purpose mentioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman was to pur chase the peace and prosperity of Ireland, the sum would be very inconsiderable. So far would he be from grudging that amount for an object of such great importance, that he would willingly give twenty times 20,0001., if he thought that sum would secure it. But the Noble Lord had very properly used the word " ff."--( A laugh.) Your "ifs" are always great peace-makers.—( Laughter.) The only way to insure the peace and tranquillity of Ireland would be to abolish tithes altogether, and support the clergy out of the ecclesiastical funds. They had been told by the Right Hon. Gentleman that a great boon had been conferred on Ireland by the abolition of the vestry cess. It had been stated that the vestry cess amounted to 75,000/. per annum. It now pops out, however, that it does not exceed 35,0001. The thing was all a decep tion on Ireland, and that deception arose from its being sup posed that all the parishes paid the same amount. The ques tion alluded to ought, in his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion, to be referred to a committee up stairs. The proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman was a mere clap -trap.—( A laugh.) If carried, it would only make the bill worse than before. He would vote for the 147th clause ; but beyond that he would tell the House that its money would be all thrown away. Col. D AVIE S said, that what had been that evening pro posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was only a delusion. So long as the people were compelled to pay for the support of a church to which they did not attend, and of which they disap proved, so long would there be discontent and disturbances in Ireland. He should like to know how the 120,0001. was to be realised. There ought to be bounds set to the giving away of the public money, and this with regard to Ireland, as well as other parts of the empire. Sir ROBERT PEEL was anxious that before the Com mittee discussed the question, they should have a more satis factory statement before them than that which had just been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman. If he did not miscon ceive the Right Hon. Gentleman's statement, he estimated the maximum charge for commuting ecclesiastical tithes at 100,0001., and the maximum charge for commuting lay tithes at 26,0001., making together a charge of 126,0001. a year on the consolidated fund. The Right Hon. Gentleman supposed that the amount of the perpetuity found would be 1,200,000/. ; that 91,000/. would arise from different sources of revenue under the Church Temporalities Act ; that there was an an nual charge on this of 60,000/. ; thus leaving a surplus of 25,000/. The interest of this 1,200,000/. at 31 per cent. would be 44,000/. a-year. This sum, added to 23,0001., would make up 67,0001., which was to make up for the money taken from the consolidated fund. The Right Hon. Gentle man calculated the maximum charge at 120,0001. a-year, and if he ( Sir R. Peel) was not mistaken, the bonus on some lands was 40 per cent. Mr. LITTLETON said that the bonus could not exceed 40 per cent., nor be less than 20 per cent. Sir R. PEEL said there was no security whatever with respect to lay tithes. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman how he calculated with respect to them ? The if on. Member for Worcester had said the Consolidated Fit - nd was like a general vortex, which swallowed up every thing. He ( Sir R. Peel) must confess that he did not see +,,,e propriety of the metaphor as applied to the Consolidater.i. Fund--( A laugh)—but if em ployed in reference to tithes in Ireland, it was a good meta phor ; for their security might be compared to a vortex.— (Laughter.) The totsl loss which the Consolidated Fund would have to bear, assuming the calculation of the Right Hon. Gentleman to be correct, would be 53,000/. He did ot wish at that time to go into the argument ; but he was anxious to have the thing properly understood. The Noble Lord talked of some future arrangements, so as to relieve the Consolidated Fund. Was it not, then, absurd to talk of the settlement of the tithe question, while future arrangements were in contemplation ? Mr. D. ROCHE said the amount could not be charged on the consolidated fund if they did not get it.—(A laugh.) Mr. O'REILLY said that no measure would give peace to Ireland if the people were not relieved altogether from the payment of tithes. He would have no objection to this country taking on itself the payment of any sum which had for its object the exemption of the people - of Ireland from the pay ment of these obnoxious imposts.—( A laugh.) If this Pro testant Parliament and this Protestant country were willing to THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 5, 1834. raise a sum, it mattered not what was the amount, to relieve the people of Ireland from the payment of tithes, God forbid that he (Mr. O'Reilly) should interfere with their humours ; but he could not see that any good would result from the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. SHAW was understood to say that he wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite how it was pro posed to provide for the sum of 120,0001. now proposed to be taken out of the Consolidated Fund ? Mr. STANLEY then rose, and said he hardly knew whe ther that was the proper opportunity to enter upon a discus sion to the principle of this measure. But the resolution in the hands of the Chairman appeared to him to involve a question so important that he thought it his duty, even in that preliminary stage of the proceeding, to state the objec tions which he had to it. If, however, the House signified to him that that was not the fitting opportunity for the course which he meant to take he would reserve his observations for another occasion, but otherwise he would take the liberty a stating the grounds on which he felt himself called upon to oppose these Resolutions, and to take the sense of the House, and he could assure them he should do so simply as a matter of duty, as to whether they ought to adopt these Resolutions or not.----( Hear). Now he objected to the Resolutions in the Chairman's hands, but in stating the grounds on which his objec tions were founded he gave his Right Hon. Friend considerable advantage. He begged to assure his Right Hon. Friend that he did not object merely to the charge proposed to be made on the Consolidated Fund ; but, in point of fact, to his whole plan, for his objections embraced as well the two resolutions before the House as the manner in which the money was in tended to be applied. He objected to these resolutions, be cause they would not permit—because they were not only in consistent, but at variance with--and because, in short, they would altogether prevent, at any future time, the accomplish ment of that great principle which it had been the anxious de sire of the Government during the last three or four years, to establish—namely, the extinction of tithes through the medium of redemption. It was this grand principle which should have formed the leading feature of any measure brought forward on this subject, and therefore it was that he objected to these resolutions, conceiving them as he did to be nothing more nor less than the commencement of a system of plunder.—( Vehe ment cheering.) He thought them, in the first place, in the highest degree impolitic, and in the next he must say that he regarded them as being the most dishonest.—( Renewed cheer ing.) He also objected to them because the system of plun der which they contemplated was not palliated by anything that was either manly or straightforward, because they exhi bited all the timidity without the dexterity of even the most unpractised shoplifter._( Renewed cheering.) His Right Hon. Friend, he hoped, would excuse his using such a com parison ; and if the House did not think he was descending too low, he would say that he had never witnessed anything like the principle on which the Government were proceeding in this instance, except among a class of persons who were not generally received into society, but who were commonly to be met with on race courses and at country fairs, the instru ments of whose calling were a small deal table and four or five thimbles.—( Great cheering and laughter.) Yes, a class of persons whose system of plunder was conducted by a dex terous shifting of a pea, and calling on the bystanders to say which thimble it was under. As in that case the individual who speculated on the manoeuvres of the juggler would have his property taken from him by means which lie could net comprehend, so would it be in the present instance.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would admit that his illustration was a low one, but then he thought the House would agree with him in saying it was the selfsame principle which his Right Hon. Friend, which his Majesty's present Government seemed to be following.---( Cheers.) But to complete the picture, his Right Hon. Friend had got the pocket of the Church, the pocket of the State, the pocket of the landlord, the pocket of the tenant, the Perpetuity Fund, and the Con solidated Fund, under his various thimbles, and these he shifted about from one thimble to another as he thought fit, at the same time that he called upon them to say under which of the thimbles they were to be found, and kept exclaiming, " We have them under this thimble ; oh, no ! but they must be under that ;" and so on until all the thimbles were taken up, when it would be found that the property had alto gether disappeared, and that the speculator would have disappointment for his pains.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He repeated that the reason why he objected to the present proposition which his Right Hon. Friend had brought before the House was, because it involved the total defeat of a prin ciple which it had been the object of the Government for the last three or four years past to carry into effect, and which he considered of the utmost importance, namely, the gradual ex tinction of tithes by means of composition and redemption.— ( Hear, hear.) The Committee, he was sure, would excuse him for recurring to transactions in which he had taken an active part, for speaking of himself and the views which he had always entertained on this subject.—( Hear, hear.) He had the honour to be appointed to the office of Chief Secretary of State for Ireland, in the winter of 1830, and to hold that office down to the year 1833. At the period he entered office as Irish Secretary, the opposition to the payment of tithes commenced, and was subsequently carried on to a considerable extent. The House must recollect the proceedings that took place in 1831, and that it was then impossible to direct the public attention to anything but the subject of Reform, which was then the all-engrossing topic, and led to the dissolution of Parliament in the month of May. A few days ago he found the copy of a letter which he addressed to his Noble Friend at the head of his Majesty's Government in Julic, and in that letter he strongly stated it to be his view, that it was absolutely necessary to interpose the authority of the State, to preserve from destruction a spe cies of property which had been assailed, not only by violence but fraud.—( Cheers.) He further stated to his Noble Friend in this communication the difficulties which would arise from imposing on the police new duties, duties that were not only invidious, but, generally speaking, unsuccessful, and calling out the military to meet the legal ingenuity of the op posite party. The certain result of such a system, he told his Noble Friend, would be an increased hatred to the Protestant Church, an increased irritation throughout the country, and a positive encouragement to those who objected to the payment of tithes to resist the law. He even ventured to recommend to his Noble Friend, for the first time, that it would be expe dient to effect an extinction of tithes by means of composition and redemption. He suggested that might be accomplished by throwing the burden prospectively—he said prospectively— upon the landlord, and bringing in a measure allowing the landlord to relieve himself from the burden by making a pay ment equivalent to a given number of :years' purchase. He stated these facts to the Committee in order to show that at an early period of his official career he had directed the atten. tion of the Government not only to the evils that existed, but to the means by which he believed these evils might be remedied. Conformably to the recommendation which he had given to his Noble Friend at the head of Government, what had been done ? Why, at the commencement of next session his Majesty, in a speech from the Throne, recommended that Parliament should effect some improvement in the laws relating to tithes, and by that means afford the protection that was necessary for preserving the property of the Established Church, in order to remove the causes of complaint which then existed. ( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend, the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, moved for a Committee con formable to the recommendation of the Crown, and he would beg the attention of Hon. Gentlemen to the words which his Noble Friend used upon that occasion. His Noble Friend said-4 , The Committee would have to consider whether it would not be wise to complete some more comprehensive measure, the object of which should be to place the property of the Church upon a firmer basis, more advantageous to the clergy, and less grievous to the people, by facilitating the re demption of tithes, and applying the produce, under whatever regulations might be deemed proper, to the maintenance of the ministers of religion." Such were then the views of his Majesty's Government on going into that Committee ; and at that period, whatever other measures were contemplated, they looked to the total extinction of tithes by the means he had mentioned as the only way in which the question could be sa tisfactorily and finally settled—as the only means by which the heartburnings and jealousy that existed could be effectually re moved, and the Protestant religion independently and securely , maintained without shocking the feelings of the Roman Ca tholics. These, he repeated, were the views with which the Government went into that Committee, and their object was not only to extend the principle of composition but to lead ' by reduction to the final extinction of tithes. That Commit tee proposed (he referred to the second report of the Com mittee on Tithes) that in all future leases the landlord should be made responsible for the payment of the tithe composition. They also thought it desirable that while an additional obli gation, if not a pecuniary burthen, was imposed on the landed proprietor, that. Parliament should hold out to him some easy mode by which he could facilitate his own relief, adding their belief that the landlords generally, if favourable terms were offered to them, would gladly consent ; a feeling that ought to be encouraged to render the annual charge on their estates a fixed money payment. The Committee went on to show the means by which tithes should in future be raised, and con cluded by recommending that a Bill should be brought in for amending the provisions of the Tithe Composition Act, and to render the payment permanent and compulsory. They also recommended the establishment of an ecclesiastical corpora tion for the collection of the revenues of the church, and that recommendation, he admitted, was carried into effect by the present measure, according to which those revenues were to be c(Alected by the State. And thirdly, and lastly, they ad vised the conversion of tithe into land. These were the recom mendations of the Committee of 1832; and what was the course pursued by the Government in 1833, when he was a member of it? Why, they endeavoured to remove the obstacles that were in the way of the grand principle which they had laid down for their own guidance one by one, and to approach it gradually step by step.--( Hear.) But if these resolutions were adopted what would be the consequence ? Would they not defeat the whole course of policy which had been pursued by the Go vernment, and prove that Isis Majesty's Ministers were now shrinking from a principal which they had formerly sanctioned? —( Hear.) In 1833 the committee must recollect that the difficulty in the collection of tithes was so great, so insuper able, on the part of the unassisted clergy, that, having esta blished a system of compulsory composition, he, on the part of the Government, prevailed upon Parliament—but on the faith that substantive measures for putting an end to the ques tion would shortly be introduced—to grant the sum of one million for the purpose of paying the arrears of tithes owing down to 1834. This sum, he repeated, was granted in the confi tdoesnecteatehtaht e m g e t a ie s s u t r io e n s tr ; v o h u n l t d a b n e al te brought rato n f o n r forward o n i l n y 1 07 834 e i fi r e n n a m l y_ stances but of principles had since takOn place, which left the question as far from being settled as ever:--( Heat:, hear.) He h s h r o o u u g l should t n o fo w rw sh a o rd rtl f y or ad t h v e e r t e o t i n o p o the t o m n e a o s f u t t le i tst.; es, commencing oni n. h m a c d eenneti been lneg_ m w l a t n h ( t. the r . B G i l o t h r u o r d n u ) c o e d p p i o n s i l t B e h by e the Member Right fo r niversity of.; Cambridge. That Bill provided that in all cases o;future leases the landlord, and not the tenant, should be the pex:,Y . . liable to pay the composition, and if it were paid by the tenant he would be entitled to deduct the amount from his rent on producing the Clergyman's receipt. This, however, had not the effect that was anticipated from it. Where the rent was 245. the landlord covenanted with the tenant for the payment of 275., but he never applied for more than 245., leaving the 3s. which belonged to the clergyman in the hands of the tenant, as the production of the receipt was a matter of perfect indiffer ence to him. The Legislature evidently intended to throw the whole burden of the responsibility and pressure of the tithes on the landlord, and to leave him to make his own bargain with the tenant ; but this, as he had stated, failed. In the Bill which he (Mr. Stanley) introduced two years ago, this same principle was carried still further. It was in that measure pro vided that the composition should be recoverable, not from the tenant, but from the landlord, and from him alone. Now a great portion of the land of Ireland was held by tenants at will, or from year to year ; and it was further provided that in all these cases the liability should attach to the landlord alone, and the effect of this arrangement had been to reduce_ the number of tithepayers in one district from 16,000 or 17,000 to 9,500, and thereby of course greatly facilitating the means of collection. These were the state of things in November, 1833, and it would be recollected that at the opening of the present Session his Majesty in the Speech he delivered from the throne said— " I recommend to you the early consideration of such a final ad justment of the tithes in that part of the United Kingdom as may extinguish all just causes of complaint, without injury to the rights and property of any class of my subjects, or to any institution in Church or State." These were the words put by the Government into his Majesty's mouth at the commencement of the present Session.—( Hear, hear.) And here was the principle on which the Government were hound to act.--( Hear, hear.) Here was the principle of the Bill which his Right Hon. Friend had introduced, the Bill which he (Mr. Stanley) then held in his hand, but not the Bill which his Right Hon. Friend now called upon them to sanc tion.—( Hear, hear.) Here was the principle of the Bill brought forward at the beginning of the Session ; but not only had his Right Hon. Friend thrown overboard the essential parts of that Bill, but introduced into it principles that were diametrically at variance with those with whom he had set out. —( Cheers.) When his Right Hon. Friend brought this sub ject forward in February last, he made a very clear statement to the House—much more clear and satisfactory than that which he had made on the present occasion. He then stated the measures which the Government intended to carry into effect, but he separated the question of appropriation from the other questions involved in the case, although he laid down the principle as to whether hereafter the right of appropria tion might not rest with the State. The Right Hon. Gentle man's own words were—" Before he proceeded farther, he would beg leave to caution Hon. Members of all parties against admitting the impression on their minds that the subject involved, in any respect, the question of the ap propriation of Church property. That was a question per fectly distinct from that which it was his duty to bring before the Committee. The question of appropriation of Church property had heretofore been the subject of Parliamentary discussion, and might hereafter constitu tionally become so again. He fully admitted that point, but he wished the Committee to understand that the question it would have to consider was, how the property of the Church could best be realized unconnected with any considerations relative to its appropriation ; in short, the question which the Committee would have to consider was simply and entirely one of property, as much so as if it referred solely to the payment of rent. That this was the fact was abundantly proved by the fact that the opposition to the payment of tithes the property of lay impropriators was as violent, if not more so, as that offered to the payment of those which belonged to the Church." His Right Hon. Friend went on to state the means by which this property was intended to be rescued. " The great end and object," he said, " of the measure would be to find out the means of effecting a practical com mutation of tithes in the quickest possible manner into land, and the best way, in his opinion, to accomplish this would be to confer on that description of property now threatened with annihilation all the security which it was in the power of Parliament to confer upon it."' Such was the character of the measure which his Right Hon. Friend said on the 20th of February it was the intention of the Government to intro duce; but he should like to know how the present measure could give to tithe property " all the security which it was in the power of Parliament to confer upon it ?"—( Hear, hear, hear.) This was a statement which his Right Hon. Friend had made over and over again, but he (Mr. Stanley) had said that the conduct of the landlords as to whether they would or not redeem their tithes would mainly depend on the course which the Government pursued. If they found the Government offered them favourable terms-- if they found that it was the determination of the Government to vindicate the law in asserting their rights, as they were bound and ought to do, he had no doubt the landlords would co-operate with them; but if, on the contrary, they found the Government faltering in their purpose—if they found them shrinking from one measure, and taking up another, abandoning this principle and adopting that, not only would the landlords refuse to co-operate with them, but they must expect that their proceedings would not be sanctioned by the Members of that House.—( Cheers.) Those Members who had supoorted the Bill as it originally stood would not submit to the adop tion of the present measure with the same sort of obedience, and therefore he asserted that not only the landlords but the tenan` an,l indeed every man in the country, would despise a Government which exhibited such ind,c,,dity and want of firm ness of purpose.--( Loud cheers.) The main object of the Bill as it originally stood was redemption with a view to the final extinction of tithes, and that he contended was the only honest mode of treating the question. Redemption with a view to that end was the principle on which the Bill was in the firs instance framed, and it was that principle, and that prin ciple alone, which palliated such an interference with the rights of property. But what became of that which was the main object of the bill when the redemption clauses were struck out ? They preserved all its unjust machinary, while they deprived it of its just object.—( Hear.) But so recently as the 20th of February his Right. Hon Friend himself justified the principle of redemption, which had been laid down on the ground that it was necessary for the state to take into its own hands the collection of this property, and that it ought, therefore, to be fairly compensated for the risk and expenses it might be put to on that account, provided no additional charge was to be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. But what was his Right Hon. Friend's new scheme ? Why, that the state should pay 120,0001. a year to carry this mea sure into effect. His Right Hon. Friend had, however, omitted to state how it was that he expected to get back this money. Now his Right Hon. Friend told them that if this sum were paid, the landlords would hereafter be induced to redeem their tithe. Would they ? Let him just see how that matter stood. A deduction of twenty per cent. was to be made from the tithe-owner to defray the expenses of collec tion, while the tithe-payer was to have a reduction of as much as forty per cent. Over and above the expenses of collection, there would be a difference of twenty per cent. to come out of the Consolidated Fund, so as to make up the forty per cent. to the landlord ; but how was this deficiency to be made good to the state? Here then was another instance of his Right Hon. Friend's thimble-shifting. Mr. LITTLETON observed that forty per cent. would not have to be paid in all cases. Mr. STANLEY—In all cases where they did not charge the landlord at the rate of seventeen years' purchase for his tithes forty per cent. would have to be paid. He would not say that four-fifths might not be a fair proportion, or that where land sold at twenty years' purchase tithes should not I sell at sixteen. His Right Hon. Friend had said that the average price of land in nineteen counties was twenty years' purchase, and the average price of tithes sixteen. But then it should be recollected that in all these cases when the land lord failed or did not choose to redeem his tithes within three years, he would have a permanent charge of 3i per cent. upon the amount of the purchase-money fixed upon his property. The Right Hon. Gentleman asserted that the titheowner would get no more than 591. 10s. for every 1001., while the landowner was benefitted to the extent of 40 per cent. Mr. LITTLETON said that 40 per cent. was the utmost that would be allowed in any case. Mr. STANLEY—Whenever the tithes sold for less than seventeen years' purchase the titheowner, he repeated, would get only 591. 10s. for each 1001., although the benefit to the tithe payer would extend to 40 per cent., and therefore his Right Hon. Friend need not tell him that it was not intended to go beyond that point. In all cases where the tithes happened not to be worth seventeen years' purchase he (Mr. Stanley) believed the advantage to the landlord would be full 40 per cent. But he thought the Government would have done much better if they had gone straightforward, instead of adopting so circu itous a course—if they had at once declared that they intended to give a bonus of one-fifth out of the property of the Church, and a second bonus of one-fifth out of the Consolidated Fund. Now if this was really what they meant why did they not manfully say so ? Why did they not at once go in a straight forward and candid manner to that which was their real pur pose ?—( Cheers.) In February last his Right Hon. Friend proposed to throw the whole burden of tithes and their col lection upon the landlord, and to give him the power of re covering the arrears : but to this he (Mr. Stanley) did not object, because, the arrears being the property of the tithe owner, it followed, if the landlord purchased the tithes, that he would have a right to look to the tithepayer. He fully agreed to all this : but surely he had a right to ask his Right Honourable Friend why that which was expedient on the 20th of February should be inexpedient on the 4th of July.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) It was, he contended, contrary to every principle of right and justice that the landlord, who was to be put to neither risk nor trouble, should receive so large a bonus : and it was idle to suppose that redemption would ever be effected under this Bill. If it was the intention of the Go vernment to abide by that principle, why should they shrink from enforcing it ? But if they did not mean to abide by it, why not say so at once ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Would it not be better to adopt some equitable means of getting rid of this annual payment altogether, instead of perpetuating it, by making it a permanent charge at the rate of three and a half per cent. on the amount of the purchase money ? It was perfectly absurd to suppose that landlords either in Ireland or England would redeem their tithes under such circumstances. They now paid four and five per cent. for money, and the low rate of interest which this measure proposed would effectually prevent them from availing themselves of the law. That House had already decided that this was the property of the Church by appropriating it to Church uses through the Act of last Session. That decision having been taken by Parliament he now warned them that they could not resist it, and he believed the Government did not, in reality, wish to resist it.—( Hear, hear.) But he wanted them to speak out as to what their wishes and intentions were.—(Loud cheers.) He wanted to know in what light the Perpetuity Fund was to be regarded. His Noble Friend had dropped some significant words, to the effect that if the means of carrying their plan into effect should fail they must look out for what other sources could supply them. It appeared to them that the Church property was to be applied, not for the spiritual edification of the people, as his Noble Friend the Member for Yorkshire had expressed it—( A laugh)—but to be given as a boon in the shape of twenty per cent. to induce landlords to take upon themselves the payment of tithe. What was the amount of the fund at present? At the most it was 60,0001., and for that paltry sum they were about to commit this petty larceny. —(Loud cheers and laughter.) It was a petty larceny ; for it had not the boldness or the openness of a robbery, besides the insignificance of the amount. As to the pretence that the object altered the character of the act, it was just as if a high wayman stopped him upon the road, and, putting a pistol to his breast, said, " Give me your money ; you have too much, and it is tempting, and to give it up will greatly increase the security of your life."--( A laugh.) Just so his Right Hon. Friend had told them, and he had given them no other rea son, that the property of the Church was to be taken from it to make it more secure, and he would just as soon trust the one party as the other.—( Hear, hear.) Nay, he would go farther—he would trust the highwayman with his life, but after the Government had once laid their hands upon this fund he would not trust them with the remaining property of the church.—(Loud cheers.) His Right Hon. Friend would gain from this 60,0001., a revenue of some 3,0001. a year, and upon this security he called upon the House to advance 100,0001. He wanted to know distinctly, did his Right Hon. Friend and the Government mean or not to go for the whole of the funds so advanced upon the Established Church ? If they had made up their minds to that, let them fairly avow it to the House and to the country.—( Loud cheers.) Let them know upon what ground they were standing. He called upon them to do this, as they valued the peace of Ireland ; as they wished to avoid not only heart-burnings and animosities, but bloodshed and murders.—( Hear, hear.) He called upon them to act upon their opinions, whatever they were, and to revoke that miserable abortion of an expedient, the Irish Church Commission.—( Loud cheering.) He called it a mi serable abortion. Was it not so ? Why it was begotten, con ceived, and came into life in one short week.—( Immense cheering and laughter.) He did not mean to say that some such idea had not been started four or five months ago.— ( Cheers from the Treasury Benches.) But now this he would say, and he called upon those who cheered to deny it if they could, that from that period down to the night of the motion of the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, the subject was never a matter of discussion in the Cabinet.--( Cheers.) Nay, he would say more—the Cabinet had repudiated it as a proposi tion, if not vicious in principle, yet absolutely impracticable in operation.—( Loud cheering.) And why ? Because, they be lieved that if they durst have proposed it, the country would not have accepted it.—( Vehement cheering.) This was the consideration which the matter had received from the Govern ment, and it was after this that it had now determined to send these Commissioners before their time— " Into this breathing world scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable, That dogs bark at them as they halt by." (Great laughter.) He had a right to say, then, that it was a miserable expedient, struck off in the heat of the moment to meet the motion of the Hon. Member for St. Alban's.— ( Cheers.) He said this because he had heard insinuations that the late Cabinet had entertained similar proposals to those now before the country. He felt bound to say, on the part of his noble friends who had acted with him, that they never had consented to entertain any such project as that of the commission which had now been issued, and never would. —(Loud cheers.) He now called upon the government to say whether this Perpetuity Fund was to be viewed in a dif ferent light from the rest of the church property, or whether it was to be understood that the mode of dealing with it was to be applied to the'rest ? He asked of them from what sources they meant to make good the deficiencies in the payments if the Perpetuity Fund should be insufficient to cover them ? He asked them whether, if without sending out their Commis sioners they had determined upon giving a reduction of forty per cent. to the landlord, it was necessary for them afterwards to institute the inquiry whether they had any surplus or not ? !lad they not evidently made up their minds upon what they meant to do ? And if they had—and he would rather hear them avow it if it were so than have the question left in its present doubtful state—let them recal the commission and abandon at once a measure which, in this country was only a subject of ridicule, and in Ireland be feared would be looked upon with more serious feelings of distatc.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He made this call upon the Government in a strong belief of the inexpediency and injustice of this robbery, as he conceived it to be, this confiscation of property without the prospect of any one compensatory result. It was impossi ble that the measure could lead, as had Seen stated by his Right Hon. Friend, to an adjustment of the question of tithes ; it was not a measure of that character, but merely one for tiding over the present session-.( Cheers)--leaving the main question just where it was, with this difference, indeed, that they would have added an act of gratuitous and useless confis cation to its other embarrassments. Before they did this he wished to call their attention to the solemn warning given upon this subject by a Noble and Learned Lord in another place. He did not mean the Noble and Learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of England, although he had stated in his place that the clergy were co-partners with the landlord, and had as good a right to their one-tenth as he to the other nine. He meant to refer to the language of another Noble and Learned Lord, holding a high official situation in Ireland, and who, by reason of his office, must be still presumed to be consulted by his Majesty's Ministers with regard to the measures affecting that country. Tn IR:M. that Noble and L0.r.,..a Lard (Lord Plunket), stated his opinion in Parliament upon the question of church property. He said, " that it stood upon the same principle as the private property of every man in the kingdom, and was equally liable, but not more so than any other, to be called upon to meet the exigencies of the State. But, he re peated, the property of one description was as sacred as the other, and that to take away from, or infringe the rights of, one class of property and not of all would be spoliation." The Noble and Learned Lord then went on to caution the Legis lature against the consequences of such an act. He said, " If they begin with the church let the landholder look to himself.—( Hear.) Let the fundholder likewise take care, as he lay still more convenient for such an operation than the church."—( Hear.) The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland then went on to speak of the Established Church in that country as a political institution. He said, " With respect to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, he thought it necessary not only that there should be an Established Church, but that the Establishment should be richly en dowed."--( Hear, and a laugh.) He (Mr. Stanley) was glad to hear that cheer, and especially from the the Hon. Mem ber for St. Alban's, because he hoped that he concurred in the Lord Chancellor's opinion—" He wished that the esta blishment should be richly endowed to enable the clergy to take their station among the Nobles of the land.—( Hear. ) But, speaking in a political point of view, he had no hesita tion in saying that the existing Protestant Establishment in Ireland was the great bond of union oetween the two coun tries.—( Cheers.) If ever the unfortunate moment should arrive at which the Legislature should rashly lay hands upon the property of the church that moment would seal the doom of the union, and terminate for ever the connection between the two countries."—( Cheers.) This was the opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord whom the Government must, of course, be considered likely to consult upon such measures as they were now taking. And if so, he could not but conceive that the Noble and Learned Lord would be in a somewhat embarrassed position if called upon to reconcile the present principles of the Government with those which he advanced in 1824.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He concurred with the Noble and Learned Lord's opinions and principles of 1824. (Cheers.) He believed with him that to apply to church property the principles of the present measures, and so to make distinctions between it and all other species of property, was confiscation and spoliation, and nothing else.—( Cheers.) Believing this, and believing the measure calculated to pro duce no compensation for the violence so done to the rights of property in restoring the peace of Ireland, and feeling that it was a departure from the principles which he had hitherto assisted in carrying into effect, for all these reasons he should certainly feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon the resolutions moved by his Right Hon. Friend.—( The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst great cheering.) Lord ALTHORP said he was not all surprised at the cheers which, from the other side of the House, had ever and anon hailed the speech of his Right Hon. Friend—( Cheers, and hear, hear)—for it was a speech which had verified all his (Lord A.'s) anticipations which, during the time the Hon. Gentleman had sat on the Ministerial benches, he had formed as to what that Right Hon. Gentleman's speeches in opposition would be.—( Loud laughter.) A plentiful admixture of the terms " revolution,"—" robbery,"—" spoliation,"---" thimble shifting and riggery," sounded very stirring in an opposition speech ; and the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to know how to use them to the best advantage; but beyond obtaining the plaudits of the other portion of the opposition, these expletives had but little effect. The Hon. Member had frequently been talking of what he had done while Secretary for Ireland—the measures he had taken and recommended to settle the tithe question, and restore peace to Ireland—( Ironical cheers from the Irish opposition Members)—that had undoubtedly been the ultimate object of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he (Lord Althorp) would not say that he thought the means adopted by the Right Hon. Gentleman were unwise ; but unfortunately they were taken up too late.--( Hear, hear.) Had the Right Hon. Gentleman flourished in an administration of times gone by, the adoption of the means taken by him might have been more successful ; but whatever the intrinsic wisdom of those plans, he could not at all congratulate his Right Hon. Friend on the success of his exertions.—( Cheers from the opposition benches.) The question then arose whether Go vernment, having adopted those former plans, attempted to carry them into effect, and found that instead of producing peace and content in Ireland, they had entirely failed in ac complishing their objects--the question was, whether it was not the bounden duty of Ministers to attempt to gain their ends by other means ?—( Hear, hear.) Surely after having experienced the utter impracticability of the former measure, the Right Honourable Gentleman was not entitled to bring forward as an objection to the present measure, that it proposed means which were different from those which had caused the failure of that former measure.—( Hear.) The proposition in the former Bill was to have the sums raised by the composition of tithe given in trust to an ecclesiastical corporation, to be vested in land for the benefit of the clergy ; but this idea had been abandoned. The more immediate object in view had always been to relieve the occu pying tenant from the payment of tithe, and to fix it upon the owner, and to eff ec t t hi s as so on as possible; and from this principle the present measure did not depart. Th e great object was to convert the tithe into a rent-charge upon landlords as soon as possible, and this was the reason why those landlords were offered such liberal t erms on condition o f an ti c ip a ting the period of five years ; not that he by any means c onsidered those terms as too high, considering the security it would afford the Church, and the peace it would restore to Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) e-e"'":1 He was n o t sure t h a t th e eff e ct o f l eav i ng th e case as originally st oo d wou ld no t h ave been to endanger , se i greater extent than it would be endangered by the propSd arrangement, the landlord's rent ; because the ocolics tenant might not only suppose that part of the rent he jo i called on to pay w as c h arge d w ith a v i ew t o tith e s, bet ti o f the landlords had b een ma ki ng b arga i ns f or th em seires'e x which they alone would reap the advantage.—( Hear.) ..4 much doubted if that feelin g wou ld h ave t en d e d t o the seer,Ol of rents in Ireland. His Ri g ht H on . F r i en d th e n sP ° "" o p the lay tithes, and said that they were no thi ng more than 1 11 °,i gage on land. They were, no d ou bt, a mortgage on thel' e ;!, but a mortgage of a peculiar nature. The produce was lected, by taking, not from the own er o f th e l an d in the instance, but from the occupier of th e l an d.—( L ou d crie s o " Hear, hear.") Did his Right Hon. F r i en d me an to that there was as much danger and difficulty—that there ; as much chance of exciting tumult in endeavouring to ree ° ,, the interest of a mortgage as there was in attempting to ti cover tithes ?—( Hear.) -His Right H o n. F r i en d then sr o to the principle of the measure, and he asked to what coned; sion they were to come with regard to the PerpetuityP i o he asked his Majesty's Ministers whether in the scat ty which they now brought forward, he was to consider 0 Perpetuity Fund stood on precisely the same footingco the rest of the funds to be submitted to the Ecclesias tt e o Commission, or on a different footing. He thought th a t some respects it was a different fund. Unc .t uestionable,o Right Hon. Friend had a right to urge that in the bill e t 'd year it was treated as an essentially different fund. lie t v lo admit for the sake of argument, that the Perpetuity Fell e d decided by the Ch urc h Temporalities Bill of l as t year, se; on different ground ; but still, though it was ecc lesias,t!i, property, it ne ver h a d b een th e pr o p er ty o f an y i n dividesP eo the Church, or of any corporation in the Church. When tlemen were ready to exchange from one corporation to we ther property belonging to such corporation--and he belie; there was not a gentleman in the House who objected to s ° , o l change—he did not see on w h a t p r i nc ipl e it cou ld be sa i d be spoliation and plunder to change property (not from e l corporation, because the church was not a single co rpora from a mass of corporations, and apply it to another perffe Moral and religious instruction were the purposes to tii they intended to apply the m on e y ; an d h e wou ld s ay, tu by doing this they gave greater security to Church proper t y if by doing this they facilitated the co ll ec ti on o f Church perty, he did not see that in taking that s t e p th e y were ge e so entirely away from the protection of Church propertt e e his Right Hon. Friend seemed to imagi ne .—( Hear, ",,,o hear.) His Right Hon. Friend said th a t he (" t y Althorp) had thrown out some words of doubt on subject. What he meant to declare was, that 0 inquiry was to be gone into, to see whether 0 amount of the revenues was more than was required liY,e Church of Ireland ; and if the report which was theresf,o this inquiry should prove that there was a su r plus, ce e r t 'ie according to all the doctrines he had ever held i n that Wo o or elsewhere, it would be in the power of Parliament to i cide in what manner the surplus should be applied. (Chi' He did not wish to conceal his sentiments on this s ubject' 0 had no hesitation in admitting, should gentlemen forc e d, / question, that if by appropriating the Perpetuity Fun of they were now doing, in the measure before the House, 0 were bringing the question of appropriation to issue, lied no objection to put the question on that issue. (Much e'ee ing.) His Right Hon. Friend, referring to the Ecclesia v y Commission, spoke of it as if he had never heard o f one fore. He was surprised at his Right Hon. Friend Ole short a gestation to that Commission, because he should t o thought that it had gone its full time. (Laughter.) $e a/ at all events, sure that the idea of instituting such an i n ; could not have been new to his Right Hon. Friend—thseo could not have been much surprised that on his retiree,: from office such a measure had been adopted. In ta I/ these observations, however, he was prepared to confil l °4 statement of his Right Hon. Friend—though he was net ° oo that any one had asserted or insinuated anything to the o° t 9 of either his Right Hon. Friend, the Right Hon. Barence r o e or his Noble Friends who had retired from the Administre t that they had never given their consent to take the qii e into their serious consideration. He (Lord Althorp) quite ready to state, if any such insinuation had been, or to made, it was entirely without foundation. His Right 1; 1 Friend required that the effect of this measure should permanent change, and he objected to charging such a si ll !' this on the Consolidated Fund. He (Lord Althorp) 111 ' ted that it was a question for the House, seriously to em ; whether the case made out, and the proposition now sub , to them, were such as would justify them in makingthis e s . on that fund. His Right Hon. Friend seemed to think the whole of the charge on the Consolidated Fund could e be got back. He (Lord Althorp) entertained a different nion ; but he would say, that if it amounted to from O' • to 60,0001. a year, as it could equal that amount only 111 of the landlords of Ireland generally taking on themseleel payment of tithes in place of the occupying tenantry thre out Ireland, who would thus be relieved from an impost 11 had been vexatious to them in every way in which an impost , be vexatious—which had produced discontent, crime; ie e 6 e o every species of social calamity—if, he repeated, the en this measure should be, by placing these charges on the reit of the country, to induce the landlords to take on t 1 selves the payment of the tithes, the money would be we e ". out for the country.--( Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. r i f asserted that the measure would not give peace to 'relent' he would say, that if the tithes were paid by the landlord stead of by the occupying tenantry, by a rent-charge inste , by collection as heretofore, as far as he could reason frog experience that he had, he did think that it would give a V chance of tranquillity to that country than any other me lt' All he wished to urge on the committee was that the eb of producing tranquillity by such a measure, was very ;, fit and he hoped that they would therefore think it worth wit agree to the resolution proposed.--( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME said that it was very unpleasant to be sit as he was at the present moment.—_(A laugh.) He cou ld agree to the proposition of the Government, neither co i n ? , . vote with the right hon. gentleman, the late Secretary i r s e Colonies, disagreeing with him as he did in the greater i his speech. He objected to the resolution, because it p 9 the House to charge on the Consolidated Fund wh',/ amount might be necessary. No sum was specified-10'4 might be the consequences of any act that might be pas; whatever the extent of the deficiency, the house wov e pledged for ever by the arrangement proposed to in' good. He would do the Honourable Gentlemen neat, the justice to say, that they had been at least consistent. had objected to any interference with church propert y they did so still. But to another individual holding e guished appointment in connection with the present c ment, he could not accord similar praise. That individe' t in former times denounced, as contemplating spoliati, ° , l , robbery, the very principle which characterised the BP, recommended by his Majesty's Ministers.—(Hear, hear./ had no hesitation in saying, that a person who had s° mitted himself, if he continued his connection with the g ° ,ol ment, must either recant, or be disgraced f o r ever. -4 hear.) They ought to know what was meant by s uch cgr —they ought to know how it was that Lord Plunket sanctioned the principle which he called robbery in 182 4 e ' 1 (Mr. Hume) was in that year told by the Noble Lord, tv and all who advocated his motion must be prepared t o , with their property—to submit to its being plundere e > them, as they would plunder the property of the Ch er o s (Hear.) Seeing the difficulties into which persons ,$„ inconsistency, it behoved the House to be part` , cautious as to the manner in which they pledged thentsci o the votes they were called on to give. According WI et mission of the Noble Lord opposite, 50,0001. a year see; o r sacrificed at least. Now, he would ask, on what green o f the Noble Lord oppose his (Mr. Hume's) motion for a J tion of taxation, when he was ready to charge the sirPr e the Irish Church in this way on the public purse ? It ero ; possible for him to agree to this vote ; if he did so, ! t el be tantamount to saying, that the Church of Ireland, 11l imperfections, was to be maintained.--(" No, no," ae,, o ; hear.) At any rate, it would be so as regarded titl w o Hon. Member near him said that the Bill specified as ? If this were not intended, why not manfully avow it could not say that the avowal of the Noble Lord 011 cientty distinct, He said if there should be a surpl u s ' there were indeed so many " ifs" and " ands" in the Lord's speech, that it was difficult to make out his ' , meaning. Ministers ought to act on one of the ol e t t/ either they should agree that Church property ought no touched, or that it ought to be dealt with by Parliamell'e were led to believe that the latter principle would be but was he now to be called upon to pledge himself te r t' up a deficiency without knowing either its extent a eo f, it was to be done ? They were soft enough last 1 9 advance a million for the support of the Irish clerglki see had before voted 78,000/. ; were they now to o il , couple of millions after the former sums ? for such ery the result if this proposition were agreed to.--(Heat, Had not the Church of Ireland funds enough for port without taxing the people of England for that Pl 4 —( Cheers.) He begged the Noble Lord to bear Le;11, what were the consequences of the policy of the Rig m f d j Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), when he was Secretary P Ireland. No doubt the measures introduced by thitt4 Hon. Gentleman were well meant, but they failed err ° their promised effects. There were some people eir` tieo could be induced to take a right course. His IVla.le s. ' nisters were not in the right course now.—( Cheers.) 0 1 Hon. Gentlemen took their seats on the other si de d his House, their views underwent a great change ; on c e the House they saw clearly enough.--(Laughter and to He would ask the Noble Lord, would it not be better l e i to act up to their own principles, and manfully to . 5 they would proceed as was proposed last year--tbatt 0 , was a deficiency, that deficiency should be made up I re Perpetuity Fund ? But if the contrary principle "w e fo r on—if they were prepared to do what was proooseerd 1, land, would it not operate as a premium to the 'roll e 11 land to refuse the payment of tithes. __(Loud cries o f hear.") lelf the Government continued' a cowardlY 'pa policy, they would be loaded lik e asse s, a nd would to Di they must bear the burd en . —( A l aug h.) Could t" e el Lord, after having relie ve d I re l an d f r o m tithes, at the' te 1 of the public Exchequer of England, o refuse to re lic land from tith es w h en called on to do so ? It really r t4l as if his Maj es t y ' s Mi n i s t ers had b een ma d e to fel e se bolder policy might subject them to a repetition of w tt ed,. licking whi c h th e y had received from those who O ge e" sacredness of church preperty.—( A laugh.) To eeoleedei self from the difficulty in which he was placed, he 1 move an amendment as follows : the That it is the opinion of this Committee, tha t fa r 4 moneys to the credit of the Ecclesiastical Commissiolleri de , land, in the Perpetuity Purchase Fund to be kept._ of ke Ecclesiastical Commissioners, pursuant to the provisioir Ail ',",i , passed in the last Session of Parliament, intitulecit_iitieot, i alter and amend the laws relating to the TemPor' o oo ' Church of Ireland,' shall be applicable to such PI turl goo tent fror. Erni the him liat4 tem ---( that Peol ' may lent the Nob the But Iran did (Ch • spot of in g aclop Let telli€ whic them Prop confi Govt the 1 vent