The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-23 00:00:00

other Members for Ireland, with that assistance which they were sure to obtain from the present Ministers, to accomnlish their purposes, with respect to the Protes tant Church in Ireland. He and the friends with wb om he acted had no hesitation in expressing their opinion that, for the attainment of .purposes so truly liberal and exalted, it would be in the highest degree honourable to English M em b ers o f P arliament to dis regard whatever pledges they might have given to their constituents or to each other. Lotd J. Russell, tors fortified and re-inforced, assumed a holder tone than he had originally dared to adopt. And it is said that he even went so far as to mutter something about Minis ters retiring from office, if they did not receive from the Liberal Members of the flouse of Commons a frank and cordial support. The cajolery of Mr. O'Connell and the threat of Lord J. Russell were, however, equally inef fectual. The stubborn Radicals of Great Britain refused to bend. Mr. Hume continued to growl ; Mr. Roebuck to bark. The pert flippancies of Mr. C, Buller ceased not ; and the more gentlemanly and polish e d sarcasms o f T orn Duncombe were launched as before, although, unhappily, disregarded or unheard in the confusion and dire strife of the moment. Such was the state of the party when the hour approached at which the Speaker of the House of Commons was to take the Chair. To have had a House would have been ruin. It would have cut off all hope of nego tiation, compromise, and adjustment. The fatal Bill wr.s among the Orders of the Day. What was to be idone ? To adjourn to the House of Commons the stormy debate of Downing -street would have been madness. The House of _Commons, thanks to the Conservative electors of England, is not yet a family party, like the amicable assembly at the Foreign Office ; and besides, there are the tell-tale reporters in the Gallery. The only course was to contrive, if possible, that there should not be forty Mem bers present at four o'clock. Upon this mission Mr. Charles Wood was despatched in all haste. And he arrived in the lobby just in time to warn off all the Ministerial Members who might inadvertently have contributed to complete the neces sary number. The trick succeeded. When the Spealdir counted the House there were not forty mem bers present, and the House accordingly adjourned; so that twenty-four hours at least ; perhaps, as to-day is Saturday, forty-eight hours ; and perhaps, as to morrow is Sunday, seventy-two hours, are gained to the distracted and conflicting party, to soften asperi ties—to allay passions --to overcome scruples—to sub jugate or purchase opinions. Between this and Mon day the Radical Members may make a sacrifice of their opinions and their pledges to the threat of Lord John Russell, or to the persuasion of Mr. O'Connell. Between this and Monday Lord John Russell and his cc;ileagues may discover, with the assistance of Mr. O'Connell, that their best chance of retaining office is to yield to the Radicals, and give up their Bill. Be tween this and Monday it is impossible, indeed, to say what may or may not take place ; but it is, in the meanwhile, satisfactory to know that the fact is certain that at four o'clock yesterday, and even at a much later hour, the Alinist'srial party was in a state of intestine disorder and strife which threatened its immediate disso lution. Thus the business of the country in the House of Commons, is suspended. Alinisters, whose bu siness it is, and who always have the power, to make a House, have twice within the present week prevented a House from being made. They pretend great anxiety to expedite the public business in Parliament. Under this pretence, they prevail upon the House of Commons to give the Orders of the Day precedence to motions, thus usurping, by means of their regula tions, the initiative in legislation, depriving indepen dent Members of the opportunity of bringing forward such measures as they think conducive to the welfare and prosperity of the country, and essentially altering the constitutional character of the House of Commons. And, having done this, to forward the business of the country, the next thing they do is to prevent the House of Commons from sitting at all, two out of the five Parliamentary days of the week, to retard the business of the country. This inconsistency is wholly unaccountable and inexcusable, or to be explained and excused only upon the ground that Ministers are at their wits' end--that they know not what to do—that when out of the view of Parliament they feel like re spited convicts--that when in the presence of Parlia ment they are conscious of the throes, the agony, and the terror of approaching dissolution. —Morning Post. Most of our readers are, no doubt, already aware that there was no meeting of the House of Commons last night, but that there was a meeting at the Foreign office in the forenoon, for the purpose of discussing the provisions of the Established Church Bill, and that some considerable difference of opinion was evinced upon the subject by the liberal supporters of his Ma jesty's Government. It is scarcely necessary for us, in consequence, to state that the differences of opinion evinced at the meeting in question formed the main ground of there being no House of Commons last night, and of the further discussion of the Bill, which would have formed the subject of its deliberations, having been postponed. Of that Bill, we have al ready expressed our opinion in no very measured terms. It is a Tory Bill from the beginning to the end—emanating from the conclusions of a Tory Commission, appointe d by a Tory Administration —and therefore liable to all the suspicions of dis honesty, and public robbery, and traffic in holy places, and, nepotic faVeltiritism, which the recollec tions of three-quarters of a century of Tory misrule imprint upon the public mind. It is, therefore, prima facie a bad Bill—for nothing in the shape of good and sound Reform, ecclesiastical or civil, can ever emanate from the Tory camp ; hut it is worse on practical examination ; for it not only confirms the dignitaries of the. Church in the enjoyment of their vast, lordly, and unsanctifying and anti -apostolic revenues—!rut it did go to the extent of fixing all land which may in future be reclaimed from a state of nature, with a tax for the benefit of the Church—of a Church daily sink ing in public estimation, and which, instead of claim ing the grant of any additional favour from the people, ought to put its best foot foremost in deprecating its wrath for the long reign or plunder and injustice to which it must plead guilty. We could have forgiven the ex travagant revenues granted to th e Bi s h ops b y t h e Bill —we could have allowed' for the moment 15,0001. a year to the Archbishop of Canterbury —and 8,000/. and 7,oool.—and 5,000/.—to others, though noz only a waste, but a base use of the public money, without • grumbling, knowing, as we do, that these revenues. will be speedily cut down to their proper proportion ; and that though Pope sings in a falsetto that— " 'Tis from high life high characters are drawn ; A saint in crape is twice a saint in lawn." We shall have more saints by-and-bye in crape than we have ever had in lawn. But the " appropriation clause" of the Bill—the clause which went to ensure tithe upon all lands which are not, but may be, brought into a state of cultivation, is intolerable. The grasp ing spirit of the Church is evinced by it to an exten t of which no one could previously have formed any conception—and in that graspi ng spirit we find con solation for the pr esent, and hope - for the future. The clause, we belicvzs has been abandoned ; but there is nothing to equal your madme n in inducing people to be wise. With regard to the conduct of the Ministry upon this subject, it is at once to be deplored and to be forgiven. They arc pressed on all sides by difficulties ---the Ce;urt is against them—the Lords are against them --there is a powerful minority in the Commons against them —and what can they do ? What use would the re be in the passing of a Bill through the Common s which would be rejected by the Lords ? Is it not more wise on their part to endeavour to pass a Bill which, objectionable, as we have already said, in many i mportant particulars, it is, is still an improvement Upon the present system ? In the language of Lord Durham, we hate to see the sun set upon a known and recognised abuse; but in the calmer and milder spirit of Lord Brougham, we must frankly grant, that where great obstacles to reform exist, and where great preju dices have to be encountered, time and patience must be called to aid in the effecting of permanent and useful reforms. With regard to the opinions evinced by Mr. Hume, Mr. Duncornbe, Mr. Buller, and others, upon the question of carrying or not carrying the Bill, we must, notwithstanding our dislike of it, enter our pro test. Their sincerity is unquestionable —but their dis cretion is somewhat dubious. A worse time for their opposition could not have been chosen. The Tories at the present moment are in high feather. They deem the name to be thei r own , an d not hi ng more prop i t i ous to their cause could have occurred than the difference of opinion which was evinced yesterday. Produce a division in the Liberal camp, and Toryism is in the ascendant. We are therefore, for once but for the grounds now stated, of the opinion of Mr. O'Connell, who urged upon the meeting the necessity of union for the sake of Ireland. We do not say for the sake of Ireland Only, but for the sake of all England—for the sake of the united empire—for the sake of Reform. Surely, after having put our shoulders together—after having defeated the Tories upon every point which was nearest to their heart—after having thrown out their Speaker—defeated them upon the Address—destroyed them upon the Irish Church Bill—carried the Poor Laws, and other measures of equal importance —ar e the Liberals, we say, to quarrel upon a Bill which, bad as it may he, is still an improvement upon the existing system ? Forbid it, every friend to Reform ! Morning Advertiser. The real ground of the opposition manifested in the House of Lords to the Parochial Assessment Bill (and to which we alluded on a former occasion), was disclosed last night in the proposal of a clause by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the effect of which, as was stated by the Lord Chancellor, would be to determine that tithes are in future to be rated in a less proportion to their annual value than land. The Archbishop has, no doubt, been persuaded by interested parties that such is the law at present. That he is in error on this point he himself must be pretty well satisfied, by the opinion decidedly given to that effect by both Lord Wynford and the Lord Chancellor. But still clinging to the possibility of future decisions in favour of his view of the titheowner's right to comparative exemption from rate, the Archbishop insisted on the introduction of a clause reserving such rights, if any exist ; an d i n t hi s shape the' Bill was re ported. Now we do strongly object to leaving any ambiguity whatever on the subject. If there be any doubt on the question, the sooner it is put an end to, and the litigation of the matter stopped, the better ; and how can this be done in a fitter manner than in a Bill for establishing uniformity in the mode of rating, or at a fitter time than in the same session which is to alter the whole cha racter of tithe, and place it hereafter on the footing of rent ? No one ventures to deny that tithe ought to contribute equally with the rent of land to the poor rate. No one denies that it does so practically at present ; and therefore the doubt having been once raised, whether, under the existing law, tithe may not escape from a part of this liability, no time should be lost in removing the doubt, and determining the point in accordance with general practice aid equity. On this ground, therefore, we do think the introduc tion of any clause to meet the Archbishop's views both unwise and mischievous. It introduces com plexity where the most desirable thing was simplicity. It will puzzle the overseers who make the rate ; whereas the main object of the Bill is to lay down a simple guide for them to follow, which it shall be im possible for an honest assessor to mistake —namely, the net annual value or rental, clear of all charges, of every description of rateable property. The only object for which the clause can be desired, is one which can do no credit to those who propose or sup port it--namely, the expectation of being able here after to found on it a claim for the unjust exemption of tithes from their fair share of the parochial bur dens.—Morning Chronicle of yesterday. Ireland as may be observable from the asssize in telligence, never was so tranquil, and this fact speaks not more highly for the Government of Lord Mul grave than it does for the moderation and good sense of the Irish people—qualities, by the way, which their enemies and calumniators would fain have us believe to be strangers to their nature. We are aware that the quiescence of Ireland at the present moment will, in all prqbability, be ascribed to various causes, and none of them the true one. While the Tories will attribute the quietude that now reigns in the sister country to the absence of the great political agitator, coupled with the vigour which has been manifested by the Court of Exchequer, the Whigs will, upon the other side, take more than their clue share of credit, and ascribe to their unaccomplished measures the sole merit of having lulled Ireland into a state of temporary repose. Both parties, we fear, will find themselves hereafter greatly mistaken, and events will prove that unless the Whigs achieve more than they have yet per• formed, or even promised, they will not long be able to boast of Irish tranquillity, but will have to acknow ledge themselves as bad Hibernian pacificators as their Tory opponents. We never were so unreasonable as to think that a mere adjustment of the tithe system (the Irish used to talk of total abolition in name and reality,) as Mr. O'Connell now terms it, embracing a plan of distant and trivial relief, would satisfy those who have subjected themselves to considerable loss of property, and lengthened incarceration, rather than pay the smallest sum—neither did we think that Cor porate Reform, although art excellent measure, and calculated to do a great deal of good, was likely to improve, to any very considerable extent, the condition of the most wretched population in the world. The malady of the Irish nation lies deeper, and would hardly be alleviated—still less removed, by such inno cent remedies. Mr. O'Connell has told us that there are Three Millions of Beggars —aye, actual beggars —..the majority of whom are able-bodied men—in Ire land. Gracious heaven I only think of three millions of human souls seeking eleemosynary succour from persons, many of whom are not in a much better condition than themselves. Now, we would ask Mr. O'Connell, is he prepared to propound any plan whereby this frightful catalogue of human misery may be diminished ? He must recollect that he may praise Ministers even more than lie ever before abused them, still this will neither feed or clothe the destitute Irish paupers. We must confess that we would much rather see some of the Liberal Irish Members engaged in bettering the condition of their countrymen than employed in the selfish, though good old Tory practice, of providing for themselves or their relations. While upon this subject we cannot forbear expressing our sorrow at beholding Mr. Shiel's name cut so conspi cuous a figure in a Sunday journal, as a successful applicant at Downing-street for Government favours. We are not blind to the services of the Member for Tipperary—nor will we deny that he is as well en titled as others to a share of the patronage of an Ad ministration which he efficiently supports; still we will appeal to himself, whether such wholesale quar tering of _his relatives " at one fell swoop" upon the public, can tend to advance the cause which both he and ourselves profess to espouse. In Ireland we arc sorry to learn that matters are proceeding much in the same way—as a proof of which we regret to state, that Lord Mulgrave has conferred a union, consisting of three parishes in the diocese of Meath, upon a single Whig Clergyman. We shall have more to say upon this subject on a future occasion ; in the mean time we may mention that should it once be disco vered that the great cause of dispute betweeilWhigs and Tori es i s pour l a tr i pe , an d not for principle —.the popular confidence will be withdrawn pretty equally from the two contending factions.—Morning Adver tiser of yesterday. It is gratifying to discern any sense of shame on the part of the supporters of the present Administra ;ion. It would be too much to expect that this sense should be ingeniously avowed—we must be content to trace it in the twistings of a sophistical argument, which is intended to appear to partisans as a vindica tion, and to be taken by adversaries as an apology. To the honest and clear-sighted it will appear neither one nor the other. It will merely be an indication that the more cautious Ministerialists are ashamed of their Irish alliance and policy, and afraid of its conse quences upon those in England whose support is still necessary to the present Government. We allude to the attempts which have been made since Mr. O'Connell's Rochester exhibition to exonerate the Ministers from the o di um which they cannot help perceiving belongs to any connection with that person. The reasoning of these attempts is certainly curious, and if courteous readers can but forgive the absence of all soundness and sin cerity it may have some interest. We do not think, however, that it can have much political effect. The union between Mr. O'Connell and the Ministry arose—if we may believe the ingenious accounts of the Ministerial writers—from a kind of necessity, which is not very capable of any explanation beyond a detail of the curious fact. It is admitted that "it answered the pamphlet. And having read them, be must say again, that he thought the charges which had been brought against the Commissioners, were rash and unfounded.—( Hear.) The Earl of MANSFIELD said that the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate had been withdrawn, in deference to what was believed to be the opinion of the House but this he (Lord Mansfield) knew full well, that many Noble Lords had since regretted that circumstance. The motion was not withdrawn, because there was not sufficient ground laid fi)r it ; but because it was the opinion of many Noble Lords at the time, that it would be better to withdraw it. Lord HATHERTON was of opinion that the sugges tion of his Noble Friend at the head of the Government was a very proper one, in order that when the motion for a Committee was made, an answer might be given as regarded the facts which were stated, if any answer could be fur nished. Such was the usual course of proceeding. He begged to ask what their Lordships would think, if any charge were about being brought as respected any abuse in the army or navy, or the law, if no communication were pre viously made to the heads of those respective departments ? —(Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the Noble Duke op posite (the Duke of Wellington) who had himself been at the head of the army, if such a course would not be adopted if the question for investigation was connected with any charge affecting the army ? He would ask the Right Rev. Prelate himself, if the matter affected the Church, whether it would not be considered right to acquaint the head of the Church with it ? He would ask the Right Rev. Prelates whether in any question respecting the clergy of the diocese of Exeter, he would not expect to be com municated with upon the subject ? It was undoubtedly the practice to communicate with the heads of the depart ments on the subject of accusations affecting it, or any of its members. The Bishop of EXETER said the best answer which he could give to the interrogatory put to him by. the Noble Lord was that he had already mentioned that he should mainly rely on his motion upon the statement which he had previously made to the House ; but that he should not be precluded from stating other facts which might come to his knowledge between the present period and the time that he should submit his motion next Session. The conversation then dropped. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition against the Scotch Universities Bill, but the place whence it came was not heard in the Gallery. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented similar peti tions from the General Asssembly of the Church of Scot land, and the Under-graduates of King's-college, Aberdeen. TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. ' The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third reading of the Tithe Commutation Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND said, he had an amend ment to move on the ninth clause, to the effect that the Commissioners, instead of being required to take an oath, should merely make a declaration. As their Lordships were opposed to the amendment, his object was not to press it to a division ; but he was anxious that his motion should be placed on the journals of the House. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he was favour able to the amendment suggested by the Noble Duke. He thought the dcclaration quite as much as it was necessary to require from the individuals in question, more particu larly when it was considered that they would no doubt be individuals of the highest character, and therefore entitled to great confidence. The amendment was then put and negatived. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE several verbal alterations in the Bill were agreed to, after which the Bill was read a third time and passed. ___ CHURCH OF IRELAND BILL. taken in this House : at the same time it has been a dmit , Led by such of your Lordships as are connected with that part of the kingdom, and most distinctly admitted by a Noble Loud whom I see opposite to me, who is partiew lady connected with Ireland, and who in my opinion takes a calmer and more dispassionate view of the question than some others, that the compositions under Lord Stanley's Act have been effected with so much haste, with so little consideration, and with so little anxiety on the p ar t of those interested that great injustice has been done. In the former compositions, I am informed there are some which afe rdally so glaringly unequal and oppressive that a provision of this kind is absolutely necessary. B u t the provision is strictly guarded. You must prove to the satisfaction of the Commissoners of Land Revenue, the amount by which the composition exceeds the a verage amount without a sufficient reason, or that some fraud , or concealment, or misrepresentation, was resorted t o by the party on entering into such composition. ft a ppears , to me, then, th a t thi s c l ause i s a mere l y suppleinentai clause, supplying a defect in the o ri g i na l Ti t h e C o mPe' sition Bill, an d that it is the more unobjectionable inas' much as relating to fraud it bears on that which is s u pposed to vitiate all contracts ab initio. I trust that your Lord ships, adopting this view, will not listen to those who take so strong an objection to this Bill. A Noble Lord whom I see opposite made on a former occasion an elaborate speech, arguing that though a power of appeal was give ° by the Tithe Composition Bill, yet few appeals had been entered. That Noble Lord certainly stated accurately the numbers lodged before the Privy Council, the number per fect, and the number in which any diminution had taken place ; but that statement gave roundly a tenth of the whole ; for such an appeal is surrounded with a g reat many formalities, and if there was a failure in any one, if 1 . signature, for instance, had been withheld, then the appeal would be informal, and could not be considered by the Council. In so short a time as had elapsed, the parties could not obtain knowledge or experience of the effect of the compositions into which they had entered. They could only have a cursory view of them, and could not know the gross inequality of the arrangement. It appears to me, that the argument founded on those objections does not apply very forcibly to the subject. The next objects to which this Bill is directed, are the distribution of the benefices in Ireland, and the apportionment of their incomes with r efer.- cnce to the duties the incumbents have to perform. It can' not now be necessary for me, on this subject, to make all observations to your Lordships, for on looking at the jour' nals of the other House I find that when the second read' ing of this Bill was moved in that House, there was an amendment moved to the effect that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the conversion of the tithe- composition. into a rent-charge, ivith_a view to the redemption thereof, and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The motion for leave to bring i° that Bill was made by a Noble Friend of mine (Lord Stanley), whose secession from the Government to which I belonged, I have never ceased to lament, and whose authority on the present occasion will doubtless have great weight with your Lordships. In addition to this, some Pe' titions were presented yesterday by a Right Rev. Prelate, from the clergy of his diocese, In which a wish was expressed for a better distribution of the revenues o f the Church with reference to the duties to be performed' These circumstances, I say, my Lords, relieve me fro® the necessity of stating to your Lordships any further reasons in support of this part of the measure. I al now speakin g o f on ly m y own measures, an Ido not f ee called on to go into those measures that may be moved bf any other Noble Lords ; whenever they are brought for' ward, I shall give them the con s id erat i on t h ey may deserv e' The meas ure I have to propose on this subject I will Pre' ceed to describe :—it is to provide that his Majesty, under his sign -manual, shall appoint a Committee of the Priv , ' Council in Ireland, to consist of Members of the Estah' lished Church, at the head of whom will be the Archbisb°P of Ireland ; and to this Committee the Ecclesiastical Corm missioners, on a vacancy in any benefice, will report th e state of such benefice, its boundaries, the number of per' sons of each religion in it, and the various circumstance% that belong to its spiritual condition and welfare. These matters being reported to the Ecclesiastical Commissioner* that body will thereupon make a report to the Lord-lieute nant in Council, and the Lord-lieutenant in Council win thereupon make such order as to him shall seem goo d ' With respect to the third object of this Bill, namely, th e regulation of the income of the future incumbents, it 0 provided th a t w h ere t h e num b er of the members 0 ' the Established Church does not exceed - fifty th e annual income of the incumbent shall not exceed 1001.; where the number exceeds fifty, but does not ex' ceed 500, the income shall not exceed 2001., nor be less than 150/. ; when the number exceeds 500, but does ne i exceed 1,000, the income shall not exceed 3004, or be less than 2501. ; when the number exceeds 1,000, but does no t L exceed 3,000, the income shall not exceed 4001., nor be less than 3001. In no case whatever is the income to ex' ceed 5001. Thus the average amount of the incomes whie ll „ it is proposed to give to the clergy of Ireland is•consideraW larger than the average amount of the incomes at present enjoyed by the Protestant clergy of England, where the bulk of the people are members of the Church of England' This clause also empowers the Lord Lieutenant, w h e re the Protestants exceed a thousand persons, to appoint one or more curates, o n th e recommen d at i on of the Ecclesiastical t Commissi oners, w i t h a salary of 1001. a year each. :ri ° is the general arrangement we propose as regards tb benefices of Ireland. It is necessary next to eo nsider for what number of benefices we have to provide, an d what means we h ave of providing for them.—[The Noble Lord here read a statement, but with so much rapidity , that we could not collect the details. We understoo d him to estimate the amount of the Church revs' nues at 461,9001., and to say that the number o f the benefices was 1,250. The proposed provision for the clergy would amount to 386,5004, which, deducted from the 461,900/. would leave a surplus of 75,400/.] there is a surplus for you who have always wanted a surplus.—(Much laughter.) Out of this surplus it is Pre; posed to appropriate the sum of 50,0001. to the purposes general moral and political education. My Lords, it 1 186 been asserted that it is not within the competence of th e power of Parliament to take into consideration the state °, the Church. Th a t asser ti on appears to me the height o f absurdity.—(Hear.) The example of all nations, the roe' tice of all mankind, set at nought that assertion in the m ost unequivocal manner. There is no kingdom in EuroPeo whatever its creed, whether it be of the Reformed Church , or whether it still abide by the doctrines of Catholicism-' whether it be Calvanistic, Lutheran, or Zuinglian—whether its temporal Government be despotic or republican ; there is no kingdom in Europe, or in the world, in which it hag been found tolerable or possible to have the revenues o f the clergy in that state of accumulation at which, by the pie/ or superstition of past ages, it has gradually arrived.-7"; . _ (Hear, hear.) I therefore, my Lords, repeat my del berate opinion, that to assert that it is not within the cony petency of Parliament, within the power of the State, 0 take into practical consideration the affairs of the Church; is as cont rary to a ll pract i ce and experience as it is to all reason and common sense.—(Cheers.) At the same time I admit that it is a question of the greatest importance' and of very considerable difficulty, and one which ough t not to be mooted rashly, or except under difficult circuto; stances, and in an extreme case. Those circumstances o f difficulty, that extreme case, however, I conceive to be fully exhibited in the case of Ireland: in respect to her , religion, in re s p ec t to h er population, in respect to the , [ condition of her people, I am sure your Lordships W' admit that the case of Ireland is an extreme ca se, ana one which calls for the serious consideration of Paha' ment.—(Hear, hear.) lam well aware of the peculiar, difficulties whi c h surroun d t hi s question in consequence 01 the state of religious parties in that country.—(Hear.) Those peculiar difficulties, however, have so often been brought before this House, that it is superfluous on InY part now to state them to you. All I will observe upon the point is, that I conceive the only way to deal with those difficulties is to reduce the establishment of the Church in Ireland within bounds in some degree commen . surate with the duties which the clergy there have to per' form, to the congregations which they have to serve--' within the bounds of reason, and adapted to the ge neral advantages and general benefit of the people of that country.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, having thus stated the general provisions of' this Bill, I shall not now trouble your Lordships with any further observations, but content myself with moving that this Bill be now read a second time.-----(Hear, hear.) The Duke of WELLINGTON rose and said--MI Lords, although I believe I might state that, notwithstand' ing the great length of time during which the Irish Church has been labouring under the difficulties connected With this question—though • I might state that the Clergy hav e never been in so g oo d a s i tuat i on as they are at the presen t moment, in consequence of the protection of the law which which has bee n ex t en d e d to the Clergy of the Irish Church —(Hear)—though, my Lords, I might say that thii is th e case, I am n o t di spose d to oppose the second reading. °( this Bill, or to throw any difficulties in the way of its going into Committee upon it, with a view to its future consicle' • ration and amendment. My Lords, this being my position, and seeing the very cool and moderate tone which has been adopted by the Noble Viscount opposite—(Hear, hear) - r upon thi s occas i on, i t i s not my intention now to trou b l e your Lordships with many observations. I shall follovf the example which has been set by the Noble Viscount ; indeed I will go further, and make but a very few remark' even upon wh a t th e N o bl e L or d h i mself has state d w ith regard to the measure. My Lords, I hope that you r Lordships w ill cons id er t hi s B i ll in a Committee. of thio House, with a v i ew to ma k e i n i t such amendments as well be more consistent with the interests of the Church, ?n' with wh a t I conce i ve t h e i nterests of the public. i Lords, it is proposed by this measure to establish a refl.. charge in lieu of the present paymeneof tithes. Now, THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 23, 18d6. may be true that Ministers could not have given effect to many of their measures—perhaps that they could not have retained office—but for the support of Mr. O'Connell ;" but it is alleged, on the other band, that if Mr. O'Connell had not given his support to the measures of the Ministry, he would have become ut terly insignificant and powerless. They, theref,re, stood to one another in the mutual relation of toast and butter, either of which things by itself is insipid and unsatisfying, but together they make good provision. Now, this mutual necessity for one another " may be" true ; we have no doubt it is. But to account for a thing is not to give a satisfactory reason for it. The necessity which existed for Mr. O'Connell's union with the Ministry resolves itself, in our opinion, into this— that place, which they wanted at the time the alliance was effected, could not be had nor held without him ; nor could the peculiar kind of power which he desired, namely, the mismanagement of Ireland according to his views and interests, be effected without them. But the Whigs greatly overrate themselves when they suppose that Mr. O'Connell would have become wholly insig nificant and powerless if he had not been helping them. Previously to the Session of 1835, Mr. O'Connell was in opposition to the Melbourne Administration, yet lie did not during that time suffer an eclipse—it only hap pened that the Melbourne Administration of that time was dismissed ; and then it discovered that to be opposed to Mr. O'Connell any longer would not be convenient. With this circumstance in his memory, we are not surprised that the Whig writer should get into a puzzle about the source of Mr. O'Connell's power and influ ence, as he evidently does. In one place he affirms that Mr. O'Connell's vitality as a powerful public man de pends on the food supplied by the excellent Ministerial measures. They support him . ; and he, with a perse vering gratitude, which he has not at all times and on all occasions exhibited, never fails to support them in return. But the same writer also affirms that the Tories have made Mr. O'Connell what he is by identi fying him with measures which the English people ap prove, and by their continual abuse of him. What a happy and fortunate man he is, to be upheld in his lofty pre-eminence by both Whigs and Tories ; the former by their good measures, which he has the glo rious privilege of supporting—the latter by their cen sures, which he has the no less glorious privilege of enduring. How happens it that a writer who sees in Mr. O'Connell such a peculiar felicity of fate should yet exhibit such a palpable inclination to disown all direct connection with him ? Upon this point he is very solicitous. Mr. O'Connell's influence, he insists, is not of a personal but of a representative character. He is attended to because he represents the opinions of such a great number of people, whose sentiments ought to have considerable weight with the Govern ment. This plausibility is without a • particle of truth or fairness in it. It will not bear examination. Who makes what is called the opinion of the mass of the Irish Catholics in political matters ? Is any Man so ignorant as to suppose they have an opinion of their own, inde pendent of that which " agitators," lay and ecclesi astical, inculcate, and, if need be, force the people to adopt ? Mr. O'Connell starts a poli tical scheme in London ; he sets the machinery of agitation to work to spread it throughout Ireland ; he succeeds in having it adopted by thousands, perhaps millions, of desperate uncivilised creatures, who are kept in that state that they may be the more conve nient tools of political leaders ; and when the scheme or the demand comes back with that sort of popular ratification which " agitation" has obtained for it, we arc to be told, forsooth, that the Government must receive it, not as Mr. O'Connell's scheme, but that of the immense body of people whose opinions he repre sents 1 This is a paltry deception—a flimsy excuse, invented for the occasion. Mr. O'Connell just as much represented the opinion of the mass of the Irish people when the Whigs were denouncing him from the throne as a public enemy, and the curse of his country, as he now represents it, when the 'Whigs admit his delegated authority, and assault the established Pro testant institutions upon his dictation. He is the same, but they have changed. The pretended disco very of his representative right to dictate to the Go vernment is not only a political weakness, unworthy of Ministert, but a practical falsehood, unworthy of ho nest men. Another discovery has lately been, with some industry, rather insinuated to the public than openly proclaimed. It is, that Lord Mul grave (independently of Mr. O'Connell) has done wonders towards conciliating the Irish, and causing them to fall in love with the Melbourne Administration. Poor Lord Mulgrave I The attempt to attribute any serious political effect to his travelling exhibitions of himself and his equipage is rather too ridiculous. The Irish canaille, with all the shrewdness of savages, take his Lordship's measure very accurately we doubt not. They fool him to the top of his bent. In truth, Lord Mulgrave is nothing but a gewgaw floating upon the popular wave, and borne along for the present in safet), because abandoned to the current. But let the slight est storm arise, and he would be instantly engulphed. It is the utmost extremity of silliness to imagine that such a man as he, has, or can have, any influence. He is flattered, and fed, and addressed, as he goes along, because in him they recognise, not the Lord- Lieutenant of the King, but the Lo r d-D eputy o f M r. O'Connell and th e Priests. This is so notorious that we should not take the trouble of stating it, but for the attempt to attribute to his influence that which the grossest subserviency to the O'Connell influence has basely purchased. But we have something better to do than occupy ourselves or our readers with Lord Mulgrave. Nimirum sapere est abjcctis utile nugis Et tempestivum pueris concedere ludum. We must leave his Lordship to the criticistn of his congenial panegyrist in the Globc.—Morning Post of yesterday. P-' r►nce Gallitzin, belonging to the Russian Embassy at Rome ; the Count de St. Germain, Peer of France, belong ing to the French Legation at Brussels; and Count Lozansky, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Austria, has arrived at the Hague. Hops IN KENT.--In the neighbourhood and within five miles of Maidstone the hops on the strong grounds are growing rapidly ; but on poor lands the bine is very weakly, and without some warm showers will not reach the tops of the poles. In fact, the above remark may be applied generally to West Kent. The hops generally in Lamberhurst parish arc looking remarkably well, with the exception of some of the young grounds. We have at present the prospect of a good crop. At Ticehurst, Etchingham, Burwash, and Wad hurst, where the bine is healthy and strong, some improve ment is visible ; but in old and backward grounds they have made no improvement, but rather to the contrary ; in some grounds the mould has made its appearance, as well a the fire-blast. On Thursday the annual meeting of hop-growers took place at Lower Hardres, near Canterbury. The muster was strong, several of the large planters of the neighbourhood being present. The duty was laid at 250,0001., and an opi nion extensively prevailed that if the season continued equally favourable as at the present time, the duty would exceed 300,0001. POOR LAwsow.We copy the following paragraph from a Brighton Paper, and do not of course identify ourselves with all the sentiments it expresses :—" The order of the Poor Law Commissioners, forbidding any out-door relief to the families of able-bodied paupers, at Petwortb, has excited great dissatisfaction in various parishes in this part of the county—a feeling which is not confined to the poor, but ex tends equally among all classes. That a day labourer, with a family of eight or ten children, which it is not possible be can support by his own earnings, should have no other alternative offered him than that of taking himself and whole family into the workhouse, where the husband is separated from the wife, and both from their children, is held to be peculiarly severe. The Guardians of several Unions have applied to the Poor Law Board for permission to relieve the labourer in extreme cases, by taking such a proportion of his children into the workhouse, as ac cording to the peculiar circumstances of each individual, they may deem expedient. This request has been absolutely re fused. The answer is, that the whole family must go into the workhouse, or no relief can be given to any part of it. Thus the poor man's domestic comforts are to be for ever broken up, and he is to be taken from his family, im prisoned for life, simply because he is poor; for it would be idle to suppose that after his cottage has been once left, his few goods sold, he can ever recover his former posi tion. It is also understood that the medical officers em ployed under the Poor Law Commissioners are not re quired to attend the wife or children of an able-bodied pau per, be the disease they are afflicted with ever so dangerous or contagious. Even those who are most friendly to the new Act, and would be most benefitted by the diminution of the poor rates, are much dissati6ed by this mode of admini,stering it, and are of opinion that considerable indulgence ought to be shewn towards those who are already encumbered with large families. At a meeting of the Guardians of the Petworth Union, held on the 7th instant, it was unanimously resolved that they will not be made the instruments of such a system ; and a petition to the House of Commons, against it, from the rate payers of that neighbourhood, has obtained a large num ber of signatures, and will be soon added to those on the same subject, which already overload the table of that House." IMPERI 4L PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 22. In the absence of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY took the Chair. GREENWICH PIER BILL. On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, this Bill was read a third time and passed. BRIGHTON RAILROAD. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a gentleman of the name of Hope, the owner of large landed property in the county of Surrey, against Cundy's line of railroad. EDINBURGH POOR-RATES. The Noble DUKE then presented petitions from several Guilds of the City of Edinburgh, in favour of this Bill ; also petitions to the same effect from the Commissioners of the Edinburgh Charities, from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council, from the Members of the College of Justice, and a petition, very numerously and respectably signed by the inhabitants of Edinburgh to the same effect. IRISH CHURCH BILL. Earl RIPON presented a petition from a gentleman named Livingstone, relating to certain benefices in Ireland. The petitioner stated that in the reign of James the First, certain grants were given to the then Sir Patrick Barnewell of various property, including a great number of advowsons, in different parts of Ireland. The grant was stated to have been made in consideration of the services he had rendered. Sir Patrick Barnewell was a Roman Catholic, and was the ancestor of the late Lord Kingsland. The petitioner stated that a living had become vacant, and that Lord Kingsland had presented an individual to that living. The right of presentation was then denied by the Arch bishop of Dublin. Lord Kingsland was under the necessity of appealing to the Court of Common Pleas with a view to establish his right. The Court of Common Pleas decided that the right of presentation was in Lord Kingsland, in consequence of his having, in compliance with two Acts of Parliament, conformed to the Protestant religion. The gentleman whom Lord Kingsiand bad presented had been inducted into the living, and was the legal possessor of the right. Fifteen or sixteen livings were in the same situation, and were sought by the Irish Church Bill to be vested in the Crown. The petitioner prayed the House would not pass the Irish Church Bill without giving him adequate compensation for the injury he would sustain through it, and prayed that he might be heard by counsel against it. He (Lord Ripon) thought the petition one that well deserved the attention of the House. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. _ _ _ • The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition in favour of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway. EDINBURGH POOR RATES. Lord HADDINGTON presented petitions from the Members of the College of Justice and two other places, against the Edinburgh Poor Rates' Bill. As the second reading of the Bill was fixed for that evening, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. GRAND JURIES (IRELAND.) The Earl of CALEDON presented a petition from the Grand Jury of the county of Tyrone, praying that the Grand Jury (Ireland) Bill might be postponed till next Session. There were not less than 174 enactments in that Bill, and they were now called upon at that late period of the Session to go into it. Viscount DUNCANNON made a few observations in a low tone in support of the Bill. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that the Grand Juries ought not to be entrusted with so large a sum of money as was at present required for county purposes. He should feel it his duty to support the postponement. The Marquis of DO WNSHIRE complained of the inadequate compensation allowed to the County Surveyors, who were generally eminent engineers ; and he thought some alteration might be judiciously made in that respect. He considered it advisable to postpone the measure to an other session. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would also sup port the postponement of the Bill. The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition against the Scottish Universities Bill. EDUCATION.—IRELAND. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Wells, praying for protec tion for the Irish Church. While he was on his legs he hoped the House would permit him for a moment to allude to a personal matter connected with the last Report from the Commissioners of Education in Ireland. tie deeply lamented that that Report had been brought forward at so late a period of the Session, as prevented him from renewing his motion upon the subject. However, after such a Report, he was cer tain to obtain the support of the Commissioners, and that when he renewed his motion at the earliest period next Ses sion, hewould have the unanimous support of their Lordships, in order to have a full inquiry into the allegations of the petitions he had presented, and of the charges he had brought forward. Viscount MELBOURNE wished to suggest to the Rev. Prelate that the former charge was made up of a vast number of minute facts, which it was almost impos sible to answer. It would be more convenient and sa tisfactory if the Rev. Prelate would furnish the main facts upon which he grounded his motion—the Commis sioners would be better prepared then to answer the charges. The Bishop of EXETER had already put the House in possession of a general view of what he would maintain be fore a Committee. He, however, would most willingly give the Commissioners a statement of his charges, but would not consider himself precluded from going into cases which might arise in the meantime, or which might be laid before him during the investigation. He would, so far as he was able, give the Commissioners an opportunity of investigating every case, to which he would call the attention of a Committee. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the proposi tion of the Noble Viscount would be adopting a new rule in that House. When a Noble Lord moved for an enquiry before a Committee, he did it upon his own credit, and it was not usual to come forward in the first instance with written statements of what the facts were on which the Noble Lord intended to found his statement before he made his motion. If the Noble Lord brought forward any facts which he could not prove, he would be highly to blame, and he would be responsible for it. He thought, therefore, the proposition of the Noble Viscount ought not to be adopted. Viscount MELBOURNE said that he did not wish to lay down any new rule, or attempt to fetter free discussion ; but he only stated that in this particular case, where there were very minute facts, it was impossible to have any an swer at the present moment. He therefore put it to the Right Rev. Prelate, whether it would not produce a full and fair inquiry, if he were to state the facts on which he made his motion. Lord PLUNKET thought that before accusations were brought against men like the Commissioners of Education, who performed their duty without fee or reward, some op portunity should be afforded them to answer them. He thought, therefore, it would have been more discreet in the Right Rev. Prelate, as well as more consistent with cbris tian charity, if the Right Rev. Prelate had made softie in quiries into the accuracy of the charges, many of them of a similar description, before he had submitted them to the consideration of the House.—(Hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate did not like to communicate with the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, he might with the P ro t es t an t Arch bishop. Th e Right Rev. Prolate seemed to think that the report bore him out in his statement. The Marquis of WESTMEATH—WiII the Noble and Learned Lord state who he means by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin ?—(Hear, hear.) Lord PLUNKET—Probably it would have been more regular in me to have said the Titular Catholic Arch bishop.—(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of EXETER complained that the Noble Lord had misrepresented him, as he had been frequently before misrepresented in that House. He did not say what the Learned and Noble Lord had said for him. He did not say that his confidence in the truth of the statements which he had made in that House had been strengthened by the report that had been laid on their Lordships' table--he had said nothing of increased or diminished confidence ; all be said was, that he should feel it his duty to himself and to the Church, and the peo ple of Ireland, to pursue this inquiry. The Noble and Learned Lord had passed a strong censure upon him for some statements that were attributed to him. He asked the Noble and Learned Lord by what right he had made such statements ? He asked him, as the First Equity Judge in Ireland, whether it was consistent with law or equity, or justice, or any of those principles which actuate men in that high station, when he told the Noble and Learned Lord that he intended to pursue this inquiry— an inquiry which he intended to ask for, and which he hoped would be instituted—to anticipate such an inquiry by assertions of this kind. Such a proceeding was utterly unexampled. Lord PLUNKET felt he had an undoubted right to give an opinion, and it was nothing more, on a pamphlet, which contained a speech made by the Right Rev. Prelate on submitting the motion, which was ultimately withdrawn, in which he brought forwards those facts to which he had already alluded. The Right Rev. Prelate had reiterated these charges in the pamphlet—they had been given to the public in that shape, and he (Lord Plunket) had a right to express an opinion upon them. The Right Rev. Pre late had given notice of an intention of renewing• his mo tion early the next Session of Parliament ; but he (Lord Plunket) thought that no Committee would be conceded. He regretted that he had misconceived what had fallen from the Right Rev. Prelate as to the Report confirming his statement. He had read the pamphlet through, and he had also read the Report through, and therefore he did feel that he was capable of giving his opinion upon the sub ject. The Report he thought completely and satisfactorily The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Church of Ireland Bill having been read, Viscount ME LBOURNErose and spoke to the follow ing effect :—My Lords, notwithstanding the great impor tance of this Bill, and the great interest it has excit e d an d continues to excite throughout the whole empire, and more particularly in those parts of the country which it imme diately affects ; notwithstanding the great consequences which may result from it, and which have heretofore resulted from the discussion of this question ; notwith standing the argument of the necessity there is, arising from this state of the country, that your Lordships should come to some settlement of this subject,—l be lieve your Lordships will think that there are many cir cumstances on the present occasion, in moving the second reading of this Bill, to relieve me from the necessity of going into any great length of discussion, or of entering into any particular examination of the general arguments of the question. In the first place, this is, I believe, the third Bill which has been presented to your Lordships to effect this extremely desirable object. The question has been amply discussed in your Lordships' House ; it has repeatedly, night after night, been discussed in the other House of Parliament, and it has formed the topic of re peated debate out of doors. In addition to these fre quent discussions I have also to urge, as an excuse for not not intruding long on your Lordships' patience on the present occasion, that with respect to the general princi ples of this Bill, or at least the greater part of them, there is no material difference of opinion either in your Lordships' House, or indeed any where else.—(Hear, hear.) Those general principles have been admitted by both the present and the former Governments ; they have been sanctioned by votes both"of your Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament ; therefore I do not, I say, think it necessary to delay your Lordships by going into any general discussion of ,the subject. Under these c i rcums t ances , I s h a ll certainly not disturb any of those matters which have produced warmth— which have excited heated debate and dispute in this House on former occasions —(Hear, hear)—but I shall confine myself, as far as I can, to a statement of the pro visions of the Bill, without going into the details of it ; and I shall do so the more readily, because on former occa sions I have generally been accused of not speaking at all on that part of the subject. The objects of this Bill are fourfold. The first object is to establish a rent charge, payable by the landlord in lieu of tithes, now payable by the occupier of the land. Your Lordships will probably not think it necessary for me to state tHe reason for this change.—(Hear, hear.) The second object is, the re-dis tribution of the benefices of Ireland. The third object is the future regulation of the incomes of the incumbents ; and the fourth object is the payment of all that may re main, after the other objects have been attained, into the consolidated fund, to enable that fund to meet the charg e on it of 50,0001. a-year, for the moral and religious edu cation of the people of Ireland. The first clause in the Bill saves the right of all tithe compositions which have already occurred, and it regulates the payment which may hereafter accrue. The second clause relates to those who have received any relief under the Million Act, and enables the Treasury to repay any money to those who have already paid any of the advances they have received from the million fund. The Bill then. proceeds to charge the land in lieu of tithe with a permanent rent-charge of 701. for every 100/. to he paid to the tithe-owner, whether clerical or lay. I am perfectly aware that this is a larger defalcation from the incomes of the clergy than was proposed on a former occasion. Ido not think it necessary to go through the detailed provisions of the former Bills which have been proposed by other Governments, but I admit that this un doubtedly is a laisser defalcation frcim the incomes of the clergy than it was formerly proposed to make. My Lord s , I can only s a y w ith respect to this, what must be per fectly evident to your Lordships, namely, that the longer you proceed in the present course, the longer the present state of affairs continues in Ireland, the longer the present state of disturbance and resistance continues, the more difficult the question becomes of settlement.—(Cries of " Hear.") Your Lordships are aware that there is in re sistance a disposition to permanency which it is very un wise to encourage or to allow to remain—(Cheers) : because there are always persons enough who find their advantage in it, and who are unwilling, and to whose in terest it is repugnant, that such a state of things should not be permanent.—(Hear, hear.) I have only further to say on this subject, that if 3ou take into consideration the great object of this Bill, that object being the settlement, of this question, it is hardly worth while to consider whether the amount of income shall he two or three per cent. more or less.—(Hear, hear.) That the settlement of this question is worth some sacrifice is admitted on all sides, and I submit that your Lordships should not lose the present opportunity of effecting a determination of that state of things which, whatever opinion you may have with respect to the commencement of it, the con tinuance of it all must in the highest degree deplore.— (Hear.) It is proposed that the rent charge be collected by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the first seven years, and after that as Parliament shall determine. A great deal of objection to such an arrangement was mad e last y ear b y, I b e li eve , t h e N o b le Duk and the Noble Baron opposite, who thought that it would have the effect of making the clergy dependent stipendiaries under the control of the State ; but in my opinion the advantage they would derive from the powers of the Crown being exercised in collecting their revenues, and the consequent certainty of collection, would amply compensate them for the slight direliction of principle which would be involved. Many of your Lordships may have no particular experience on this subject ; but I can assure them that there is no comparison to he made between an income paid by the State and one paid in any other way, as respects the punctuality of the payment and the certainty of the amount.—(Laughter.) I must say I do not consider the arrangement an unjust one for the clergy, seeing that it affords them that security. Here follows a provision that the rent-charges are to be paid in the same manner as was provided in the former Bill. There are to be certificates from the Commissioners of Land Reve nue, who are to pay them, subject to the same conditions as are in the former Bill. We then come to certain clauses which allow the re-opening of the compositions. They are clauses to which great objection has always been