The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-27 00:00:00

T4l StJN, LO DON AIDA'S!, JULY

CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS.

Messengers from the Lords here appeared at the table of the House
requesting a conference with the House of Commons, on the amend-
ments made in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.

The question having been put and agreed to ; Lord J. Russell, Sir
James Graham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Granville So-
merset, Sir George Grey, and others, were appointed to manage the con.
ference on the part of the House of Commons.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and other Managers of the Conference, re-
turned after a quarter of an hour's absence, and reported that they had
had a Conference with the Lords, managed by the Earl of Shaftesbury.
Their Lordships did not insist upon certain of their amendments, and
insisted upon certain others, their reasons for which they had deliverer
to them.

Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that the House should agree to the
amendments made by the Lords. If they were fouud inconvenient
hereafter a Bill could be brought in to alter them.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that one of the reasons given by the Lords for
an amendment was the most extraordinary he had ever heard, because
it was net consistent with the fact.—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.)
The amendments were then agreed to.
The debate was then resumed.

Mr. O'CONNELL protested against being considered as bound by, or
acquiescing in, what the Chancellor had said, that the evidence was closed
with respect to the Bank of Ireland. That was not the case, for there were
even now persons in town waiting to be examined. He would not advance
any opinion on the evidence as it was not closed, but it appeared that
on a loan of two millions, one half was at five per cent., and the other at
four, giving an average of 4i, when money could be had at 3i ; so that
fl had been lost for an immense number of years. He trusted the Hon.
Member would withdraw his motion.

Mr. HUME having withdrawn it,
The SPEAKER put the question, that the House resolve itself into.*
Committee of Supply.
Mr. WARBURTON enquired whether the Commissioners to whom
was referred the second class of Danish claims, for goods an shore, had
yet reported to the Lords of the Treasury.

- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they had made a
preliminary report, but not a final one.

Sir S. CANNING wish to make a further enquiry on a subject to which
he had called the attention of the President of the Board of Control.
The Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department would be
able to answer the question as satisfactorily as his colleague, it was
well known.

The SPEA KER said that the Hon. Member must confine 14mselfto
the question he intended to put.
Sir S. CANNING said that he had already attended three different
times in that House in order to put the question, and unless he was
allowed to make a few observations in explanation, he was afraid he
should be obliged to lose the present opportunity. There had long been
an intimate connection between Persia and Russia, and that connection
appeared to have taken a closer character of late. It had long been
matter of supposition that, at the conclusion ol the last peace between
Persia and Russia, secret articles were signed of a character—(Cries of
" Question, question.") He was not to be deterred from doing that
which he considered to be his duty, unless he had the direction of the
Chair that he was irregular, he believed he was exercising his right
properly on the question of going into a Committee of Supply, and he
would sit down till he had heard the opinion of the Chair.
The SPEAKER said that when an Hon. Member rose professing to
ask a question, he expected that he would fulfil that profession, and
not enter into reasons, because if that was done, it would be extremely
difficult to say when public business would begin. In his opinion the
Right Honourable Baronet should comply with the rules of the House.
Sir S. CANNING said it was his intention to put a question, but in
doing so he thought it necessary to state the circumstances connected
with that question. He had avoided every thing like argument and
reasoning. His object was not to argue, but merely to ask a question.
He understood that a treaty offensive andsdefensive hail been entered
in to between the Courts of Persia and Russia; and he also understood that
an expedition had been fitted out for Bombay, which was likely to inter.
fore with the friendly relations existing between England and Persia.
He wished to know from the Noble Lord the Secretary ,for Fore gn
AffairF, whether the objects of that expedition were such as to justify
Persia in placing herself in hostile relation towards England ; and whe-
ther the Government had been informed of any treaty between Russia
and Persia of the nature of that to which he had alluded ?

Lord PALMERSTON—With reia;;43theiiighlHon. Gentleman's
tirht question,
would merely refer him to the statement of his ,Right
Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Controul With regard to
the treaty to which he had alluded, he (Lord Palmerston) had received
no information on the sutjeS. .. - - .

Sir R. PEEL—An armament had proceeded from the British domi.
Mons, and he conceived that when the House was going into a Commit-
tee of Supply, that was the proper time to ask what its nature and ob.
jtcts were. He wished to know whether the armament had been sent
at the solicitation of the Court of Persia, or whether it went with a
hostile intention tr‘wards that power ?
Lord PA LNIERSTON said his Right Hon. Friend the President of
the Board of Controul had stated on a former occasion that the ex-
pedition, consisting of a small force (about a battalion), had.gone to
y by order of the Governor of India, for the purpose of protecting
British interests in connection with the Resident at Bushere.
Sir R. PEEL begged to ask the Noble Lord what were the circum-
stances that placed British interests in such jeopardy.
Lord PALMERSTON said that question ought to have been put to
his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control.
Sir R. PEEL—As a Member of this House, on going into a Committee
of Supply, I put the question again. In what manner are British in-
terests in such danger as to demand the presence and protection of a
battalion of the army at Bushcre ? I surely have a perfect right to de.
mand an answer to such a question.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that consistent with his pubtie duty, he
fdund it impossible to give any other answer. If the Right Hoo. Ba-
ronet had ahy motion to make upon the cubject, hd (Lord I'.) woald be
leady to meet him.

Sir R. PEEL was aware that on oecasions there were reasons of State
policy which rendered it imprudent to answer certain questions. When
thole were pleaded he was never found to press the subject. The an-
swer now given was that which ought to have been given at first.
In answer to a question from Mr. MACKINNON,
Lord PALMERSTON said he had given notice of the Blockade of
Vera Cruz, the moment he was made acquainted with it by the French
Government it was established by the officers on the station at their own
discretion which accounted for the delay. It was usual for countries out
of courtesy, to give notice when they sent out orders for a blockade, but
in this case they were conditional and dependent upon ciiscussions upon
S ie spQt.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON comphsined that the Captains of British
ships were not allowed to embark bullion on board their ship, which was
a peat ardship upon the merchants of this country, inasmuch as the
b:Aance of trade was touch against Mexico.

Lord PALMERSTON said the Honourable Gen Imam knew per-
fectly well that the French Government were eat arti to establish
a blockade, an.i that it was only as a matter of courtesy
to the En,;lish Government that an exception was made
to the packets carrying out correspondence between this country and
Mexico. Two questions were then put to the French Government;
first, whether they would permit those packets to convey 5 p:cie belonging
to merchants; and,ncxt, whether they would permit them to carry specie
belonging to the English G rvernment. The French Government to.
ced.d to the latter request, but declined to allow Peckets to convey
specie belonging to individuals; And certainly the permitting packets to
pass at all was an indulgence which we had no right to expect,
POOR LAWS.

Mr. Cr PALMER then rose to move for a copy of a letter,
dated the 6th of January,
,
1633, address, d by the Poor_
law Commissioners, to the Assistant Commissioners with whichc.n.tain pproposedd orders for the appointment of
continue but he felt than
the law of tha
Assistant
Overseers were sent. In doing this he was not influenced
by party spirit. Tire que,tion was one which equally in.
terk.sted every individual within or without that House.—(Rear.)
great
eadt iadmneontditid, seiortestwoosreecit,heceorsespareay to
lofaitiohwe Poorit
tto L
country, and he trusted the Committee, which had been so long sitting,
would at last produce something satisfactory to the country, The enc_
tion of buildings throughout the country was not only an extravagant
but useless expenditure of the public, to say nothing of the separation
of families, and If they should be used to any extent in that capacity, it
would be found necessary to have soldiers to keep the occupants in order.
He would not now enter into any details as to the management
c.: the Yoe:.—;,ilea:, he: r, tear.) 1U had a tither pthtio. in

view.—(Hear, hear.) He looked to the effect which the dictatorial
pow,tr of the Commissioners must have on rights of thi• community.
With this feeling it was his desire to bring this question for-
ward before the Irish Poor-latt, Bill passed into a law.
The Hon. Mgmber then referred to several statements which had ap.
pcared in the public papers, for the purpose of making out his case.
The powers given to the Poor-law Commissioners were incompatible
with the liberties of the British subject, and were exercised in a most
unconstitutional manner. The liberties of the people were
never in such danger as when they themselves became supine.
If the people of England were not on their guard, they would ere long
have little to look for. He had had no reason to believe the pa:'er
he wished for would have been obj:cted to the Noble Lord or the
Right Honourable Gentleman the Ch:incellor of the Exchequ-!r,
and it was only when he had on a former occasion moved for its produc-
tion that he found there was a determination to oppose its production.
He hoped the Noble Lord would not on this occasion shelter himself
behind any plan of expediency. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving his amendment.
Sir C. B. WERE seconded the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL had the same objection to the production of this
document as when it was before a'ked for.
The motion was then rejected without a division.
The House then went into a Committee of Supply.
(LEFT SITTING.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. JuLr 26.

sammum TITHES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. DILLON BROWN (in continuation from our Second Edition
of last night) said—

The latter was the
more likely consequence to ensue. And he was told
that that should be an inducement to accept the Bill—that
landlord and tenant suffering a mutual inconvenience would
unite for their total abolition. Now as that could only be pro-
cured by a resistance to rent, and the collisions consequent, he
must say that it was a most unholy means of arriving et an
end. As to its fastening the tithes upon the people of Ire-
land, if that social irruption did not take place, it was equally
as true. It might be said that after the expiration of present
leases the tenants would be relieved from the payment of
tithes ; but what a quantity of blood might be shed in the mean-
time I They would not then have men subdued by the feelings
of religion, who had other sources to look to in the religious
zeal of the community, seeking the tenth of the produce of the
soil ; but they would have those in whom the whole right of the
soil existed, with a spirit enflamed by evil passions—exaspe-
rated by a denial of the whole of those rights. And even if
the leases were to expire to-morrow, this Bill must necessarily
rivet the tithe upon the soil of Ireland ; for no Catholic here-
after, who, by industry, might have acquired the means to pur-
chase property, could purchase it in Ireland without having
attached to it that degrading impost. He was tald that 25 per
cent. was a boon, and ought to be an inducement to accept
this measure. That might be the case if it were a pecuniary
inconvenience which the people of Ireland suffered in the pay-
ment of tithes ; but it was not so. If it were, the inconvenience
of paying rent would be felt greater in the same proportion as
rent exceeded tithe. That was proved by the fact of nearly
all the tithe sufferers having paid their rent. It might be said
that the peculiar method of collection procured that inconve.
nience, but that he denied; for, take an acre of land paying
20s. rent and 2a. tithe, they might pay that ; the inconvenience
arose out of the peculiar mode of collecting the 2s. It did
not arise—it was voluntarily submitted to. When they
considered that the 203. had been paid for, if the tithe-
payer had commenced with the 2s. the inconvenience
could not exist. He would trouble the House with one
instance which could be multiplied by a thousand, and
which would distinctly prove that it was not a pecuniary
inconvenience that the people of Ireland suffered. In Long-
ford, there was a Bill filed by the Rev. Mr. Digby for tithes
of the annual amount of 2i-d. The tithe defaulter resisted, and
afterwards compromised his costs for 50/. There was an in-
stance of pecuniary inconvenience. Take this proposition :
suppose two persons of equal means, one liable to a larger, the
other to a smaller amount of tithes, both resisting under the
old law. Suppose the new law placed the man liable to the
larger amount on a level with the man liable to the small
amount, under the old law, the latter having resisted before,
why not suppose the man reduced to his level, to resist under
the present Bill ; or supposing the deduction to be the relief
required, why did the man liable to the smaller amount resist
under the old law ? Therefore as long as a fraction of it re-
mained encumbering the soil of Ireland, the same resistance
would exist, for it was apolitical repugnance which existed in
the minds of the Irish to contribute to the support of a
Church from which they derived no spiritual benefit—( Hear,
hear)—and which was hostile to the interests of their country.
He ( Mr. Browne) wished that tithes should be subject
to a re-valuation, and dispossd of to the first estate
of inheritance ; that out of the fund created existing
interests should be provided for ; and in future that the
voluntary system should be introduced. He advocated this
conscientiously, as he could not recognise any human or di-
vine right of tithe. The Church had ne right, which the his-
tory of Protestantism did not prove that the Constitution could
disturb. He invited any man entertaining a contrary opinion
to tarry in any town in England, and to enter any cathedral,
and he would have, wherever he fixed his eye, a grim evi-
dence of the mutability of the position of the Church. Let
him enter into that gothic temple where a late pageant re-
minded him so strongly of Catholicism—( Hear, hear)—
where ceremonies were borrowed from the Vatican to place
the crown of England on the Defendress of the Faith. Let
him enter it, and when he heard the service of a new religion
chaunted in a new tongue—let him reflect that there once the
" Te Deum" rose to Heaven—and that there the chaunting of
the sacred liturgy of the dead, according to the ritual of the
Church of Rome, once followed the dust of England's proud-
est monarchs to their last repositories. Let him reflect, and
he would find in all around him an incontestible evidence of
the mutability of the possessions of the Church, and the power
of the Constitution to devote them to what purposes they
please.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by
moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three
months.

Mr. HUME seconded the amendment. He did so upon
the ground that the Parliaments of 1835, 1837, and 1838,
had resolved that no adjustment of tithes could take place with.
out appropriation being included in it. Such being the case,
he should be upholding a delusion if he gave his vote to the
present Bill, under the belief that it would settle the question
of tithes in Ireland. He felt no doubt that the Right Hon.
Baronet would be happy to see the Bill pass without the appro-
priation clause, as by that means he would show his consis-
tency, he having quitted office upon that question. He ( Mr.
H.) believed the Bill, in its present shape, would not satisfy
Ireland, and every man that voted for it, under the persuasion
that it would settle the tithe question, assisted in keeping up
a delusion.
Lord EBRINGTON, having taken no part in thediscus-
sion of this Bill, felt anxious at this, the last stage, to state
the ground on which his vote would be given on the question.
He considered the system of tithes, which existed in Ireland,
as a curse to the country, and a great injury to the interests
of the Protestant religion. He supported the Bill, because
it would throw the burden of paying the obnoxious impost
upon the shoulders of those who had more power, and were
better able to put an end to the system. He supported this
Bill, because he thought it was the best that could be intro-
duced in the present state of Ireland, and because he believed
it would for a time give, if not perfect peace, at least general
tranquillity to Ireland.
Mr. WA RD could not agree with what had been stated by
the Noble Lord. Having done every thing in his power to
introduce the appropriation clause, and having voted with the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny against the money clauses, which
he thought so objectionable, it was not now necessary for him
to reiterate those sentiments. In conelus.on, he expressed his
decided intention to support the am mdment of the Hon.
Member for Mayo.
Sir W. M. SOMERVILLE believed the objections of the
Irish people were not so much to the tax levied on them, as
to a conscientious objection to supporting a Church, in the
tenets of which they did not concur.—( Hear.) The principle
now proposed was worse than appropriation—it was anihilation
of our faith—of the national property. Why was the 25 per
cent. not devoted to some purpose of public utility—why not
give it to the promotion of the Irish Poor law scheme, which
would give great satisfaction to the Irish people ? English
Gentlemen knew nothing whatever of the disorgazied state of
Ireland. Within a few miles of his ( Sir W. Somerville's)
residence he knew of his own knowledge that a respectable
clergy man was under the necessity of serving his own tithe
notices. There could be no better or more truly respectable
man than this, and yet be was driven to this necessity. In
his parish there was a great disproportion between the Roman
Catholic and the Protestant inhabitants. He believed that

the present Bill would fail. He did not wish it to be supposed
that he acquiesced in the measure; and if his fellow-country-
men should think it necessary to agitate farther to procure
some final measure that would secure the peace of Ireland, he
would feel bound to give them his support. He thought that
the Established Church as it at present existed in Ireland was
the greatest barrier to the spread of Protestantism in that
country.
Mr. G ROTE would give his suppirttothe amendment of

the Hon. Member for Mayo, that.ihe Bill be read a third
time this day six months. It was impossible to say anything
new on this subject, and indeed the only novelty was to be
found in the variance between the premises and the conclu-
sions of thoae who supported this Bill. It was impossible
that any person could have made a more effective speech
r-tainst the Bill than the Hon. Baronet ; and how it was pos-
sible that that Hon. Member could bring himself to support
a measure, from which he stated it was impossible that he
could get any good, was a problem which he (Mr. Grote) was
totally unable to understand. In considering this Bill he
could not exclude from his mind the grant of money which
it involved. Amongst the many objections which he entertained
to the Bill, that which he entertained on this ground was not
amongst the least or the most unimportant. If he thought the
measure had any chance of being final and satisfactory, he would
not object to an advance from the treasury to procure that result;
but when he did nct anticipate that the measure would be at-
tended with success he objected to giving the public money to
any such purpose as was proposed under the clause of this
Bill, which provided for an advance of money. He believed
that the Hon. Member would not object to this advance of
mon,7, if he thought that it was calculated to heal those
wounds that had so long been bleeding. But it was evident
that the Bill would have no such effect. Even every Hon.
Member who supported the Bill admitted that it would have
no such effect. He regretted the altered tone which had
taken place on the subject of appropriation. What had taken
place on that subject was, indeed, a melancholy evidence of
the way in which a great priLeple was put forward, and after-
wards abandoned to suit the views of a political party.—
(Loud cheers.) He believed that the history of those times
would record the abandonment of that principle as the most
disgraceful instance of tergiversation upon record in the poli-
tical annals of the country.—( Cheers. ) Seeing that the pre-
sent
measure placed a groat charge upon the people of this

country—seei that it e hilst it digs this it was Lot calculaf-d t
to settle the Irish tithe question—seeing that it still left
Irish Church Establishment in all its t.nabtited enormity—he
felt hound to typos- the further progress this Bill, and
Should, on the grounds which hr had express( d, give ins cup-
port to the antendiiiet,t of the lion. Member for Mayo.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNE LL—Alihottgh
_agreed in most
of the sentiments of the Hon. Membn for Siteln.t,ld, yet, as
an Kish representative, and a well-wisher to Ireland, nc Mt
justifi..d in voting for the third reading of this Bill ; and he
did so on this simple principle, that whilst he believed it
would f ffect great temperary, good. no future mischief could
pushily r,sult fou it.—( Hear, hear.) He 0,,t nod he was
surprisrd at th-. charge of invonsktency launched. not only
against her Mij sty's Mini-tern, but against a large hod.
of their supporters, on the ground of their having iban-
doned the tip tropriation princ.ptc And he must complain
that his lien. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had not
quoted correctly the resolution of 1635. Hi Hn. Friend
read the Ivo, ds as if they nut, *4 no !ettleitent can take
place ;" whereas, they really were. that "no float and sa-
tisfactory settlement" could be arrived at which did not in-
volve the principle of appropriation. Now, did any Mem-
ber of her Majesty's Gov. rnmcnt, did any Member at this
side of the House, or did the Right Hon. Baronet oppo
site ( Sir Robert Peel) pretend that the present proposal was
meant as a " final and satisfactory" adjustment of this most
iinportaqt question? When he heard that question an,wered
in the affirmative, he should admit that the charges of incon-
sistency so freely dealt out against those who, though they
supported the appropriation clause, felt bound not to negative
the present Bill, were well founded. Hear. ) His Hon.
Friend the Member for Mayo ( Mr. D. Browne), knowing, he
supposed, that a distinguished foreigner (Marshal Soult) was
that ni,sht in their gallery, seemed fired by his presence with
unwonted ardour, and insisted that whilst they had the prin-
ciple of appropriation to fight for, they should never desist,
however repulsed from the breach, or however diminished in
numbers, until they perished in the attempt. It struck hint.
at the time his Hon. Friend was delivering this s:rong ap-
peal, that the quotation might not unnaturally have occurred
to him,
" Of the three hundred grant but three
To make a new Thermoolm,"
He did not see that there was anything unmanly in not
struggling for a principle which was at present unattainable,
nor did he consider it inconsistent with honesty and public
spirit to take a measure as good as he could get, because it
was not as comprehensive as he could wish.—( Cheers )
There was no use in concealing the fact that such was the ex-
citement generated by resisting the rational demands of the
people, that the appropriation principle, which would have
given satisfaction in 1835, would be treated with scorn in 1838.
—( Much cheering.) The sentiments expressed at those
meetings to which his Hon. Friend referred, were equally con-
demnatory of this Bill and of the measure which he blamed
the Government for having abandoned. Though he did not
think the people of England were totally free frem blame in
the apathy, or he should perhaps rather say in the religious
prejudice which their conduct exhibited on this question,
the affirmation of the principle of appropriation was
now rendered useless, so far as the demands of the
Irish people were concerned. He knew what pains had
been taken to disseminate unworthy prejudices in the
minds of the English people. Like Scrub in the play, when
those who pandered to narrow-minded bigotry, and uttered
the cry of " murder" and " thieves," had failed, they raised
that of " Popery." There was no doubt that that cry had
been raised throughout every part of the country, and the
opposite benches testified how well it bad succeeded.—( Hear.)
But as he was convinced that the people of England were a
rational and thinking people, he had no fear that they would
remain permanently wedded to error, but common sense and
justice must soon resume that sway which it seemed they now
unfortunately did not hold over their minds.—( Hear.) There
were two things which tended especially to point out the enor-
mous injustice of the Irish Established Church ; one was that its
revenues were on a scale befitting the Church of a nation, and
the other that it was devoted to the service of a minority. And
of what minority? Of the ignorant, of the destitute, and of
the hard-working classes, who had not the means of supply-
ing themselves with religious instruction ? No, but of those
who incessantly and almost insultingly boasted that they
were to a great extent the Aristocracy of the country, that
they constituted a majority amongst the squirearchy, th-'t in
the magistracy they greatly preponderated, that in the
learned professions they had more than their share, and
that amongst the merchants, traders, and more comfortable
artisans they were also to be found in considerable
numbers.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This then was the mino-
rity as described by themselves for whose exclusive
benefit. a Church of extravagant revenues was supported
—( Cheers.) He did believe that when the people of
England came calmly to reflect on this anomaly, and to
consider in what circumstances the other religions in Ireland
were placed, this state of things could not long endure.—
( Much cheering.) He was delighted to hear the manly ex-
pression of sentiment on the religious consequences of the
present state of the Irish from the Honourable Baronet (Sir
R. Somerville.) He fully participated in the Honourable
Baronet's belief as a Protestant that no system could be de-
vised which would more effectually check the progress of
the Protestant religion.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said by
the Honourable and Learned Sergeant the Member for Ban-
don, that the demands of the Clergy fell short of their rights.
About a century ago the question of tithe agistment was
raised in the Irish Parliament, and he extracted from the
journals a few passages which showed how the result of which
the Hon. and Learned Sergeant complained was brought
about. The first he should refer to was as follows:

"December 6, 1735. Petition complaining of the new de-
mand for agistment tithes referred to a Committee, who,
on the 22d December reported that the allegations were
proved.'
" March 5, 1735 (0. S.) Petition of Samuel Low and
others, also referred to a Committee, and, on the 18th March,
report made that the petitioners have fully proved the alle-
gations of their petition to the satisfaction of the Committee,
and deserve the strongest assistance the House can give them.' "
These and two other resolutions were agreed to, and the fol-
lowing resolution :
" That the commencing suits upon these new demanas
must impair the Protestant interest, by driving many useful
hands out of this kingdom ; must disable those that remain to
support his Majesty's establishment, and occasion Popery and
infidelity to gain ground, by the contest that must necessa-
rily arise between the Clergy and Laity—( Hear, hear)—
was carried on a division, 110 voting for it, and only fifty
against it. And this resolution was carried by a House of
Commons which gave decisive proof of its Protestantism
by resolving, on the 16th of December, 1735, nemine con-
tradicente— _ _

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty,
setting forth that the reversal of the outlawries of persons
attainted for treason in the rebellions of 1641 and 1688, or
the enabling any of them or their descendants to sue these
Protestants who have purchased estates forfeited by those
rebels under several Acts of Parliament, will be dangerous
to his Majesty's person knd Government, and the succession
to his Royal House, and highly prejudicial to the Protestant
interest of this kingdom."
As the land, however, ceased to be used for grazing, and
agriculture advanced, the resistance to tithes increased, arid
the incomes of the clergy became proporti .nobly diminished.
Even in the provinces in which Protestantism prevailed
most, there were so many cases of pluralists, &necurists, over..
paid rectors, and underpaid curates, that he could not abstain
from mentioning a sew to the house. The MAI. Gentleman
then went through the following list:—
" The Rev. Charles Le Poer Trench, rector, Dunleer
Union, diocese Armagh. 5311. 17s. lid. Population of
Union, Protestants of Established Church, 289 ; komsn
Catholics, 4,925 ; Protestant Dissenters, 1. Also rector of
Athenrv, diocese Tuam, 902/ 15s. Old. ; Established Church,
170; Roman Catholics, 7,454. Has also two prebends, Pal-
down, worth 921 3s. 4d. ; 13 illywoulta, 211 3s. Id. Nen -
resident in both benefices, being vicar-general of Clot,fert,
where he lives ; has a curate ?It each benefice, and pays each
69/. 4s. 7id.
" Reverend Charles Cobbs Beresforel, rector of Turmon
M'Guiske, diocese of Armagh, 1,2671. 6s. 101 d. ; Esta-
blished Church, 1,722 ; Roman Catholics, 8.249 ; Presby-
terians, 941 ; parish contains 41.000 acres. Rectory of Kul-
lesher, diocese of Kilmore, 1,2111. 3s. 10d. ; Established
Church, 2,457; Roman Catholics, 2 641 ; contains 21,000
acres. Two curates in Turmon M`Guiske, 75/. e ; one in
Killesher (where rector does not reside) 83/. Is. bid.
" Rev. William Athill, Rector of Findouigh, diocese of
Clogher, 828/. 6s. 11d. ; Established Church, 3,519 ; Ro-
man Catholics, 7,064 ; Presbyterians, 1,400. Also Rector
of Magheracalmoney, same diocese, 5751. 153. WO. ; Esta-
blished Church, 3,586; Roman Catholics, 3 298. Resides
in latter parish and has one curate at 801. ; in Fitelonagh one
curate at 60/. a year, and 40 acres of land rent free."
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state that resis-
tance to tithes was not confined to the Roman Catholic
districts of Ireland, but had extended to the Presbytciisn
and Protestant North, in proof of svhich it was only neces-
sary for him to direct the sttention of the house to the fol-
lowing case, which had lately appeared in the newspapers :
" TITHES l TITHES l TITHES

" The Rev. Richard Jones Hobson v. Patrick Agnew, Esq.,

and others.

" Mr. Joy, for the plaintiff. moved for liberty to substitute
service of subpcena on the defendants in this cause. The ep-
plication was grounded on two affidavits, one of which was
made by the plaintiff's attorney, at the other by a process
server. The attorney of the plaintiff stated in his affidavit,
that he was employed by the plaintiff to file a bill against the
defendants for recovery of tithe composition, due by them
out of the parish of Karryglinn, in the county of Antiim ;
that he accordingly did so, and having issued subpeenia to
appear and answer, applied to a processs-server to swig them.
He offered him a much larger sum for doing so than he was
in the habit of paying, but he declined to undertake the busi-
ness from a fear of the results. He subs( quently applied
to several other persons, but they all declined to serve the
subpeana3. The process-server stated in his affidavit that
although he lived in the parish, was acqnainted with th-,
defendants, and knew where they resided, he would cot at-
tempt to serve them. He was apprehensive, if be did so, that
his house would be burned over his head. He further stated
that for several years the inhabitants of the parish, trot only by
passive resistance, but by open violence, had resisted the pay-
ment 'of tithes; and he heard that a process-server had been
killed while attempting to serve subticenas in the parish. It
further appeared, from the statement of counsel. that personal
service has been effected on the principal defendant, and that
the defendants who could not be served owed only very small
sums to the plaintiff.

" Baron Itichar&—How many defendants arc to be served?
" Mr. Joy—l believe about fifty-four, my Lord.
" Baron Richards—Take the usual order to substitute ser-
vice, and also a writ of assistance.

Joy—My Lad, -vie lavur infer a great diflicu!ty

this case, for we swear that there is no place of worship in the=
and therefore there is no p!a,e to post the notices. The
e:fly pl,en Where the subpce•;ll ceuid b posted is on the place
of worslAp in the neighbouring parish.
Baron Riehards—Cannot ihose notices be posted on lb:,
rt,tidences of the defendnnts?

Joy--1 fear, my Lord, that such a proceeding would
bo attended with great danger and difficulty.
".Baron Richards—Ascertain for me where copies of the.
std-Imanas can be posted, for tha defendants should have
notice.

" Mr. Joy—Theve rneetivg-house in the n. xt I);:rif.b,
perlul,s !hat will do.
Biron Richards—l rather th-ok th<: defendants do not
go th, re.
" Mr. Joy—l believe they (le:, they chiefly Pres-
bytriia,s."

He felt satisfied that nese facts. s h-n they came to be known,
0 cell.] p-oduee an impression (in the fululls of the Vropln of
En:.land, and enlist their feeliovs or fair pia. in favour of
the claims of the Irish nation to a reform of these enormout
ael crying abuses.—( Hear, hear.) It might be asked what
remedy could be devised for these evils ? The Roman Cae
tho!ic tot mbers of the House we re often taunted for wish -
ieg 111.3 Chureb to which th y belonged to share in the
emoluments of the Prote,tant Church Establishment. As a
member a.f the Roman Cath lie Church himself he beggad
distinctly to state that there was nothing to wisich he sle:u!d
so at rengly object as to see that Church placed in the ieviciietias
position of d riving its sui port from a State provision.--( Hear,
hear.) 11,, wished it to be understood that the Roman Ca-
tholics of Ireland repudiated any connection whatever between
the Chinch to which they belonged and the State.—( Hear,
hear.) Then came the question of whether there ounht to
b•, aav opprapria ion of the funds of the Protestant Este-
ashed Church other than that which was now made. For
his own part he was decidedly in favour of what was called
the voluntary principle ; but et the same time he was strongly
of opinion that if a portion of the enormous revenues of the
Establishcfl Church acre applied to purposes of gene ral edua
cation in Ireland, agitation in that country would cease, ane
religious trauquii:2tY
vere done, he was satisfied that the dayt
something of that kind :
be the first time established. Unless
of the Established Church Ireland would be numbered.
Sir R. PEEL rose, and sato:,—Sir. it appears to me that
the question we are now called on to cliscilgs is this—whethet
we ought to vote for the third reading D.' this Bill, or whether
we should now consent to the amendmen:
proposed by the
Hon. Member for Mayo? That amendment p,:oposea to post-
pone the Bill for the period of six months, and tass is, in my
mind, tantamount to a declaration that the attempt that has
been made for the settlement of the tithe question has altoge-
ther failed, and that there is no prospect whatever of our com-
ing to an agreement upon any satisfactory principle upon which
the future settlement of the tithe question can be made. This
taiipepetiarosusteo,manedtoolbee
pt
rhoep et
icot on
wf dm
by adopting that amendment.—(Hear.) Now, then, Sir, the
ahich thmisenHouesnet
wporeuplaosaeffid
affirm
Bill before the House contains two enactments, in both 01
which I concur.—( Hear.) In the first place, I fully concur
in the future conversion of the tithe into a rent charge. In
the next place I fully concur in the transfer of the pecuniary
burden of tithe from the occupiers, who in general are Romer,
Catholics, to the proprietors and landlords, who in general ars
of the Protestant persuasion.—( lear.) I concur also--
and concur most fully—in that enactment of the present Bill
which sets at rest—and sets at rest for ever—the whole ques-
tion of arrears ; and so far as the operation of the Bill
concerned, I think that setting aside the question of arrears
which might remain as an element of discontent, is in itself a
very great advantage.—( Hear. hear.) Entertaining, thee,
those opinions with respect to the present Bill, I find it impos-
sible to assent to the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Mayo that we should now reject this Bill. Now, let me ask
the House, if we consented u, take that course what would be
the consequence? Why, this—if we rejected this Bill we
should leave the Tithe question not only in the state in which
it has been for the last five years, but in even a far worse state ;
for, after the declaration of Parliament, rejecting this Bill, you
would altogether exclude the prospect of any satisfactory set-
tlement of the question whatever. With reapect to the prin..
ciple of appropriation, about which so much has been said this
evening, I shall say nothing whatever upon that sztbject.--•
( Cheers.) I will merely say of that principle that have
always thought, and still think, its adoption in any Legishail°
measure was in every way calculated to prevent a practical set'
tlement of this question. You tell me that the appropriation
principle would be rejected by the people of Ireland now as
worse than useless, and I ask you to say would that principle
which you tell me now would be rejected, have been just three,
years ago ?—( Cheers.) I cannot understand those who say--•
who express themselves anxious for a settlement of this quell;
tion, and yet propose to reject this Bill. I cannot understand
public men who say that they will support this Bill because they
hope that it will increase the evils of the Church. I think it
would be better for the Noble Lord to resist the measure alto*
gether than support it on the ground that it was calculated to
accumulate the evils of the Church. Neither cast I understand
the course promised by the Hon. Member for Drogheda. That
Hon. Membersays, " You may;pass this Bill, and I, as a Mew'
ber of the Established Church will not originate any subse-
quent agitation ; but if my poorer neighbours shall think fit to
renew agitation they shall have my co-operation." I "13
understand his scruples as a member of the Establisned Church
against the commencement of agitation, but I cannot under-
stand his feelings when be says that if persons, influenced by
motives in which he has no participation, shall commence agi'
tation, he will not only not lend his assistance in quelling that
agitation, but that it shall have his co-operation.--( Heir,
hear.) Sir, this Bill, which we are now called on to read
for the third time, included three enactments—first, that Irish
t;thes shall be eonverted into a rent-charge, this enactment to be
applied universally, wherever the case may require it;
secondly,
the arrears of the million are to be remitted ; and, thirdly, it
deals with the existing arrears, which are not covered by the
million, and provides that a grant shall be made by Parliament
of three hundred thousand pounds, by which grant that clan
of arrears shall be altogether extinguished. Concurring as
do so much in some parts of this Bill, and deeply anxious all
I am to see this session close with some successful attemPt
at the adjustment of tithes on just principles—the prin-
ciples of relieving the occupying tenant, and transfer:
ring the charge to the landlords of Ireland—no opposition I
could give to a single clause would induce me, on the whole,
to give my assent to the third reading. I think, as I said be-
fore-4 think it would amount to a Parliamentary declare'
tion that, after five years of anxious consideration, the 4164:
ment of Irish tithes was found to be impracticable ; and see"
attempts for the recovery of tithes must be immediate% re'
newed, as all hope of assistance from Parliament was hope"
less.—( Hear, hear.) In my opinion also the evil would be
greatly aggravated by the late approximation of opposing
parties, and the failure of their united efforts. For thee
reasons nothing hut the strongest objections to individual per'
tion, at this late period, would induce me to abandon the hops
of seeing this Bill become law. I think, however, that at this
advanced period of the Session, it is better for me to state
once the course I intend to pursue with reference to a part''
maim- enactment of the Bill. The enactment to which I re-
fer is that which which provides that on the grant of 300,00;
being made all claims for arrears of tithes on the occuPYie"'
tenant, shall cease. Since this Bill was first introdeeee-
important modifications have been made, the first and mesi,
important of which, in my opinion, is, that whilst el
claim on the instalments have been relinquished, and the
occupying tenantry relieved from all obligation to pay the
ate ears, I think that the provision was founded in justice
and I cordially rejoice to see it incorporated in the Bill. An'
other modification has been introduced into the enactrneng
which relates to the existing arrears. At first the compens2;
ti ea granted was:only intende to be in lieu of Ile arrears which
have occurred within the last two years. I decidedly objected
to that proposition, as I thought it. most unjust that Parliame°
should interfere to prevent those to whom the arrears were
due for the first four years receiving any compensation ;
I believe the Bill has been altered so as not to exclude that
class of claimants from corn' ensation.—( Hear, hear.) I do
not say that they are to receive an equ• l compausation ,„
those of the last two years, hut a proportionate one for the 0.-
rears they are called on to abandon. By this meat' lb:
rights of no parties, whose clahns are to be extinguished b 7
the Leei,lature, will he called on to abandon those rights with,:
out a; least some compensation. The state of the law will the-
be this —that all those eche ghave commenced suits for the re'
covcry of tithes beta re the 16th of Juiy lest still have the or
Lion of continuing their law proceed:nes. With them there
shall be no interference ; but if they think fit to do so csithou,
psyrreet of costs, they shall be cniitled to their share of the
compensation intended by the Bill. I apprehend that is the
ca
rraoe.ts,ptaieeccet:tno:
tght. conruction. The violence thus done, when it is done'
is in that class of arresr not covered by previous advances ou;
of the million, and in which the parties have not institute'
suits for recovery. Now I act bound to state and to maintain
rny opinion with respect to this. After my best considers'
tion, I think that my proposal was the best in every mance;
I think. the props 11 that gave an option to parties to fiCeel"
Stti'llee°r%l,
uside
thoughtby G
fit,ovrninent, or to enforce the law in cafe:
I think that proposal protected a gre";
bp,r;etnicipatlio,pateadd..wa(s every Way Letter than the course which hai
Hear, hear ) At the same time that
heave t tken the sense of the House fairly on the subject, 1"1 c.
dove all I could to enforce me proposal by repeated argurner''
but I have been overruled by Ilenourable Gentlemen epPn;
sate, nor I have I the aliehte•t reason to balieve that, if I we,
again to 1 repose it, I should meet with any better suenel,
Supeosirg the ()titian 1 priaciele, then, defeated, I ceitill,l!
wish that Government, in adle rence to their own prineiP;;
C(7n;th,eoriisettl:yal:
would adopt a course like this, that if they are determined ~1
apply compulsion, and to deprive parties of their legal fe'"l,
e
hear:et:aka:rte. tr?h,t i
the
esvt aleiamneneisfouuutil:nlpi :c.noseef amountitt
is rylotacifrnurgreaitrarreste°,:rots?ireerilse: :itanlyttli:gnt
hi'lvlcegcbu
cr
u
ic
`ir, I bare taken tilsielb'eacsetsm"::ayns•
towa.'hee` itli°
the
uaanirney with the cpiniens of ton
right &chi,
r _ an on this subject, and I now clcclare, in Ptrt‘ t
ltf
from tits many conflietiag jude and h t 'll-5 - ficu/te tr.enta t r, , 1-4
c: the allele question, ie tea
within mmy,jsti reach to co—,.
f,cs
respoesibility of rejecting altogather the p a the
veromcrit,—(llear. s
e a ant props ti trh( all ad in
hith .rto made from the th't vf
ftn•ther sutra of 300,0001
.etument Mei°l3t''rtakne"wilinha
_s all he rentittod, grad
„:„,
gi, ing same eempensacciih.n shallito be gfraetFd.for thecl. p,u.p
suppose I rejected th ff
course Go- • ;ittstt
of the instalments
already paid. They might say, ,f tr' • • re:lrs ant to be enforced, belie
nfutced, why not the inatalments ? I "e,,.a. it ; lit be core peseet to us. by uniting with such
1111,,,, unposite as entertained principles very differ
mine, who object on • • 1 lt".-
princip.e to any grant on this gut joy. ,
I dare to say, I
taat, oy uniting with them, I might 1,0 "de,
have excluded the claue, and by decidin; it should have
foe_
ten :iced that under no circumstances whatever should 11t!,,,ef..
azataseee elf tile Treastir- -d TOY tr:ttler_evit o'f :an e-
te)rettnxi
r,itale c,}.
rrtrye,,
,as!,
iroi;