The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-15 00:00:00

was to be paid by the Cathblic to the Protestant clergyman, or
in any way which would go to support the Protestant Church.
The Right Honourable Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, in 1835, said that the plan proposed by his Noble Friend did
not go to the abolition of Protestantism in Ireland, and he contended
that it was the object of the House of Commons to support the Esta-
blishment there; and the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland said that
' the Government hoped to maintain the existence of the Established
Church, and denied that any violence was intended to it. Now, on
the one hand, there was the statement of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber, on whom the Government relied, that nothing but the extinction of
the tithe system would satisfy the people; and, on the other hand, it was
said that the object of the measure which was brought forward was to
support and to secure the position of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) Could
there be any policy more inapplicable to the condition of Ireland than
that which had been adopted, or which was likely to produce more dims-
trous results? If they desired to act on the principle laid down by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and which it was said was alone
calculated to produce peace, and a satisfactory settlement of the question,
then let them introduce the popular measure, the effect of which would be
to sweep away the Protestant Church ; but if they were to adopt the
measure of the Noble Lord, they must admit, on the statement of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin, that it would not produce that Iran-
quillity which was desired. In 1834 a proposition was made by the
Disseuters that in place of the Church-rate another plan should be
adopted to secure the property of the Church. At first the Noble Lord
was strongly opposed to the measure, but at length in 1836, he was
found to have taken quite a new view of the question; and since that
time, in the autumn of the same year, there was a great agitation among
the Dissenters, and a demand was made in February, 1837, that there
should be taken out of the property of the Church, the aunt which they
had formerly declared public property. The demand was acceded to by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced his Church-rate
plan, and since that time discussion after discussion had taken place on
the subject of the same principle, and it was on this that the appropria.
Lion of the property of the Church to purposes which did not belong to
it was proposed. He would, therefore, implore the House, believing this
principle to be unsafe as it was suggested to the Church, to retrace their
steps, and to expunge frets the records of Parliament the opinion whirls
they had already expressed in the year 1835.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord LEVESON was not sufficiently versed in Parliamentary customs

or proeecdings to be able to give an opinion which would carry
much weight; but he could not but express his dissatisfaction at a
custom which existed of quoting the expressions used by Hon. Members
in former debates in reference to subjects at the time being under dis-
cussion, and he thought that this mode of proceeding was one which
was likely to give rise to much inconvenience, as the system might as
well be carried back to the debates which had occurred in the reign of
William 111., or in the Long Parliament itself, as to more recent
periods. No one could doubt the truth of the declaration of the
Honourable Baronet, that in making the present motion his only
object was to procure the settlement of the question ; but he must say
that no one could conceive a motion better devised to pot a stop to all
settlement of the question than that which he had brought for-
ward.—(Hear, hear.) He must also in turn believe him that he acted
with no intention whatever to turn out the present Ministry ; but, al-
though he placed confidence in this statement, he did not quite be-
lieve that it was the general feeling with some of the party to which
he belonged, and there were some of them, no doubt, who deemed it a
question on which it was desirable to procure as many as possible to
vote in their favour, without considering whether it was worth while
buying the triumph at such a price as the putting a stop to all settle-
ment of the question, and as the danger which would be the necessary
consequence of any delay in some decisive plan being devised and
adopted. It was these reasons in particular which caused him to object
to the motion, and he said so, himself being a well-wisher to the Esta-
blished Church. The Hon. Baronet opposite had talked about the
money being taken out of one man's pocket and being given to another
man, but what had been said of the revenues of the Churches during
many centuries ? Were not the means of the Church originally
intended for specific purposes—for the, celebration of masses, and for
the assistance of the poor; and were they nat afterwards
taken from them and appropriated to various purposes, as de-
scribed by Mr. Justice Blackstone, namely, for the endow-
ment of Churches, for the support of the poor, for keeping up
churches, and for the support of incumbents. But had not these even,
by custom or other means, become gradually taken away from these
purposes, and in Ireland had not various grants of the funds of the
Church Establishment been made for lay purposes, and might they not
now, if there should appear to be any surplus, appropriate that surplus
to the purposes of general education, which would be even paving the
way for the conversion of the people to the doctrines of the Established
Church ?—(Hear, hear.) Thare was, besides, another argument
which, as an upholder and supporter of the Church, he was prepared to
advance—the anomalous situation in which the Church was at present
l
placed, and hostile as the people were to it, he put it to those
ableHonour-
emobferes, who really
, wished for its welfare, whether it was not better
to put the people in a position by which its welfare might be secured, by
advancing them in their moral condition, by giving them the ad-
vantages than to leave them untaught, merely for the
purpose of securing untouched the means of the_Church 2--(Hear.)
Colonel CONOLLY was of opinion that the Hon. Baronet had se.
lected the most appropriate occasion for bringing forward the present
question, and that his motives were in effect to clear away the rubbish
and the remains of opposition by 'which the consideration of the tithe
question was encumbered, and to remove from the House the fetters
which were on it, and which had been placed on it by another Parlia-
ment, but to which it should not be liable, but which it should have
taken the earliest steps to remove. He was sorry to see that the Noble
Lord had taken the course which he had pursued in speaking of the Es.
tablished Church in Ireland, for the observations which he had made,
in referring to it, were little deserved at his hands—(Hear, hear)--and
he was bound to contradict the assertion which he had made, and to say
that at no time had any Church, in any country, been in more need of
some improved regulation than the Protestant Church now in Ireland.
He was confirmed in this statement by the high authority of Dr. Chalmers
within the last mouth, and by the no less respectable authority of the
Presbyterian minister, Dr. Cooke. He trusted that they would that
night get rid of the appropriation question, as it kept the country in
a state of agitation—it deprived the ministers of the Church of their in.
comes, and, indeed, of their means of existence, and it had been the
means of rendering property insecure in Ireland. As, therefore, the
object of the motion of the Hon. Baronet was to get rid of this origin of
evil, he should take the opportunity of thanking the Hon. Baronet for
having made his motion.

Mr. SLANEY, as he had never voted before en this question, as he
had not a seat in the last Parliament, felt called upon to state the reasons
that would that night influence his vote on the proposition of the Hon.
Baronet. He must, in giving an opinion on the subject, look to the ani-
mus which had dictated the resolution. He had no doubt but that the
lion. Baronet had brought forward the proposition in that single.minded.
ness which characterised him, but he was sure that some evil genius
must have dictated this course to the Iron. Member.—(Hear.) If he had
been called upon to select a man on any side of the House who was more
likely than another to sow peace and to stop dissension, and to pursue a
course of conduct likely to get rid of angry feelings and animosities, he
should have named the Hon. Baronet as that person ; could he then be
l''ainrd. SwiahneenYs)uch concession had been nude as was
otherwise than strip ised that the Itlhoonn.gßhatrhoenestawshaleddlarawvneapnrdogpled
this .
ttle t
jn motion,of c 0 nwchtletant
in hen
,(
likely to lead to the settlement of this great question, which professedly
byh
yaol 1.--e (oIfI ctahre,
greatest men
d o:thisat
hadin ever conformity
lived
wwithas st oh
adviceeln uc l t,
tendered
in this or any other country—he meant the Duke of Wellington, and
which advice had been followed by her Majesty's Ministers, who had
that night brought forward a proposition which was likely to lead to the
settlement of the question. He repeated, then, that he deeply regretted
desired
that the Honourable Baronet should have made this motion, although
the slightest doubt but that he was actuated by the purest
hen thvad not
motives.
He regarded with unfeigned sorrow that the Honourable
Baronet should have rejected the olive-branch held out to him, and ap„
pear determined to oppose—for such would be the result of this motion
until an indefinite period the determination of this matter, The
proposition of the Honourable Baronet was to rescind the vote of a
former House of Commons. He (Mr. Slaney) felt bound to say, and he
did so with unfeigned respect to the Honourable Baronet, that the object
of those who supported this motion was not so much to get rid of the
appropriation principle as to work out a course to gain the seats now oc.
cupied by his Noble and Right Hon. Friends connnected with the Ad_
Administration. Believing, however, as he did, that her Majesty's
Government were pursuing that course which tended to promote the
best interests of the empire, and that, notwithstanding all the difficul-
ti.cs which had occurred around them, they had conciliated the feelings
of the people towards them both in this country and in Ireland, he felt
hound to oppose the motion of his Hou. Friend.—(Hear.) At the same
time, however, he gave no opinion one way or the other on the appro-
priation clause--(Laughter from the Opposition Benches)—but he was
satisfied the present motion was nothing more nor less than an attempt
made by one party to turn out the other.—(Cheers.) He had not
changed sides—(Renewed cheers and laughter)—he did not say a word
against those who had done so; but he saw sometimes with surprise
that some of those leaders with whom it had been his lot to fight the
battles of liberty in that House, as an unpaid soldier, had changed sides,
and appeared most bitter in their opposition to their former friends Anti
colleagues.—(Cheers.)
Mr. R. M. MILNES congratulated the House on the light which had
at length fallen upon them with reference to this subject : he also
begged to congratulate her Majesty's Ministers on the feeling of ne.
cessity which they had come to abandon the appropriation principle.
With respect to the present motion, no one on the opposite side that
dared to impute improper motives to the Hon. Baronet; but it had
been asked by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury what was the animus
with which this proposition had been brought forward; but he (Mr.
Milnes), in reply, would ask what was the animus of Honourable
Gentlemen opposite in 1831 s, when they brought forward their resolu_
tions in favour of appropriation ?—(Cheers.) Had the assertion of the
principle
of appropriation in 1835 been productive of any beneficial
results in this country or in Ireland ?—(Hear.) Had that principle
been adopted or acted upon in any law, or had Henourable Gentlemen
opposite secured the confidence of the people by persisting in adopting
trythes,e.
ffr,est
eoal uht iyo nhstt?,—, t
n(gHneaGr ,
nh, eear
trt,maennd a t
wl augh
deplorably. )
w Feelingeak thata:t that
te
whicheotin.
it
~.
hwas h the, if ft gm
which, gdorneaetveignnaproirnestbolnwha,vwennprldesitdhirnngworthereietsyndpeisrteintinetso,
c i p
ae
W.
r , .
hear,s
being
o the
i andEßo vnl
la, iLi
y one laughter.)
Et e
on r . )
w
sir i
el J v
an abyss of disgrace, he should not regret the adoption of a motion like
the present one, if it should have the effect of driving them from office.
(
hadahl :evil always considered
settlement
of
a pt ph reop r
tithei at icionner:trtionn.
could take place, and as the only one which could carry with it the feel.
ings and confidence of the Irish people.—(Hear, hear.) Honourable
Gentlemen
opposite seemed to forget that they had to conciliate the feel_
siriegnsd
rugs of six millions of people with reference to a Church which be-
.
lr. ged t° only 600,000.—(Hear.) What was the common state of
tnpi
i nt
hlrroeul Ireland? t Tthheeycsoauw.,t or
y, n thema oneny of hand,thethem
fi Protestantne
edifices,
t
l ithe
ministers, if not supported in luxury, at any rate well paid by the imp_
coutributions. The poorest people, independent of having
sition of this tax on the people ; and, on the other, they saw a building
little better in appearance than a common cottage, with mud walls and
a thatched roof, with hundreds of people on the Sundays round its
doors, crowding to get admission. The former was the Church for the
few, and supported by the tithes, and the latter was the Church of
the bulk of
voluntary the population, supported, with its ministers, by their
to contribute to the support of their own Church, had to
give a portion
of their scanty maintenance towards paying for this riehlysendowed
Church, the form of worship in which was alien to their feelings.—
(Hear, hear.) Was it a system which should be allowed to be conti-
nued
the penal laws, or the legislating with a view of promoting the
nu" I—(Hear, hear.) He would ask what other remedy was there than
applying the funds of this rich Church for the benefit of the poor ?
("ear, hear, from the Ministeral benches, answered by cheers from the
Opposition.) This proposition, however, was nothing of this kind.
He did not wish to apply this property towards the maintenance of the
religion of the great body of the people, but he only required that the
crumbs which tell from the rich man's table should be devoted to the ge-
neral education of the country. Until the settlement of this question,
tranquillity of the country, would be vain and illusory ; and until
this question was put at rest, the great and constant source of dis-
cord
in Ireland would continue.—(Hear, and loud cheering.) Un-
less the Legislature nationalized this tax—unless they gavo the Irish
people something for the payment of this tax—it would be
vain to expect that they would continue to pay it.—(Hoar, hear.) The
Irish people would no longer submit to this state of thie,ga—tHear,
hear.) They would not thus submit to be buffeted about between one
party and another—(Cheers)—they will ;le longer permit the settlement
ohthis question, upon which their happiness depended, beie,i, riiale
e Peg to 4114 pasty factions on.—(Loud cheea ) ';''hey felt that
they hadbeen bandied about from :-„c lido the house to the other ;
and the Legislature
People 4:WU thOy were regarded as having an interest hit the stlbjeet.—
414 44, hvitr.) When his Hon. and Learned Nona the Member for
D
Dublin agitated the r :,...--zingland must oome forward and sho7 the
repeal of the Union he (hit', W. Somerville) opposed
him, hcranse he .thought that the interests of -Ireland would be belt
ettrttil-ilted br i;rometing g reall -
and equal, and ninaileiik Wilke!/
. ker •

with this country.—(llear, hear, hear.) But when he heard Ho-
nourable Members opposite talk of the present state ofthings
I being anything like an equal or real union he could not express,er
his surprise it was such a union as that between a step-motide.
.
and child, and the advantages of the union were all on one
If his Hon. Friend should once agitate the question, and he would side.
If
say what course he should pursue, because he believed that it was best
for Ireland that a real union should be established between the two
countries, the result might be the subject of the deepest regret; for
there was a strong feeling growing up in that country that without a
domestic Legislature Ireland could never have peace nor tranquillity,
nor that those measures essential for her welfare would ever become the
law of the land.
Mr. LEFROY supported the amendment. 'The Hon. Baronet op-
posite suggested that the maintenance of the Union required that the
resolutions should be abided by; but it seemed to him (Mr. Lefroy) that
this was rather an Irish mode of maintaining an Union, one of the chief
articles of which stipulated for the preservation of the rights and pro.
perty of the Irish Church. These resolutions were originally intro..
ducat to the House on mere speculation, on the mere possibility
of a surplus being established, at a time when the House had not
before it any sort of means of judging of the state of the property
of the Irish Church, and before the Commissioners of instruction
had made their report. (Hear, hear.) Under such circum-
stances it was not greatly to be wondered at that the Noble Lord had
made some egregious mistakes in his statements respecting the property
of the Irish Church.—(Hear, hear.) Some glaring discrepancies had
occurred, too, in the statements of the Noble Lord as compared with
those made by the Noble Secretary for Ireland. The Noble Lord
stated the revenues of the Irish ChUrch at 701,721/., while the Noble
Secretary for Ireland informed the House that the whole property ap,
plicable to the maintenance of the establishment was 613,3001. per
annum ; and deducting from this gross amount 30 per cent., which was
proposed to be taken from the Irish clergy, not more than 400,0001.
per annum, exhibiting an immense discrepancy between the two esti.
mates. Another great mistake was at the same time made by the Noble
Lord in his statement as to the Protestant population of Ireland, which
the Noble Lord laid at 750,000 ; whereas it appeared from the report of
the Commissioners that the number of persons attached to the Esta.
blished Church in Ireland was not less than 852,650. The entire ig-
norance of the whole subject thus displayed by the persons who intro-
duced these resolutiong to the House was a sufficient ground in itself for
rescinding these resolutions. For three years past the Noble Lord
had repeatedly expressed his anxiety to settle this question; let no
false pride now prevent the Noble Lord from consenting to for-
ward that settlement, by abandoning the resolutions which it was moat
justly sought to rescind ; but let an honest pride dictate to that Noble
Lord to secure the peace of Ireland and the safety of its Church, by re-
linquishing this fatal principle; if the Noble Lard really wished to ar-
rive at a final settlement of the question, he could not refuse this conces.
sion to the call of justice and reason.--(Hear, hear.) Let it be re.
membered that these resolutions were not the original proposition cl f the
Noble Lord; that, in reality, he was not entitled either to the credit or
discredit of them, for they originally emanated from, and were, indeed,
moved and supported by, Members of that House who were the avowed
enemies of the Protestant Cuurch In Ireland.
Mr. FRENCH, as one attached to the Protestant Church by educa-
tion, by connection, and by close domestic relations, trusted that
the highly conciliatory proposition now made by her Majesty's Minis.
tern, would not experience opposition from those who put themselves
forward as more especielly the friends of the clergy; that they would
not reject a settlement more advantageous to that body than any which
could be offered them, even by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if in power
—a settlement which would be received with entire satisfaction by the pee_
ple of Ireland. For years past the Right Hon. Baronet opposite and his
party had appeared anxious for any settlement of thetithe question which
did not involve the abstract principle of appropriation Would they
now take upon themselves the responsibility of rejecting one in which
that question was not involved?—(Hear, hear.) The principal feature
of the present plan, as distinguished from some former ones, was the ab-
sence of what had been termed the appropriation principle, the resolu.
t.on declaratory of which Hon. Gentlemen opposite were so anxious to
rescind, although their rescinding it would not effect their object, as
the principle would still remain on the statuteebeok.—(Hear, hear.)
Without referring to the Acts of the reign of Henry VIII, he would
call the attention of the House to an Act so far back as the 15th Richard
IL, cap. 6, which was called even at that period " the Appropriation
Act," and which appropriated to secular purposes a portion of the in-
comes of the clergy—a statute made when the Church was almost om-
nipotent, and when a Bishop of Winchester was Chenoellor of Eng-
land--(Hear, hear.) Ho was prepared to show that the ecclesias,
tical laws themselves had recognised the principle of appropriation, and
that Parliament had enforced it. The clergy of the Established Church
in Ireland had lost much of their authority. Instead of being ministers
of peace, they were too often ministers of strife; and how could it be
otherwise when they had to collect their revenues in a field of conten-
tion ? As long as the present system lasted, to contention was the
Church of Ireland wedded " as" to use the words of Milton, "with
a spousal ring." Would the clergy object to receive their incomes
for a season through the medium of the consolidated fund ? They
already vainly attempted to obtain them through the courts of
law. Surely a treasury warrant for the amount was a better gua.
rantee for its payment than a writ of rebellion, the last weapon In
the armoury of the law, which had become rusty in the courts until It
was furbished up and sharpened for the service of the ministers
of peace.—(Cheers.) Let not the House imagine that the insecurity
of Tithe property had been confined to Ireland. In tide coun-
try, in the reign of Henry IV., the Commons went in a body
to the King, and addressed him by their Speaker in the 1131,
lowing words That the clergy possessed a third part of the
riches of the realm, and not doing the Xing any personal service, it was
but just they should contribute out of their revenues towards the
pressing necessities of the State; that it was evident the rielies of the
ecclesiastics made them negligent of their duty, and the lesseNieti of
their excessive incomes would be a double advantage to Church and
State," Sir John Oldcastle, afterwards Lord Cobham, brought in a
Bill to effectuate the object of this address four years afterwards this
question was renewed more warmly at the Parliament held at Leicester,
and would have been carried, only for the policy of Henry Chichely,
then Archbishop of Canterbury. During the Commonwealth, in 1652,
the question of Tithes was debated, and it was referred to a Committee
to consider how a convenient and competent maintenance foe the
Clergy might be settled in lieu of tithes. The ProPose4 ;treasure was
certainly more advantageous to the Church than the measurcl
brought forward by the Right Honettrable Baronet the Nitanber
for Launceston, or that of the Noble Lord the ;llember for
Lancashire. In Sir Henry Hardinge's projected Dili of 1835 then
clergyman was to receive 751. for every 1001. of tithe composition ; in
the present measure he was to receive 701. ; in both the tithe was pro-
posed to be redeemed.: In Sir H. Hardinge's bill 1,5001, was fixed as
the sum to be obtained by the Church for every lOW. of tithe composi-
tion which might be redeemed. By the present measure 1,6001.
would be paid for every 100/. by the State. Both projects were alike in
that the redemption money was to be invested in land or otherwise for
the benefit of the Church. It also agreed with the amended Bill pro-
posed by the Noble Lord opposite in 1836 in its principal features. The
clergy under that measure were to recover 72/. los. for every 1001. ;
but the Noble Lord calculated the redemption, taking the maximum
which might be expected to be obtained, at twenty years' purchase of
the rent.charge, which would only amount to 1,4501. for each 1001. of
tithe composition ; whereas, as he before stated, the clergy were now
to be paid 1,600/. by the State. In conformity with his Lordship's
plan the present one left the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to carry
the investment into effect ; but the present plan posf..ssed
the great superiority over both, that it secured to "lie incum.
bent the full amount of the rentseharge, which 'Tee to be paid to
him by the state. The Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire had always advocated the eetnlnutation of en:positions into rent.charges ;
their redemption and investment for the benefit of the Church : all of
whiols were provided for by these resolutions. The appropriation of
Church property to othor than Church purposes was not contained in
them. He should therefore consider they might fairly anticipate his
support. (The Honourable Member here read an extract from the speech ,of the Noble Lord in 1835, expressing the opinions he had attributed to
him.)lie would entreat them to adopt a measure which would put an end
to a long and fatal struggle, in which the honour due to religion, and
the revenues that ought to be paid to its Ministers, had been equally
impaired.

Lord STANLEY said—l should hardly have risen so early in
the debate, if the Honourable Gentleman who has just sat down
had not personally called on me; if he had not expressed it as his
thorough conviction, that, looking at the course I have pursued on
former occasions, looking at the sentiments which I have expressed,
and at the part which I have taken ; looking at the desire I
have always indicated, and which I still feel for a settlement of
this perplexing question of the revenues of the Church of Ire-
land on a safe, reasonable, and satisfactory basis, he might confidently
rely on my vote in favour of the resolutions now moved by her Majesty's
Government. Even if I were disposed to accede to those resolutions ;
even if I am—as I certainly am—disposed to consider them in the spirit
of candour, of fairness, and moderation; even if I am disposed to discuss
them with a desire to eome to A settlement--to discuss them with a view
not to force extreme opinions, or to press untenable points—the more I
arm disposed to come to such a discussion, the more I am convinced—and
Yet more and more from every speech I have heard in the course of this
night's debate—of the expediency, of the duty, of the necessity of ac-
ceding to the motion of my Hon, Friend the Member for North Devon-
shire.—(Opposition cheers,) For the motion of ray Hon. Friend is not,
as it has been represented, a peg to hang a factious vote upon—(Cries of
" Oh," from the Ministerial benches)—it is not an amendment—(The
cries of " Oh" continued, and answered by loud Opposition cheers)—it
is not an attempt to impede and to postpone for a year—nay, hardly for a
night—the discussion of the resolutions gf her Majesty's Ministers.—
(Hear.) If we had been disposed on this side of the House to take that
course, we should not have given you this evening the fatigue and the
weariness of listening to a protracted discussion, because in that case we
should naturally have moved the proposition of my Hon. Friend in Com-
mittee as en amendment, and as a substitute for the resolutions of the
Noble Lord : but it is because we have desired to avoid the possible
imputation of endeavouring to substitute my Hon. Friend's motion for
the resolutions of tlle Noble Lord, that we have taken this course, not
of moving an amendment to the resolutions, but of bringing forward a
proposition which was considered essential as a preliminary to an un_
derstanding on what terms and on what principles it is we are to act,—
(Cheers.) And I confess I am at this moment as much in the dark
with regard to the terms on which the question of appropriation
stands in the view of the Honourable Gentlemen on the other side of
the House, as I believe they are in a state of difllirence among them-
selves in what sense it shall be understood,—(Cheers,) I regret to observe
that I believe, and I am compelled to believe, that the resolutions of
the Noble Lord opposite have been carefully and artfully so flamed as
to enable him to say to the one party, "See, I maintain your principle
of appropriation," while to the other party he cam say, "You are raising
a factious opposition to a motion and to a resolution.—(The conclusion
of the sentence was lost in the cheers which burst from the opposition.)
The Noble Lord in the course of his speech spoke with considerable
bitterness as to the part taken by the Protestant clergy of Ireland on this
occasion, and taunted them with having considered that 15 per cent,
alone was the price at which the peace of Ireland was to be purchased.
Why, Was that a candid and fair way of stating the case P—(Cheers.)
When the clergy of Ireland say, " We submit to a deduction from our
incomes which the law awards us, and which we have an undoubted
right tet receive; we submit to a deduction of 15 per cent, from that which
we are entitled by law to receive"—is it fair in the Noble Lord to de_
clare that those clergy are so factious, are so grasping, are so insatiable,
that 15 per cent. sacrifice of their income is the price at which they
put the peace of Ireland ?—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord tells you that by
the law as it at present exists every landlord of Ireland has a right to
demand a deduction of 15 per cent., but surely the Noble Lord must
know that such is not the law. Surely the Noble Lord must know that
the power to which he alludes was limited in the first instance, by an
Act which I had the honour of introducing, to one single year, that It
was prolonged in the following Session for a period which has very long
expired, and that this is the posit:on in which the clergy and the land.
lords of Ireland stand at the present moment—by the lapse of time every
landlord is gradually becoming liable to the wiyment, not of 70, but of
100 per cent --,(llear.) When Hon, (gentlemen tell us that we will not
snake these deductions, having fox their object the relief of th.Z unhappy
and destitute peasantry of Ireland, I reply that we are ready to impose
any reasonable de.,iuction on the clergy. But the Noble Lord says that
the most kinfleir course is takers by the clergy of Ireland—that they are
he persons who are now interposing, and that they do so merely from a
grasping determination not to K\citsce the last farthing that they can
retain in their possessions, 'Ste Noble Lord has to-aight exhibited, I
must say, very real Ingenuity ; for he nag spoken on the question of
kppre,mtation for nearly two 'flours, and, at the end of speech,
IdetY any Honour
Clltieman in the House to ;ectermine whether,
in the mind the Noble Lord, the princi4;,le Of appropriation was or
not abandoned. The Honourr'„,-te Baronet, who spoke with gre.,t
force and earnestness on tie Same side, gave you in the Course of his
speech, a descriptiZm of the wretched mode in which the Roman
Catholic chapels have been crowded by persona who could not find no-
eunimodation in them, and asked if those pereons were to be com-
pelled to pay tithes of the 104 Protestant Church. What said the
Honourable Baronet ;I Why the legitimate concioston from his ohm-

V ition is this, that the poor Church being the majority ought to be the
c
rich Church—(No, no, from Sir W. Somerville);—that because the
rich Church is in the minority, you ought to transfer from the Chu • a
of the minority to the Church of the majority—(Renewed cries of
No, no, from Sir W. Somerville, answered by cries of Yes, yes, from
the Opposition.) If Honourable Gentlemen will be patient, and will
allow me, I think T can s' ow that the legitimate construction to be put
on what thellon. Baronet said is, ycu should take the property front
the Proestant Church, and snake it the property of the Caltmlig
Church of !Ireland —(No, nu.) The Honourable Baronet Says,
ha asked fur no such thing. " What we do ask for," says the Hen,
Baronet, " is this, that we should have the crumbs that fall from th 4
rich man's taste; that we should have applied to the purposes of tile.
Roman Catholics the surplus beyond what is wanted far the solLtutti
wants of the Protestants of Ireland." That is the tleillaw.: made by the
Hon. Baronet opposite, and, be it observed, after hearing the speecht
and after hearing the resolutions of the Noble Lord. My Hon.
Frlets'i on the opposite side who has just sat down has broadly and tee'inetly
n
declared that there is no principle of appropriation wllatarer in the ree
solutions of the Noble Lord which ars.
that the resolution of 1835 was not in Wow Lef(o.7, ih:e House. He S
attempted to be carr!ed isaga
nto
effect. The Noble Lord himself will hardly contend that it is. TN
resolution which Was passed in 1:,35 declared, that any surplus beyonl,
that which. *was requirea for the wants of the Protestant Church elould he devoted tO the purposes ofeducation, without any reference to the re-
ligloes persuasion of those who ware to he educated. A further resolu.
tion of the Noble Lord affirmed, that no plan could be Cited nor satisfac.
tory for the ssttlemeitt of the Tithe question, which did not embody that
resolution. These were the resolutions wit:eh the Noble Lord prepared he
1535. Now, the more that the Noble Lord proves that in his preserstreso.
lutions there is no principle of appropriation of the surplus, the more
necessary is it that the resolution of my Hoe. Friend the Hose Baronet
be agreed to—(Cheers)--and the resolutisn rescinded e.hieit denies the
possibility of a settlement of the tithe question without embodying in
it the appropriation principle.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord and the
lion. Gentlemen opposite are placed in this dilemma, and I defy thsetn
to get out of it. Either the resolutions now proposed include tae, jectionable principle of applying to secular purposes the revesiu'es of the
Church, or they do not. If they do, then it is a primeeep.,
e which the
Noble Lord is perfectly aware that Gentlemen sitting sin's' this side of
the House never will give their assent to. He snow; that no proposi-
tion founded upon such a erinciple can lead So a tettlemcnt of the tithe
question.—(Hear.) If, then, the reso'.:dtions do not include that appro_
ha alaseed, then, that this is
priation principle, and the Noble L
:.srd has declared that they do not, he
s a settlement which does net contain a
e 1„, already
avowed that it can be neither
principle without which la
satisfactory nor final_ (Cheers ) Is it, then, too much to ask of the
Noble Lord, when lie invites us to an amicable settlement, to beg of him
at once net, to stultify himself as well as us.—(Hear.) lie has laid
down In a resolution that there can be no satisfactory settlement with-
out a certain principle being agreed to. We ask of him to rescind a
a resolution which .declares that': the settlement he is now proposing
cannot be final, The Honourable Gentleman who has last spoken, has
Certaiely started an unexpected difficulty in this matter, and one which
cannot easily he got rid of. The Honourable Gentleman has said that
he did not think that it was open for us to rescind the principle of ap-
propriation, for if we did rescind the principle of Lord John Russell,
yet there must still remain the Act of Richard IL, in which that prin-
ciple is enforced. Now, I tell the Honourable Gentleman I am quite
willing and quite prepared to split the difference with him, if he will
consent to rescind Lord John Russell's resolution. I am prepared to give
hint all the benefit of the statute of Richard IL—(Laughter.) Then
the only reason that the Noble Lord can hare for maintaining his former
resolution is, that there is some distinction between them and one of the
resolutions to which I wish nowt° call the attention of the House, and of
which he or his friends may on a fitter occasion turn to serviceable purpose,
The sixth resolution runs thus :—" That it is the opinion of the Coin_
mittce, that the rent charges for ecclesiastical tithe should be appro-
priated by law to certain local charges, now defrayed out of the Conso-
lidated Fund, and to education, the surplus to form part of the Conso-
lidated Fund." I very well know that, upon an examieation into this
resolution, that it will not be found to contain the appropriation prin.. ciple. I know that it is the mere imposition of a new charge upon the
Consolidated Fund. I know that the rent-charges are to come into one
hand of the Consolidated Fund, and that they are to be paid out of the
Consolidated Fund with the other. This was the plain and manifest
oisject and intention of the resolution, and I cannot see the necessity for
wrapping it up in the words which are to found in the sixth resolution,
It is merely intended that the Consolidated Fund shall certainly pay, es
it does now, and that a charge shall certainly be applied to the emre,oses
of Irish education. But why does the Noble Lord use a forln of words
which cover the appropriation principle? Is it to satisfy, to gull.
or to delude those who honestly support that eetneiple ?—(Hear,
hear.) Is it to " keep the word of promise to the ear, and break it
to the sense?"—or is it for the purpose of preserving it for some
ulterior step to be brought forward, and vitien it may be declared that
there shall be an appropriation of Chu' ch property to secular purposes ?
—is it, that the Noble Lord, may to tilde to point to this resolution, and
tell those who sit on this side ef the. House, " You on a former ucca.
sion consented to the rent-charges being made applicable to the
maintenance of the police, and to the bestowal of education in Ire.
laud, and do you now pretend to raise a question upon the principle of
the appropriation of ecclesiastical revenues to secular objects ?"
(Hear, hear.) I cannot divest my mind of the decided improssioir
that it was for the purpose of entrapping gentlemen upon this side
of the House, by their being honestly convinced that the appro.
prietiee principle was not contained in these resolutions, that this re.
%elution has been put into a form of words of which use might here.
after be made.--(Loud cries of " Oh, oh I" froni Members on the 'NIL
piste/eat benches.) #s these resolutions are now proposed, are they, I
Ask, prepared In Ireland to adopt them as a final settlement of
the question ? The Honourable Member for Dublite, after these re.
solutions appeared, published, as he is wont, an a'ldress to the people
of Ireland respecting them. He declared that he assented to much
that was in the resoluticns ; he declared, too, ~ls readiness to assent to
them for the'sake of peace, while he objected to some of them; but
this, he said, was the great recommendation to him of the resolutions,
that the plan contained in them did Milne' to him tne ground.work and
the basis for further reductions, arlt contained es Principle which might
be advantageously carried ont.—(Hear, hessr.) The Noble Lord has
retbrred to an engagement which. had beet) entered into. lam not dis.
posed to Swerve from ally engagement. The Noble Lord has stated
that a Noble Duke had, ln another place, intimated last year his willing-
ness to colittielee this end another party question connected with Ireland
on a plleolple of mutual concession, and neither party insisting upon
extreme views, The Noble Lord. indeed, has told us, that when he
consented to postpone the Corporation question until after the Tithe
Bill and the Poor-law had been disposed of, that he could not behave
that the Noble Duke would have offered opposition to his Tithe yesolu.
tion. Now, a wond or two as to the eroceedings of the Noble I,ord upon
those questions. Does the Noble Lord recollect that before the Easter re-
cess my Right I lon. Friend the Member for Tamwortls suggested to him
the extreme necessity of postponing the Municipal Bill lentil the question
of tithes was dis Posed of, and when the Noble Lord 'appeared to hesitate
as to that course, he gave notice that he would Tesake a motion, that the
question (that of tithes) should take prece:tenee of the other; and
about a week after that time the Noble Lord acted on the suggestion of
my Right Honourable Friend, but even while acting upon it took dis-
tinct care to inform the House te,at he was by no means acting in con_
sequence of that recornmendeaton from my Right Honourable Friend--
(Cries of " No, no.") Is was present at the time. The Noble Lord
dud postpone the esaestion until after Easter. He certainly allowed the
and the other Bill to take precedence of it. The
Municipal Bill en rest,
Noble Lorel declared that he did not act in accordance with the sugges-
tion my Honourable Friend.—(Cries of " Nu, no.") I state this
from my own recollection; but, however, I do not wish to press this
point, for it is not one of very great importance. But then the Noble
Lord has spoken of an agreement or understanding being entered into
or implied by the Duke of Wellington. This is a matter of too much
importance, on account of the high station which the Noble Duke de.
servedly holds with his country—(Hear, hear)—that there should be
no misunderstanding with respect to his expressions
—(Hear, hear.)
And I now ask the Noble Lord, will he pretend to tell me that the
Duke of Wellington, at any time, or under any circumstarsees, held out
the hope that he would be a party to any agreement l'a which it was
stipulated that the appropriation clause should be persevered in
(Loud cheers.) If an agreement were come to noon this question, must
not the very basis of that agreement be the abandonment of the appro-
priations clause ?—(Cheers)—and if it lee abandoned, as it seems to be
implied it is, by abandoning these eesolutions, then I say that the manly,
the straightforward, and the frank way of abandoning it would be, not
to bring in ambiguous resolutions, which may be tortured into one shape
or into another, but to come forSvard and to say frankly, " We wish to
settle this question, and, relying upon the honour of a noble personage,
who has stated his wish to have it settled, we are anxious to join him in
doing so ; and in order that he may be sure we mean exactly to fulfil the
compact, we, with that understanding with him, frankly rescind a rests-
lutiOn which stands in the way of a fair and just settlement of the
question."—(Cheers.) Does the Noble Lord pretend not to know the
beneficial effects which the rescinding of that resolution would. have?
Does he not know that the minds of the clergymen of Ireland will be
disturbed, and their fears excited, as long as he keeps that resolution
hanging over their heads, and that rescinding it, they would consent
to a settlement proposed by him, even though the greatest pecuniary
sacrifices might fall upon (item ? Does he not know that the greatest
objection to the introduction of the Municipal Bill into Ireland rests
upon this ? for before that measure is consented to, it is desired to see
greater security given to the Church. The Noble Lord declines to
withdraw his resolution. It remains then over the heads of the clergy;
it fetters legislation, and it places a vast gulf between him and us ; for
it may lead to and facilitate ulterior views. The Noble Lord has
much misrepresented the position of the clergy of Ireland. It is their
interest that the settlement of the question may be suspended. It is so
considered. I have to remind the Noble Lord, that for the pecuniary
interests of the clergy, if their conscientious feelings were not excited,
that the inducement for them to come to a settlement must, year after
year, become with them snore and more feeble. The sacrifice which
they are called upon to make of their just rights, must, year after year,
become less ; while upon those who have to pay tithe, those upon, whom
the payment of tithes devolves, roust every year become greater. The
Noble Lord has not the means for the settlement of this question without
the assent of the body of gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House.
Some years ago he held out the threat of starving the clergy. He knows
the wants that have been inflicted upon them, and they now prefer
having the legislation all in their own hatels. Year after year they are
coming into the peaceable possession of their rights, and they request to
be let alone. This is their desire—.l think unwisely : for I desire an im.
mediate settlement ; but, for e'ne purpose of a settlement, I never can
consent to the recommendation, the adoption, or the renewal of a prin.
ciple which I feel to be vicious and intolerable.—(Cheers.) And the
Noble Lord treats with contempt the idea of an abstract resolution being
made to stop a great measure; nay, lie has even talked of my Hon.
Friend belog actuated by factious motives—(Laughter and sheers)—and
also of his being instigated by his diocesan.—(Laughter.) The
Noble Lord has expressed his wonder at an abstract question pre,
venting the passing of a great measure, and he has cavilled at it, as in..
tended to do that which it is not, to effect a political change—nay, even
the Noble Lord has sneered at the occurrence of a political dinner oc.
curring shortly before such an abstract question being introduced.—
(Laughter.) Whatever validity there may be in these &ejections it Is
certainly not from the Noble Lord that I expected to hear them.--.
(Hear, and laughter.) The Noble Lord cannot have forgotten that of
which the Hon. Member for Roscommon has reminded the House, that
the resolutions which are now before the House are very much in sub-
stance the same as the Bill proposed by the Right Hon. and Gallant
Member for Launceston, when Secretary for Ireland, and, therefore,
that nothing could be more unfair, when there is a question before the
Ilouse of which it has acknowledged the importance, that it should be
opposed by an abstract reselution. I give to the Noble Lord the full
benefit of that argument, 'though the resolution of 1835 had the effect,
not the intention, ei course, of overthrowing the Administration._
(Cries of Heaes, hear," and laughter,) That resolution, which
was an abstract resolution, and which was made to precede and
prevent an unobjectionable measure—l say an unobJection.
able, measure, because it Old not contain that principle which the,
Govermnent measure does not now contain either.—(Cheers.) That ilk.
solution preceded or followed a political dimmer, and that resolution w,,t,
an abstract resolution; whereas this, so far from being an abst,-,act rem.
lution, is one that it is most desirable to debate for the purseose of show-
ing how necessary it is to remove an encumbrance out eg our way; for
it is impossible to come to a satisfactory decision trees the Tithe ques-
tion with-the resolution of the NeOle Lord Woe, us. I tut one declare
that I am for a vettlement of the 'tithe question, if that resolution be
rescinded. I am rese'iy forthwith to enter into a discussion of the
Sioble Lord's resoheions, and with every disposition to snake every fair
concessiTh to the Noble Lord. And what I desire, and what I have al.
expressed my desire to do, and which I shall now do, is this—l
shall
to bring the question to a satisfactory settle.
r)t g
settlement satisfactory with respect to the principles
meat; not
but, ceaseth e 'b
of justice and of truth.
Lord MORPT/1-1 know how great and utter must be my disad.
vantage
present myself to follow the Noble Lord who has just
a
/ix purr, et impar congressur ;" but if anything
could have diminished thin feeling on my part, or if there be any ques...
sclt :fen Lh/enn;
tdon on which I could have followed the Noble Lord with less hesitg.