The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARL ANIENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock,
VAGRANT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Vagrant Act Amend-
ment Bill sv,s read a third time and passed.
HIGHWAY RATE BILL.
Lord PORTMAN moved the secrnd reading of the Highway Rate
Bill. Although he approved of the principle cf the Bill, ytt he was
afraid their Lordships would not consent to its details, Indeed, he be.
lieved the Bill in its present shape, was such as no Quarter Session could
carry it into etfact. If their Lordshiws, therefore, by allowing the Bill
to be read a second time, approved of its principle, he should move that
the Bill be committed this day six months, and that would enable the
parties to introduce a Bill next Session similar in principle, but less ot-
jectionable in its details.
The Marquis of SALISBURY thought that after what had been very
candidly stated by the Noble Lord, their Lordships would agree with him
in thinking they ought to oppose the further progress of the Bill. His
opinion was, the Government ought to introduce some such measure.
After a few observations from Lord DACRE and Lord WHARNCLIFfE,
urging the postponement of the Bill,
Lord PORTMAN withdrew the Bill, stating that he should intro-
duce a similar measure next Session.
The Administration of Justice (New South Wales) Bill was read a
third time and passed,
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented petitions for the better ob-
servance of the Lord's Day, from Sidmouth, Kilmington, Axminster,
Kingsbridge, and several other places; also a petition for the abol.tion
of negro slavery, from Great Shelford, Cambridgeshire.
Lord COLCHESTER presented a petition praying that all able.bodied
paupers might be allowed to attend Divine worship in their parish church
on Sundays.
On the motion of Lord LANGD ALE, a Bill simplyfing the law relat-
ing to the devise of estates, was read a second time.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the Rev. M. Tay.
lor, Bachelor of Divinity of St. John's College, Oxford, and Rector of
Woodstock, Upper Canada, praying for the support of .the Established
Church in Canada. The petition was entitled to great weight, not
only as coming from that gentleman individually, but as being the
delegate of a great number of the Clergy of Upper Canada.
Lord GLENELG said it was his wish, as it was his duty, to support
the interests of the Established Church in Canada as much as possible.
_ _

The Bishop of EXETER rejoiced that this petition had been pre-
sented by the Noble Lord. It was the duty of a Christian Go.
vernment to its colonies to see that the Protestant Church was
supported there, more especially when that Government had encouraged
thousands to emigrate from their native land to those colonies
Great responsibility attached to the Government. Under such circum-
stances that responsibility was of a nature as should almost make them
tremble.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
IDOLATROUS WORSHIP IN INDIA.
Mr. EXERSON TENNENT presented a petition from the Wes.
leyan Methodists of Belfast, praying for the abolition of idolatrous wor.
ship in India.
Mr. LOWTHER presented a petition from York on the same subject.
Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Briscoe, from Westbury; Mr.
Somers, from Sligo; and Mr. Etwall, from Andover.
Mr. ETWALL presented a petition from Andover, praying for the
abolition of Church-rates ; and another from the magistrates of the same
neighbourhood„against the Beer-shop system.
Sir F. TRENCH presented a petition from Scarborough, complaining
that the offerings made in idolatrous worship found their way into
the coffers of the East India Company.
Sir E. WILMOT presented a petition from the poor of the Pershore
Union, comploining of not being able to attend public worship on a
Sunday in consequence of the orders of the guardians of that union, and
praying the House to repeal that part of the Poor Law Act, under which
the guardians exercised so unconstitutional a power.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from St. Giles's, Camberwell,
against the alienation of Church property. Also a petition from St.
George's, Camberwell, praying the House to take into its consideration
the state of the Church of Lower Canada.
Mr. FIELDEN presented several petitions from places in the North of
England, praying for a Ten Hours Factory Bill. The first that the Hon.
Member presented was from 26 master manufacturers of Lancashire,
who collectively work up not less than three per cent. of all the cotton
consumed in England, and whose petition stated that from their own ob-
servation they could bear testimony to the truth of the assertions of Mr.
Richards, that the present state of the labourers in the mills is
a " state of thraldom ;" and justice to them requires an Aet
to be passed, prohibiting labour in factories beyond ten hours
per day. Another from 1,228 inhabitants of Stockport, cow.
plaining of the long hours of work, and praying for a ten hours'
Bill. These petitioners, however, express their want of confidence in
the Parliament, seeing that it had often turned a deaf ear to their corn.
plaints respecting English children, while the "full grown and athletic
blacks, at many thousand miles distance, can find more favour at the
hands of a refcrmed Parliament than the children of your pe-
titioners, amongst whom many Members of your Honourable
House reside, and not a few of whom have increased their wealth by
the toil of the children of your petitioners."--(Hear.) From the town
of Hudderfield, in public meeting assembled, signed by the Chairman, a
petition praying that the education elausesof the present Fact( ry Act may
be retained, and an uniform Ten-hours Bill passed; from a Public Meeting
at Hyde, a petition praying for a ten-hours Bill, signed by the Chairman,
from the inhabitants of Elland, Yorkshire, concluding with the same
prayer, and praying also that the Bill may be extended to silk and lace
factories ; a petition signed by four individuals, on behalf of the hand.
loom weavers of Manchester, praying for a ten.hours Bill; from Ashton-
under-Lyne, praying for the same, and that it may extend to silk and
lace mills; from Todmorden, assembled in public meeting, a petition
signed by the Chairman, praying for the same.
Mr. GILLON presented petitions against further grants for addi-
tional Church accommodation in Scotland. Also many peltions from
Surrey, Sussex, and Essex, praying that the grievous taxation upon in-
ternal communication by postage might be reduced.
Mr. E J. STANLEY presented a petktion against the Government
sanction to idolatry in India.
Mr. PA RKEIt presented a petition to a similar effect from Sheffield.
Captain JONES presented a petitions from the county of Londonderry
on the subject of national education.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the Bolton and Leigh
Railway Company against the Mails by Railways Bill; also two petitions
from the Mayor and Corporation of Liverpool against certain provisions
the Imprisonment for Debt Bid; and a petition from the Town
pea of Liverpool, protesting against certain provisions in the Pri-
sOtle Bill, now berme the Ilouse, by which they would be deprived of
the power of appointing the officers of the gaol.
Mr. WA RBU ItTON presented a petition from Bridpoet against
!Endo° processions.
Sir F. TRENCH postponed his motion which stood for Monday, relit.
tive to the reward for the discovery of Offenders in Ireland, to Tuesday.
The Prisoners' Bill was read a third time and passed.
In answer to Sir J A NIES GRAHAM,
Sir G. GREY said it was his intention to proceed with the East India
Labourers' Bill, as he conceived that there were many provisions in it
open to great objection, as it would stop the importation of coolies by
those who were conscientious, and legalize the traffic of those not so
circumstanced. It would net, therefore, effect the object intended to be
caroled out by,the House. The object of the Government was to prevent
the parties being defrauded by improvident contracts made in the East
Indies, made between parties, one of whom had full knowledge of what
that contract should be, and the other was quite unprotected. It w: s
questionable if it was competent to prevent absolutely the emigration of
the Hindoo labourers, many of whom were in a state of g eat poverty. It
was intended, however, to make such contract: void, except within the
limits of the colenies where entered into, and with the sanctien of the
stipendiary magistrates, who would still be continued, though the sped
tt
magistrates would not,after the expiration of the appreetict ship system ;
and the duration of the contracts was also to be limited.
Mr. O'CONNELL asked if the Government had received an Art of
the Assembly of St. Vincent's, " for the suppressif n of combination,
avd the settling disputes between roaster and servant'—an Act which
oppeared greatly to trench upon the advantages of negro freedom; and
it se, whether the Government intended to sanction it ?
Sir G. GREYreplied—He had received such an Act a few days ago;
and he did not anticipate t hat the Government would agree to it.—(Hear.)
Sir It. PEEL said the question was, if it were quite clear whether the
Governorlir.Council in India could legally prevent the emigration of
native libido° labourers from India ?
Sir GEORGE GREY raid, on that point he most reserve himself
until his Hon. Friend (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) was present.
Sir J. 6 it A HA M enquired what was the intention of the Government
with iespect to the Hill Coolies in Guiana ?
Sir, GEORGE GREY was understood to say that it was intended to
issue an Order its Council which would in all the Crown colonies invali.
to all contracts made by the nati%es of India or Africa, unless those
contracts were made after a certain time.
Mr. NV Alt BUR I'o N enquired if any answer had been received to
the return moved for by him, whether under the ex sting law of Guiana
the Magistt ales had the power to enforce such contracts ?
Sir G. Gil CV raid there was on the table of the House the opinion
of the Attorney-General, stating that they had such a power.
Mr. M`I.E.A N enquired what course would be pursued by Govern.
went, with regard to the Special Magistrates, where the negroes had
been tmaticip.,ted ?
sir GEORGE GREY said heir jurisdiction would cerise with the Bill
under which t'teir special appointments were made. But the Governor
would be authorised by the Government to retain the services of as many
as might be deemed necessary. It was al,o the intention of the Go-
vernment to propose some plan with regard to Stipendiary Magistrates.
Sir R PEEL said that upon the point of the Hill Coolies, consider-
ing the advanced period of the Session, be felt it to be his duty to put
one point to the Hon and Learned Gentleman. If he proposed to drop
the Bill for the regulation in this respect, and cou'd give security f r
two years that there should he a prohibition of ,the practie e
of importing Credit's, he, for on:., would support I i n ; b•it then he
must have a full guarantee that the Govern°, s in Council ha' the le-
gal ; oeer. If there was any doubt on the subject, ti.eo tie must re-
quire that an At t should be passed giving the Governs r in Council full
power to intbree the prohibition.
Sir G .6 REY did not understand if any doubt existed that it would be
suffered to remain
Mr. I%l' LEAN wished to know whether any steps had been taken to
alter the judicature in the West Indies.
Sir G. GREY said that great alterations in the system of the judica-
ture of that country had been proposed, and all that was wanted was
U. E
leaveST I OtN
e.
Chair upon the House
h
funds to carry those alterations into effect.
On
ridASHLEYo a
thet
c motionmmo Committee
of
tobring
thatitrt ske
t.l.eC
FACTORY
,SpeakerOßl " Q
d Supply,
L g n
in his long.threatened motion on the
Factory Question; and as the question was one of great and paramount
g i
importance, he trusted he would be favoured with the patience and at.
tentien of the House.—(Hear, bear.) Nothing would have in-
duced him to take the course that he was then pursuing but a
deep sense of its necessity.—(Hear, hear.) He was sorry to do so,
but had he not taken such an opportunity, no other offering, he would
have doubted of his own sincerity—at all events, that sincerity would
have been doubted by those who had instrusted to hint their dearest
and best interests. The question was one of extreme importance, for
by returns made up only to 1825, it appeared that the persons
actually employed in the mills and• factories of the kingdom,
amounted to no less a number than 354,640. The nom_
ber of persons, engaged in the carious branches of the cotton
trade was not much less than 4,000,000, of whom about 55 per cent.
were females. Since I Sl6, the period when this subject first was
brought prominently before the Legislature and the country,
the labour of children between the ages of nine and fourteen had

Cour

tidily of Birmingh an and that of Manchester. He (Lord Ash-
ley) had submitted this statement to the same Actuary, and the following
was th, frightful and disgusting result. In Birmingham one.lialf the
population attained their sixteenth year, while in Manchester
cne half the population died within the first three years. It appeared,
therefore, that the value of life was much greater in Birmingham than
in Manchester, arising in part, no doubt, from the superiority of its
geographical pc sition, but mainly from the superior nature
rf the employment, and the better habits of the workmen.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Ashley) stated these elates to form
justif.cation in endeavouring to impress on the House some notion
of the vital interests involved in this question. What was the state of
their morals in those districts ? No less than. 6) clergymen had de-
e aced the-vicious and awful condition of those places, and that there was
seereely any hope of imparting anything like moral or religious educa-
tion. In 1835, petitiore were• presented from f.'oo Sunday school
toaehersto the eeme effect. Sheriff Aliison, in his view of the slate of
Glasgow stated that a limitation of the hours of labour was necessary.
He then was asked whether he censidered a limitat ion of labour would
better their condition, to which he replied certainly; and added that
nothing could be done without it. That was r.othing snore nor less
than the fulfilment of the prophesy of the late Sir Robert Peel, that un-
less something was done the great efforts by which the manufactories
of the country had be n brought to their present state, instead of being
a ble.sing, would prove a curse. Did the Noble Lord really think this
question could be evaded ? Did he think it would be forgotten by the
people, because it was not listened to in that House?—;Cheers.) The
evils were increasing daily and hourly, and unless something was done it
would be impossible to master it. He wished to enter into this matter as if
the Ten Hours' Bill had not passed. A law had been introduced and
passed by the present Government, and what he wished to know was,
whether the Government would give him a full and final answer with
iespect to that law. If it were a good law, would they keep it
up ; if it were defective, would they amend it; and if bail,
would they repeal it ?—(Loud cheers.) The history and state of
the law was this—in 1833 lie (Lord Ashley) introduced a Bill
called the Ten Hours' Bill that measure met with the
confidence of the country; and Government found something must
be done—they therefore rejected his Bill, and brought forward
a measure of their own. The Government gained the applause of tne
country by snaking their Bill more humane in appearance—by in-
troducing clauses imposing upon the mill.owners the obli-
gation of allowing children two hours every day in the week
for education.—(Hear.) These clauses immediately caught the
mpathy of the public, but these very clauses were the very first to be
systema'ically violated to the full knowledge of the Government. The
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) shook his head But was it at all
possible that the Government could remain in utter ignorance
of the fact—could they believe that the law was generally or even par.
tially obeyed throughout the country? Why, even in August, 1834,
only seven months after the Bill came into operation, Mr. Richards
the Inspector for the populous district of Lancashire, stated that
the law was systematically and openly violated—that the Act was made
a jest of, and unless they were armed with power to carry it out,
the office of inspector would be an useless one. He (Lord Ash.
ley) would not make out his case from any documents but the public re-
ports, made four times a year to the Hotne.office by their own inspectors.
Mr. Howell had also reported that it was quite im-
possible, without some further powers, to carry the educa
tion and labour clauses into effect; and in a joint report of
all the Inspectors stated that unless further aid was afforded
them their exertions would be utterly useless. In 1836, Mr. Horner
reported that the determination of Parliament, that no child under
the age of thirteen should work more than forty-eight hours
weekly had been grossly violated, and would continue to be so
until the Inspectors had greater powers than they at present
possessed. Notwithstanding all their complaints ne proposition had
been made to Parliament for further assistance to the inspectors.
No doubt the Noble Lord might within the last few weeks have re-
ceived letters from the factory districts stating that the law was better
observed. But was this a state of things to be permitted to continue ?
He admitted that if this. House was to sit during the twelve
months, and allow him to make a motion every week,
the law might be observed without additional powers; but
no sooner would the House separate than every enormity
would begin again. In April, 1838, Mr. Horner said there was a great
intention to exclude the superintendents from the factories, and if they
were excluded (which the mill.owners had a perfect right to do), the law
could not be enforced. What a state of the law was this I He did not mean
to make any charge in disparagement of the superintendents and inspee,-
tors. Their zeal and diligence were greater than their powers. But the
House would allow him to show in a few details the mischievous and
shameful operation of the Bill. By the 31st clause of that Act, the
Magistrates had power to mitigate the penalties imposed on conviction ;
Now, to what extent had the Magistrates carried that into effect? Why,
to such an extent as to neutralise the force of the law. Mr. Horner said in
his report,speaking of the Magistrates, that they instead of visiting offences
in a proper manner, treated them with such lenity as to lead to a
future violation of the law; so that the disreputable mill-owner
lo ked only to the amount of the penalty and the amount of labour,
and on casting up his accounts he found it much more profitable to
evade than obey the law.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) If such abuses
existed, surely it was the duty of the Noble Lord to do all in his
power to correct it. As a necessary consequence of this, let Hon.
Members look at the state of convictions between the Ist May, 1836,
and the Ist of January, 1837 ; between those periods there were 822
onvictions, the greater part being for over-working children without
surgeons' certificates. What would tl • House think when he had told
theta the nature of the offences, when he stated what the average penal.
ties were, 21. ss. ? Between 1837 and 1838 the convictions were 800.
The average of the penalties during the last year was 11. 10s.
But could the House doubt for a moment that one hour's work
of these poor children was more profitable for the mill-
owner than the paltry fine ? Of course, if he employed
one for an extra hour he employed one hundred; and so the mer.
ciless griping ruffian would obtain more out of these poor wretched
creatures, than would pay five hundred such trifling penalties.
By the returns before the House, it appeared that throughout tile
whole of Scotland, so far as the Inspectors were aware, the Act
was obeyed, for three years there bad been no prosecution. It
was, however, well known that the number of prosecutioes was no
criterion of the number of offences in consequence of the difficulty
of detection, and the immense difficulty of finding evidence. The
House would hear with surprise that mill owners, sitting upon the
Bench as Magistrates, adjudicated their own cases. There weae certainly
many honourable and bright exceptions, both in and out of the House
—and among these he would mention the Hon. Member for Derby
(Mr. Strutt). Mr. Howell stated that magistrates, being millowners,
after countersigned the certificates, en masse, instead of individually
examining each ; and still further went on to say, " As if to exem-
plify the futility of the counter-signature of the Magistrates
to the certificate of the surgeon, many cases had occurred in which
manufacturers, being magistrates, countersigned their certiffeates tar
their own factory children, and it tvos not uncommon for Justices,
who there mill owners, to reciprocate this conduct, signing the cer.
tificates for each other. Cases had occurred of Magistrates deciding as to
their own sons, and tenants, and their own brothers; in every such case
the penalty awarded being the very lowest authorized by the Act.
And now let the House bear in mind that this state of things had :resets
ghnost entirely from the practices introduced by this Act. He had Le.
fore him a case taken from the report of convictions, and there were
gentlemen in the House who could contradict him if he was wrong.
On the 10th December, 1836, an information wt.s laid against a certain
millowner. The resistance to it, and the manner in which it was met
yadteh ei
tmtahgei s isruabt
subject
t aopipe.
aa rsedpectioal Arierp.olrtl o. r n eTtio, e
rhee sv.o. e
rflea gmr ty,m et
hh
aa tr
ghee.
of which he had selected three. The first was that of em-
ploying 29 children for more than nine hours a day; the secend,
for employing children without Surgeon's certificates ; the third fur em.
ployin,g twenty.two children more than twelve hours. Before whom
was this case tried ? Before three Magistrates, who were all of them
mill-owners. The whole amount of penalties in that case, had they
been awarded, would hate been 1601., and what did the House think was
the amount imposed for so flagrant a case ? It was reduced to
171.—(Hear, hear)—which he (Lord A.) would venture to say was not
the result of 10 minutes' labour of the children, whom he had overworked
f.l s veral hours. And this was the way in which this Act was c .rried
T 1 e whole amount of the penal Les imposed on these inlilowners
sine the Act came into opetation, was 4,4401.—( Hear, hear.)
E y tie regul. ti in of the inspectors, every child taking a certifi-
cei e, was bound to pay six pence fur his trouble.—(Hear.)
N w what did the House think has been levied during the same period
of ti:i.a upon the wages of all the children under 14 years of age ?
Why, a sum not much under 12,0001., and their it was to •be re.
of
g amt emred too,
protection,for affordedthe furthercertificates oofpposurgeons, s which, instead
of
If that certificate so to be taken out was given to the child eang,gtrleisesiii°ll.
should not complain ; but when it was given to the master, and
iecaine the instrument of the child's oppression, the law suffer-
lig such a state of things to exist, it was tyrannicel and vicious.
—(Loud cheers.) Such being the case, was it wonderful that
the working classts should be discontented, and hold in contempt
the makers of the law, its vindicators, and the law itself. The educa-
tion thus, s were slut observed in one fiftieth of the mills ; and where
the. e was a formal compliance to them the schooling given st as a cum.
;dote mockery.—(Cries of " Hear, bear.") The Bill that was in.
traduced by the Noble Lord, and so very suddenly withdrawn, pointed
out the defect., of the existing Act. He desired to see
that Bill introduced, because although it had many objections.yet
theme was a great deal in it that was good ; it would give
activity to the present law, and that was effecting something.
that ear ahfch had now to be passed in ignorance and suffering, might
bore been passed as a year of happiness and moral and religious educe.
ti. n.
The Noble Loot, however, thouglit otherwise. To leave the law
ainendrnint of tuht
as it stood was unjust, as the cede' was made the sufferer ; it
e‘,vvailtiy)siehquclnihililliydsru:n6nj,ust to the homiest rnill.owner who wished to obey the
ileildelea(wri‘:b‘..iuct:letuaonrre.eniiti,feaablgreiouwiegeto:f ift'srmwaosutiesaseillitiiiaLl
mote than 12 huerief het BM wt carried bPeronhliyi'aitedin:jrtybc=e7,
worked
an
inducedthe G. v ena.etit eithuraw the Bill,at the same time' giving provisions
f.iiiorrat the
assurance—a pledge as strong as c iuld be made that the provisions of
the law should be strictly euforeed. How was that pledge redeemed ?
—by an imm diate and mopstreus violation of the law. The Noble
Lard laughs—
Lord J. RUSSELL—It is a'isurd.
Lc ri ASHLEY was very sorry ; but he had to repeat the statement,
fo I was true. The Act resulted that bef. r a child could work 12 hours
a day, there must be a ceaticete in p Tot Viet the child's age was 13.
N.vtlelstairgee;trah anti
dit wasa.actuail.yati,el: ~ If younprohiteci find a fromchildask i
whomngqries you
aboutie g
keow with certainty to be not more than twelve
wssffttitrh,:irocoreetemv,
rdrhiiiecrg:reeyttew:
because
wererfcerlteein,
to
stituf,dgheosi
eetu:oatw,:lti;thfedithpoileh
ae:e;e:ti
standard
appearance
ha:agw:
oriuneni
ucgds years
of age, with such extraordinary development as to le of the ordinary
e
br'tfedoleit:trhcbuhlaeaosfe3netoeurd:drhr
m.
tlYefohli
lire:l:a
d,tmehhwiowaeeui
height,mral
shown. 1
es
u,ou„ • eieenrmailett:uBhestino:wbftti
they
enhtwedprooyysvte:hwaew: the mills.
,echliedrtnei
hel
children
word " thirteen" in the certifi ate.—(Cries of " Hear, hoer.")
with
d
ho
rs
oprl
impossible rsusep.ivanit:ii
elatnnto transferredtote,
fehhc hisehes-r,
e
had been made on the sueject to the Government in vain. The Act was so
grossly imperfect that it could not be carried out,
the inspectors to enforce its provisions. The Noble I.ord concluded by
moving that the House deeply regretted that . the law affecting
the regulation of the labour of children In factories having been
build imperfect and ineffective to the purpose for which it was
missed had been suffered to continue so long without any amendment.
(LEFT SITTING).

SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GA-
ZETTE.

Even'ng has been
A Supplement to the " London Gazettee" of this
received, containing a long List 01 Promotions, w hick came too late to
save the pest.

IMPERIA L PARLIAMENT.

:HOUSE OF COMMONS, .7-um- 19.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. El ITM E gave notice of motions for returns of the per-
sons confined for Contempt of the Court of Chancery, and
„l=o of money expended for public eorks.
TITHES (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Speech coet;nued from Last 7.17.
Night's S, c ind
S;r R. PEEL—That is the Hon. Gentleman's own con.
clueee.—( Hear, hear.) Tee question was, that the sum of
million shoi,l.l b ~iv.iizerd foe do' relief of the Irish elei
and I voted suupnrt et the gr,itt., and not against it ee
appear-; h the Ihti of the division. The numbers were—
" Ayes" 87, and " Noes" 54, and I find the name of the
Member for Kilkenny among the .‘ Noes," and the name
of the Member for Tamworth among the " Ayes," so that ac-
cording to this evidence I voted for the advance, and there-
fore cannot now be inconsistent in the course which I have
felt it my duty to pursue.—( Hear, bear.) It is perfectly true,
Sir, I did say at the time that I had no expectation that atiy
portion of this money would be repaid, end I think if I am
not very much mistaken, I also said that if the advances
were to be paid back at all, the Irish people were the parties
by whom the payments ought to be made. This, Sir, is the line
of conduct which I then adopted, and I will now ask the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny whether lie will tell me that there
is the slightest inconsistency between the course I then pur-
sued and the proposition which I made to this House the
other night?—( Hear, bear.) The question, however, now is,
how are we to deal with the arrears of tithes which have be-
come due ? We are bound to meet the question of arrears
fairly, and, as I said the other night, I can make a clear dis-
tinction between -those arrears which are covered by the
640,000/., and those which are not included in that sum.
Now, Sir, I do say that it would be utterly unjust to attempt
to recover any part of the arrears covered by the 640,000/.,
after the course you have taken—after bringing in Acts of
Parliament, as you have done, remitting altogether the lia-
bility of the occupying tenants as regards those arrears.—
( Hear, hear.) But what will the consequence of such a
course be? Why, that you will enable the parties to enforce
the payment of all arrears even previous to ;933. You sanc-
tioned the remission of the arrears in respect of which advances
have been made, and yet you now take a course which will
compel the Clergy and lay impropriators, in order to repay
what they have received, to recover how they can, arrears
due so long back as five years since. How, I ask you, in
common consistency, can you place them in such a position ?
I say you cannot. Sir, I, for my own part, feel confident
that Parliament never will impose upon the Treasury the un-
generous and unjust task of enforcing the repayment of the
money which has been advanced under the Million Act.—
( Hear, hear.) Is it not clear that as regards the last instal-
ments, you can have no remedy? You may insist upon the
payment of the quinquennial instalments—you may call upon
the clergy to pay back the whole of the advances made to
them since 1833—but if you do, what will they say ?—why
the answer of the clergy will be, " We cannot pay you."
True, you may issue a distress against them—you may seques-
trate their livings—but if you were to attempt such a course,
depend upon it you would find a strong repugnance, on the
part of the public to such a proceeding, as would render it im-
possible for you to execute your own purpose.—( Hear.) With
respect therefore to these arrears having sanctioned the remis-
sion, you have no right whatever to assert that they have not
been verbally released, and that, too, by your own act.
—( Hear.) Sir, I now come to the other arrears. With re-
spect to them there are immense and enormous difficulties in
the way of any settlement which will be satisfactory to each
side of the House, and it is no reflection on any party if they
find it all but impossible to solve those difficulties.—(Heat,
hear.) This is the state of the case and these are the diffi-
culties which surround it. Sir, there can be no question
that the Act of Parliament which has been passed has
been the means of preventing the Irish clergy from re-
ceiving that which was their legal right, and it is, therefore,
impossible not to feel that the principle is one which is fraught
with the utmost danger.—( Hear, hear.) I made my proposi-
tion in the hope that it would solve the difficulty in which
the subject is involved. What I proposed was, that you
should advance a definite sum—that if you would give me,
say 360,0001., the difference between the 640,0001. and the
million, I ante-rained a hope of being able to bring about a
successful adjustment of the tithe question. I proposed that
this sum should be placed at the disposal and under the con-
troul of a certain number of unpaid Commissioners, and that
they should be empowered to negotiate with the titheowners
for the purchase of the whole of the arrears. Of course, it
would he optional with them to accept the amount offered or
not ; but if they did accept it, then I proposed that the Go-
vernment should succeed to the right of the titheowners, and
stand in their place. I did not propose, however, to remit
any portion of the arrears; but, on the contrary, my intention
was that the Govesnment should retain the power in the case
of a refractory and contumacious man—of one who, being
able, yet refused to pay his tithes—in all such cases, I say,
I intended' that the Government should retain the power of
enforcing whatever arrears might be due ; and the great ad-
vantage of such an arrangement was, that the party who de-
fied the law would be taught to obey and respect it when he
found that resistance to it would be useless.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir. I did not purpose that any grant of public money should be
made, but that the Government should become the purchasers
of the arrears, at a given value, and then recover as much of
them as could consistently be called for. 1 believe, Sir, my
plan would have admitted of an important qualification. I
proposed to deal only with two years' arrears. What I in.
tended was that Government should offer to purchase two
years' arrears of tithes, that those wwo accepted that offer
should not enforce the arrears due to them for the previous
years, but that those who declined should be left to their legal
remedy. Sir, I now think it would he better to deal with
the subject by an arrangement for the whole of the four
years, and not to exclude those who might obtain the
offer for the two first years from the -benefit to which they
would he clearly entitled.—( Hear, hear.) Suppose, then,
they were to offer for the purchase of the arrears of the
first year 401., the second 50/., the third 60/., and for the
fourth 70/., lam obliged to adopt arbitrary sums for the pre-
sent—l do not know that that would not be better than making
an arrangement extending over the whole period, because,
in some cases, thine might be more than three/ears' ar-
rears due, and in others only one. Where, •however, the
parties rejected this offer, I would leave them to their legal
remedy —( Hear.) Sir, the plan of her Majesty's (government
proceeds upoe a very different principle. It is this—that a
cunt of 260,0001. to which is to be added any sum that may
be recovered from the landlord—the amount is uncertain—
shall be appropriated in liquidation of the arrears, but then
only of those arrears which have accrued due during the last
two years. My plan referred to the arrears due by the occu-
pying tenant. but the plan of the Noble Lord is restricted to
thus.' for which the landlords are liable. In the first place,
Sir, Ido not know—l can form no opinion whatever as to
what the amount of the arrears will be which the Noble Lord
is likely to receive—all I can rely on is the 260,0001., for
with respect to the rest it is altogether doubtful. It may be
bad to give the clergy vested interests, but sill I should rather
vote :360,0001., to be applied in the manner I have pointed out,
]waring it to the Treasury to recover what might seem to them
to he properly due, than adopt tile proposition of the Noble
Lord._.( Hear, hear, hear.) If, I say, the Noble Lord
will give this 260,000/., and that the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners will pay over the other 100,000/., so that both
sums can he p'aced at the disposal of the Commissioners
to whom I have alluded, to be applied as the op
tioted principle, I have no doubt whether that this ques-
tion will be set at rest ; that my whole plan will work well ;
and that the whole of the tithe-owners will accept any offer
that may be made to them for the purchase of the arrears.
If, however, the Noble Lord will not assent to my plan, be-
cause ho calculates that the 260,0001. will be sufficient to li-
quidate the arrears of the last two years. and insure the remiss
itin of the whole of the arrears due, and which have not been
enforced, owing to an Act of Parliament, all I can say is, that
I shall vote for his pi opoeition, but in doing so I have thought
it only fair to intimate to him the objections which I entertain
against his scheme. Sir, we know, in fact, nothing- about
t-that amount of arrears can be recovered, and what cannot ;
and, therefore. when I am told that a certain sum is to be ad-
, sauced, and that, whether the parties accept it or not, their
claims are to cease, and they are to be dept iced of their legal
remedy, I feel I own great difficulty in assenting to such a
proposal, and the mere especially without knowing the extent
of the sacrifice which they are to be called on to make.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) It is not possible, I should think, Sir,
that this House will ever pass an Act of Parliament depriv-
ing parties of a legal remedy without a fair equivalent in
the shape of compensation. That would, indeed, be a most
dangerous principle to lay down, and yet it is neither more
nor less than the proposition which the Noble Lord has made ;
for though he has provided for the two last years, he means
that no advance shall be made in respect of the two first years.
The parties, • therefore, to whom arrears may be due for the
two first years, are to go absolutely uncompensated. Their
rights were to be sacrificed because, as regarded them, they
were not to be entitled to a single shilling compensation. This,
I Sir, is a principle both unjust and dangerous.
iust sly ,
Take, for instance, the case of the widow of a clergyman
iose husband died In 1836, and who had a claim for arrears
o
of tithes accruing during the years 1834 and 1835. The pro.
va 1 of the Noble Lord only went to the years 1836 and
1837,°s and therefore the Noble Lord would have them say to
a person so circumstanced, " Oh, you cannot expect any part
of the 260,000/., because we have declared that only the ar-
rears of 1836 and 1837 have been included in our arrang,e-
ment."—(Hear, bear, hear.) This poor woman, then,
was to be told that she need expect nothing—that
see must forego her claim, and that because you have
thought proper to commit an act of injustice she is to
be divested of her legal right to recover that which is due to
her.--(acne, hear.) Now, Sir, I must say that this does 413.•
ucar to me to be a great and wanton violat.on of principle, and
that it is perfectly monstrous to say that a remission shall take
place without compensating the parties for the sacrifice you
require them to make.--( Hear, hear.) it is, in short, offer-
ing a premium to those who resist the law, and that is a prin-
ciple so dangerous, that I hope it will not be persisted in. I
feel convinced, Sir, that such a mode of settling this question
cannot prove satisfactory —( Hear, hear.) There is a mate-
rial difference between the course which I pointed out, and
that taken by the Noble Lord, and on consideration, I must say
that I give a decided preference to my own arrangement. if
the forms of the llouFe permit it, I certainly shall feel it my
duty to take the sense of the House on the question as to which
of the two plans ought to be adopted, and if I were called on to
,ay in lieu of' the 360,0001, to be applied according to the per
centago which my arrangement proposes, whether I would leave
thinge as they are, or consent to a law being passed which
would deprive the clergy of their right to recover their tithes,
'hough no doubt the Noble Lord's arrangetnent would be a
decuniary benefit to them, yet thinking the proposal sot dan-
gerous a one, I would not hesitate to declare that I would re-

tar permitting the law to 1.12n-tail' as it and truit to
Government to sec it t'nforced.—(H,•ar, hear.) In fat •t,
I would rather the Bill remained as it wielolly steno], than

accept so limited a propo,ition as this. While, however, I
53V this, I beg to state that I give my cordial assent to those
par's of the Bill which relate to the converAion of tithe into a
refit-charge, subject to a Oimi.mtioa of 25/. per cent. ; but
then it i. to he wulerstood by this that lam to he bound
by this o[F.•r beyond the pres, ut session.--( Hear, heir )
re-p. et. Sir, to the 6-10,000/., I admit the jolt' •c of
so touch of thy• arrears :6 a are c,,vcred by that sum. but a'

;Is arrears that arc not cov'e,'ed by that sum are euixer,,ec.',
:mist repeat that I prefer ID piao to that of th." Noble
Lurd, bee,use d tbipl: it lever eakulated to A satisfactory

reaolt.—(Hear, ) Suppoaiag rlat the House will ieject
my plan I am obliged to reject my plan I am obii;:,ed to resort
to the application of the 260,0001., as proposed by the Noble
Loa], but instead of compelling others to remit their legal
claims without proper compew3ation I would prefer leaving
the law as it is to such a comproiLise. I think it right to
intimate to the Noble Lord what are my objections to his

arrangement. —( Hear.)
Mr. HARVEY said that because his plan was approved
of by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Memb;:r for Tamworth,
leader of a great party in that House, and by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin, who was also the leader of a
party not much inferior in point of importance, the Noble Lord
told them that it was supported by the xoice of the people, and
that he knew of no principle more sound than that of recog-
fusing the voice of the people expressed through their Repre-
sentatives in matters of legislation. This question, it should
be remembered, opened up the whole of the Irish policy, and
although fie year 3 had been unproductively spent in endea-
vouring to adjust it, they were not called on to consider it
until the Session had wall nigh terminated. Now, was this
fair or just as regarded the country? An old adage occurred to
him, and although it was a vulgar one, he could not refrain
from using it, and that was " Give the devil his due." Apply-
ing this adage to the Government, he must say that her Ma-
jesty's Ministers were not the authors of this piece of mischief.
The fact was that they adopted it on the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who could
clear up or mistify a difficulty at pleasure ; and yet, after the
part he had taken to force the Government into their present
course, he was now anxious to retreat from the palpable con-
quences of his own proposition.—( Hear.) It was impossible
to listen to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman

without being convinced that all hope of adjustment was
futile, for instead of leading to anything like arrangement
that would be satisfactory, his only object seemed to be to in-
crease the difficulties.—( Hear, hear.) Now what did the
Right Hon. Baronet propose? Why, that some 260,0001.,
the balance of the million loan, should be placed in the hands
of unpaid, and, consequently, irresponsible Commissioners, to
he doled out for the arrears of 1836 and 1837, which at the
same time glanced at the arrears of 1834 and 1835. Could
such a proposition lead to any other result than a confusion of
accounts? They must all recollect how the million loan was
scrambled for in Dublin, and they might rest satisfied that any
further money which their benevolence might issue for the
benefit of the tithe owners of Ireland would be dealt with in
the same way. Session after Session they had received inti-
mations that all Tithes would be extinguished, and this only
tended to augment the arrears. Did the Government think for
a single instant that 260,0001. would settle the Tithe
question, and restore tranquillity to Ireland.—( Cries of
" Hear, hear.") If such a sum of money would accom-
plish this object, he would gladly concur in any payment
which would obtain that good. This was the presumption,
however, on which they were proceeding so good-humouredly
to pick the pocket of John Bull ; but in the next Session some
attache of the Right Honourable Baronet, with secrect in-
structions for the purpose, would be found moving fot returns
to show how this money had been applied; while another
Honourable Member would, according to pre-arrangement,
get up and say that they were bound to settle the arrears of
1834 and 1835 as well as those of 1836 and 1837. The re-
sult of all this might easily be anticipated. They would find,
notwithstanding the expenditure of 260,000/ , that instead of
one million, they had at least two millions to pay. If they
did not destroy tithes altogether, they would, do what they
might, leave a canker, and the leprosy would break out.
He (Mr. Harvey) was not surprised at the alacrity of the
Irish Members, when the object was to give money, but for
his part he could not understand justice to Ireland based on
injustice to England—( Hear, bear)--nor would he suppose
that the Irish Members would be guilty of such conduct.—
(Here the Hon. Member was interrupted by some noisy in-
terlocution of Members below tlje bar, and the interruption
was not much assuaged by the customary call of " Bar, bar.")
He (Mr. Harvey) had no objection whatever to hear a speech
at the bar.—( A laugh.) He well knew that he was address-
ing many men who had received acme of the money advanced
under the Million Act. He also knew that he was addressing
many men who would be glad to have the same principle ex-
tended to England. It would be quite a pleasant thing, in-
deed, when at their audits Hon. Gentlemen found their pay-
ments deficient, to come to that House and ask for an advance
of money.—(A laugh.) It would be still more agreeable if
this money, having been advanced upon the understanding that
it was to be repaid in several instalments, that at the end of
five years some jugglery should take place by which the whole
amount of this advance should be remitted.—( A laugh.) The
cry of " Justice to Ireland" was familiar ; but if that justice
was only to be effectuated by the payment of Irish tithes on
the part of England he supposed that at length they would
come with a demand for justice in the shape of the payment of
Irish rents.—( A laugh.) He had no hesitation to say that the
original advance under the Million Act was money obtained un-
der false pretences. He referred to tie declarations made at the
time by Lord Althorp, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr.
Littleton, then Secretary for Ireland, the effect of whose de-
clarations was, that unless they expected the money to be repaid
they would not have called fir the advance. Ile (Mr. Har-
vey) in the most strenuous manner, and with the utmost de-
termination objected to the sacrifice of this money. As an
excuse for this sacrifice they were told that it was to purchase
peace in Ireland. But then they turned to the Irish Repre-
sentatives—and they turned, amongst others, to him who was
supposed to be himself the representative of all Ireland, and
whom many thought to be the Government itself—( A laugh)
—and what did he say ? Why, that he was ready to take the
money—( A laugh)—as much as England would give, for that
was practical justice to Ireland—( A laugh)—but then that
Honourable Member frankly said that the sacrifice of this
money would not produce peace in Ireland. That Honour-
able Member said that the people of Ireland never would be
satisfied until the Established Church in that country was
placed in a position consistent with the feelings of the people
as re=pected matters of religion. He thought that the pre-
sent proceeding was in every way unwt,rthy. What—did
they believe that the people of Ireland were to be bribed
into submission ? Was this then indeed their boasted school
for British Statesmen ?—( Cheers. ) It appeared that, as far
as he could ascertain, the income of the Iri.;11 Church was
about 600,000/. per annum. It was the Church of about
600,000 persons, for the support of which upwards of eight
millions were forced to contribute. He had move,l for a return
of the recipients of this advance that had been made under the
Million Act. He found that out of the 1,260 who had received
this money only 450 were resident clergymen. Ile had moved
for a return of the portion of this advance that had been
repaid. How much of the money had been repaid ? Not
more than about 7,0001.-4 Hear, hear.) No—he was wrong
when lie stated this on a former occasion—the whole sum re-
covered did not, he believed, exceed 4,000/.—( Hear, hear.)
Why was this ? Because no attempt whatever had been made
to recover it on the part of the Government. He considered
that in surrendering this money they would establish a most
dangerous precedent, as it would be holding out an em-ou-
ra,gement to those who had resisted the law.—( Hear, hear.)
Ile concluded by reiterating, in the strol-_!;c,t and most sue.
imous manner, his condemnation of this most unwarranted sa-
crifice of the public money of England.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN believed that the sacrifice of those arrears
was a most wise and salutary measure. In his opinion ally
attempt to collect those arrears would dive the county into
the utmost confusion, H would resist any attempt t, make
the collection of those arrears a poi tion of their present legis-
lation.
Mr. GROTE was surprised that the present proposition
should have proceeded from the Right Hon. Gentleman op-
posite, for lie would remind the Right lion. Gentleman of
language that had fallen' f..orn him on a former occasion.

The Right Hon. Baronet had made a speech, in which were
these words, " Of all the vulgar acts, of Government that of
solving every difficulty that might arise by thrusting the hand I
into the public purse was the most illusive and contemptible.
—(Che;:rs.) It was at all times a symptom of the decay of a
Government when they had neither the manliness to enforce
the law nor the courage to stand up in the assertion of ancient
rights." He asked whether every sentence of that speech of
the Right lion. Baronet did not apply to the propositions at
present before the House? He (Air. Grote) saw nothing in
the proposition, but that it was the first of a series of demands
upon the public purse of England. lie mor,over objected to
it on another principle, for it was holding out a reward to the
resistance of the law. He thought it was a very dangerous
precedent to establish. lie would in conclusion say that
there never was a resolution which should meet with more
unqualified opposition from him than that at present before the
House.—( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL wished to say one word in explanation.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not propose to deprive any one of his
right to recover. He did not propose in any shape to extin-
guish any right whatever. In any ease where a party thought
lit to refuse the offer of the Government to purchase his
claims, it was his intention that such party, so refusing, should
continue in full possession of all his rights. But et ea sup-
posing that the party should accept the offer of the Govern-
ment, it was still his, intention that the rights of the party
should not be extinguished. He proposed that the Govern-
ment should have the power to enforce the claim unless the
poverty of the tenant should be such a 3 to induce th.-rn not
to do so. In what he (Sir R. Peel) had proposed, ho had no
intention to interfere with any existing tight.--( Hear. )
Mr. GROTE begged to say that the objections which he
had urged were intended to apply to the propositions of the
Government.
Lord J. RUSSELL regretted certainly that those objec-
tions which were now so powerfully stated should have been
kept locked up in the minds of Hon. Members until so late a
stage of the proceedings as the present. With respect to
these objections he felt their force himself as strongly as any
other Hon. Member, but at the same time he felt that in any
way they attempted to settle the question of Irish tithes, they
would have great difficulties to conquer.—( Hear, bear.) Ile
was certainly not prepared to consider it discreditable to him
that he should now, in the year Pia% apply his mind to the
&fficulties of Ireland and to r,ttempt their satisfactory scd.64Bn,
considering, as he did, that the peace and prosperity of that
country depended on the solution of these Ecat questions.—
( Ilor,) For the oljections he would address himself to the ob.
survations which had been made by the Right Hon. Membov.
for Tamworth in erefeireckce t.Q*4e which had 119eu macia