The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-16 00:00:00

to the Noble Lord—when it was his intention to bring forward a mea-
Ure NI the subject of Irish tithes, and whether that measure would in.
velve the principles set tbrth in the resolutions of the Houv.r. t Corn.
tz.rons which he had read ?—(Hear, hear.) There WAS a prospect, he
(t usted, of coming to a settlement on the Irish Poor Law Bill : he for
O),Vished it were possible to arrive at such P. settlement with respect
11„: other questions of the Irish Corpora!,;ons and the Irish Che:Cli--
4 hear, hearl—but he felt hire.self bound to repeat what he had
Churl: said, that he thought a security for the Stability of the Irish
mush
say, be an
etv'zritial condition of such a settlement.
made
5--Y, then , coupt'alg what I said in 1837 and the declaration
from t'ri. Me
in
1835'
that I am not chargeable with making declarations
a rnembck..ar strat'“gem, and that I have not placed the Noble Lord, as
question.er tte Government in a more unfavourable position on this
NV" • What was the course which the Noble Lord had taken ?
• li'as the nature of his resolutions ? Ido not wish to reciprocate
81, A The other side of the House hard words. Ido not think it advise.
4iidelk)r an?' Purpose.—(Cheers.) I heard the speech of the Noble Lord ;
rel the temper of it with deep regret.—(Loud cheers from the Op-
'tian.) It is in vain for the Noble Lord to say that we will not con-
ci,
r. al a satisfactory settlement of this question, when at the same time
f::!°PPosing insuperable obstacles to its settlement by rousing every
d ger pride—by telling men like the Irish clergy, men who havebeen
ePrtved of their tithes for the last four or five years, men who have
subMitted
to —to Poverty and oppression, and who now say they are ready
—ake further concessions for the sake of peace, provided you
ttrin.,,taiLn the integrity of the Establishment; that such men, at.
A
,"" Privation and suffering, should be told by a minister of
,who,rorn that they set a price upon the value of peace—these men
/rel. 'N'lrct to give up 15 per cent. for the purpose of insuring peace in
ph and these men, who have in many cases abandoned their just right,
have been deprived of their tithes—these men, who have lived upon
unds doled out by charity—that they should be told that they are in.
rnsible to the peace of Ireland—that their constant anxiety and deep
jterest for the Establishment arise from mere mercenary motives—that
they think more of their pockets than of the tranquillity and peace of the
""ntrY—l say, Sir, such charges open difficulties in the way of a settle.
snt of
'
this question
n so full, that any authority or counsel of mine—
if
haritY I have--must fail to produce a satisfactory settlement.—(Loud
cheers.)

" Of all the ills that harass the distressed
Neel Here, the most bitter is a scornful jest "
*lle ehSe cheering.) Then the Noble Lord comes with this question,
et ether We are justified in moving for rescinding this resolution. I do not
eellit to conceal, and if I did I could not, that it is difficult for a Go-
I°rnalent to consent to the formal rescinding of its own resolutions.
it ink, for the character and honour of public men of both sides, that
n" right that the public should know what are the principles on which
e Proceed ; and if I said that the rescinding of this resolution would
Boe be
a severe blow to the Government, I should be guilty of hypocrisy.
`,. I saY that it was open to the Noble Lord to have avoided this dis-
e-auss_li o• This I say, on my own part, that if the Noble Lord held this
`ss on the language he held last session—if he had come forward and
tall. "we will attempt the settlement of this great question of Irish
tbithes, in which Irish conflicts arise—we will propose a measure, and a
easmiable measure, with respect to Irish tithes, and we will ask you to
consent to an Irish Corporation Bill founded on the principle of popular
election to and if the Noble Lord bad said that he would abandon the
notea Solution of 1833—(A laugh)—if the Noble Lord had said he would
brink from the unpopularity of that course, if he had proposed a
settlement on this footing and said that he would not guarantee that
e ,arrangement should be final against future attacks, but that he would
Pledge himself to use the full weight and influence of Government
,e? make it final; and if the Noble Lord should give up the prin.
P'e of the resolution of 1835, I do not believe that the Noble Lord
0
findt whatdcourse doesmi a great ntheoritNoble Lord take ?y to insist upon the resolution.--(Cheers.)
Does he take the manly
arse f
lion declaring that he will not retain the resolution of appropria..
Quite the reverse. The Noble Lord has taken a course with
t"Peet to his proposed Tithe Bill and the nature of his resolution which
4pepoaletiltl.ated to excite suspicion and alarm.—(Loud cheers from the
tipen, tea.) The Noble Lord made no speech in laying his resolutions
rbitt the table of the House in explanation of his motives, but he per-
ekueed the resolutions to go to Ireland without any explanatory speech.
,g i' what were the resolutions ? I read the resolutions over and over
tieann ornd I now doubt whether they contain the principle of appropria-
Of epe 3t. 1 am inclined to believe that they do contain the principle
is th'4oOriation.—(Cheers.) Am I singular in that opinion P What
keutet. /anguage of the Noble Lord's own supporters? What said the
end 'ler for Wiltshire? He said that he had read the resolutions over
tin I.oer again, he devoted whole days to them, but it was not
tie, "t night that he discovered that they did not contain appropria-
speeeb(A laugh)—and, be it observed, this was not till after the
the • of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell). The Noble Lord,
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the mover of
le jeesolutions, made a speech of one hour and a half's duration, and
iu tneehever told us whether the principle of appropriation was contained
it,s2.in or not. lie left us more bewildered at the conclusion of his
t've h than at the beginning. He must say that he never before knew
an insta
and , nee of a man holding the situation of Secretary of State
leader of the House of Commons discuss a great question upon
Whet h,
to 8, Meant to be the foundation of its settlement, and never
eiigh`tate what he meant. It was not till the end of the debate last
boiev that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland told us that he
tint. ed the appropriation principle was not included in the resolu-
eh- aloud cheers.) What said the Honourable Member for
Isis (Mr. Ward), than whom on the wording of the resolutions no
et u in the House was a higher authority? He had been the mover
,42esolutions of his own, and was a good judge of what the resolutions
tore intended to be. With all the Hon. Member's experience of re.
e, ntiens, what said he of the vagueness of these resolutions of the
ssoble Lord ? He said that on reading the resolutions his first im-
Pression was that they were vague and ambiguous, but on reading them
stain he said he thought he discovered in them the germ of appro-
Priet•
ion.— (Loud cheers.) This was the construction the Honourable
Gentleman put upon them. Those were his own phrases. What
Course does the Noble Lord ask us to pursue ? I will not say whether
k!here is any stratagem or trick ; I have no right to impute motives,
but this I will say, that never was a proposal made so calculated, though
terhaPs not Intended, to entrap us into difficulties, for he asks us to
iiiiint° Committee upon those resolutions, without first stating what is
-eProPosition respecting
lookoutapprriation.—(Cheers.) Let rne ask how
h,i,rnPartial man would this question 1 I do believe, after all
en-ii:llas been said on the subject of Irish tithes—l do believe, after
(:),"ing this a popular instrument by which you have heaved a former
esse'rernment from office-1 do believe, after all the division in the
4—hinitotry Upon the subject, for the honour and credit of both sides, it
it i, d be distinctly understood whether the question. of appropriation
is l't. those resolutions affirmed or not.—(Loud cheering.) Now what
jurete Position in which we are placed by the Noble Lord ? We are
te t ed in Committee to express in the first place an opinion " that
charge
tithe composition of Ireland should be commuted into a rent-
aarge, at the rate of seven-tenths of their amount." Now what
mendment could be proposed to the first resolution, but one purely of
4detail and of amount, as, for instance, to give seventy-five per cent
instead of 70 ? But after having exhausted as discussion in matters
Lf detail on the first resolution, there was this sixth resolution hanging
"'hind :—" That it is the opinion of this Committee that the rent_
charges for ecclesiastical tithes should be appropriated by law to certain
local charges now defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund and to educa_
tion, the surplus to form part of the Consolidated Fund." Now, I ask,
supposing we had assented to this resolution, would not there have
gone forth one universal impression throughout this country and Ire-
land that wo had abandoned the principle of appropriation?.—(Hear,
from the Opposition.) Why, what was said upon the subject of these
resolutions by the Hon. arid Learned Member for Dublin? What
construction did that Hon. and Learned Member put upon these reso-
elons ? I think his words upon this subject of great importance ; and
se expressed these in a letter which he published soon after these
?!solutions were promulgated. The Right Honourable Baronet then
!excel an extract from the letter in question to the following
Prod - Such was the plan of Lord John Russell. It held out the
e e,,lPect of an immediate amelioration to the extent of thirty per
eru'es which, however, was scarcely adequate to what was required;
le, Cher amelioration which it promised was the appropriation of the sur.
.it'as, ut. these rent charges to county burdens which had hitherto pressed
fu,,,i'oealitios : and lastly, it speedily offered a direct appropriation of
toeti6„fr education." The Honourable and Learned Member's latter
Jo tied by stating, that " He certainly did not concur in all Lord
futur s arrangement, but at he thought it contained the germs of a
eitiene_arrangement, and amore perfect and final settlement."—(Oppos
such cheers.) I say, Sir, that when the people of Ireland are told by
foe
,111gh authority as that of the Honourable and Learned Member
they
Provide
that these resolutions are chiefly to he (esteemed because
Ssee-f Provide a direct appropriation for the purposes of education, and
krrse they are the germ of a future arrangement and more perfect
f-. final settlement, they are warranted in drawing two conclusions—
lio.`, that the principle of appropriation is contemplated in these rem).
eie-,l°,n.secondly, that even this arrangement is not to be
etio,"_' settlement, but was only to be used as a stepping-atone to
ta a arrangements.—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds, Sir, I con-
aldr it
qties
dero to be absolutely necessary to arrive at a satisfactory un-
"ding upon this point before we proceed further in this
strut tihteen h• Three courses were open to us by which this understanding
Ina, , have been attained : either the Noble Lord might have made a
fe,,'iri and frank avowal that, finding it impossible to pass this measure
fetter he With the principle of the resolutions of 1835, he was prepared
ti,.., sacrifice the appropriation clause in order to arrive at a satisfactory
,Tinstrnent of the question, or we might have brought forward an eh-
-I,:act resolution of our own, condemnatory of the principle of appro-
ati"; but that was a course which appeared us obnoxious to the
ehl
abstract
urged against your own resolutions of 1835, that they were
°street resolutions, fettering the practical consideration of a particular
l'ufbjeet ; or, lastly, the means were open to us which we have adopted,
n°,.- °braining the feeling of the House upon this question, and of showing
1;r faithful adherence to the principles which we formerly defended by
"log the rescinding of those resolutions of 1835, as being calculated
t,
. obstruct the satisfactory settlement of this great practical question.
e
forwarded put off this discussion would not in the least have
the practical result at which we aim. We could
bsi°4 have discussed these resolutions in Committee without giving
to to it ; or if your course had been by Bill, the very preamble
.trtbe Bill would have raised the question ; and, therefore, on the
ieh:le it aPPeared to us most satisfactory that as a preliminary proceed-
k 0 We should elicit the opinion of the present Parliament upon this
terfeat Point at issue, and show that our opinion remains unchaned in
e,uertence to it. These are the grounds Upoll which I oppose thesere-
dt aliatens, being unable to lend my aid to the passing of a measure which
h.o tend to the alienation of Church property.
.The grounds upon
'ei,h I act are not any dictates of false pride, which the Noble Lord
ea" °f; but because I conceive that to alienate Church property to
eiar purposes will inevitably shake the foundations of that Establish-
en„'i, The Noble Lord referred to the Act of Union, and said that he
te„,,.°lved to maintain tho Church Establishment because it was guaran.
e,-m hi the Act of Union. I, Sir, adopt te same principle. The Noble
-leis that to disturb the Church would cuts rent in the Act of Union.
eiapr
rent.
agree with the Noble Lord, and I say that if we adopt the prrein:
e, e Of alienating the property of the Church, we create that d
lie e question, Sir, with me now is this—is the Church of Irelan
hiaeli to enjoy more of stable freedom under the existing state of the
toW4 or by purchasing a short respite from persecution at a cost of some
ere' 134 or 60,0001. ? And my opinion is, that unsatisfactory as is the
~l'aent state of the Church, it is less to be deplored than it would be
fr,,er purchasing a small portion of goodwill, or, rather, a brief immunity
ni attack on these terms. It is not the amount of the money that I
,Ptak
te et; but the principle which is involved with it. What have we
pre'rge in favour of the maintenance of the Church Establishment at
th:enit ? The national compact entered into at the time of the Union—
tests°'etan guarantee given to the Protestants of Ireland that the Pro-
ch:nt faith should be the established faith of that country, that their
nier,ell should be the Established Church. All the details and state-
ments which are now advanced against the propriety of this arrangement
at,"" m
there fully considered—the relative numbers of the Protestants
,i'theatholics of Ireland were taken into account by the Statesmen
their at Period—the poverty of the Roman Catholic population, and
prey Poor ability to supply the means of religious culture, were all ap-
Ch aged; but still the principle was adopted and declared, that the
-erch of
day vr the minority should be preserved. The Legislature of that
eeusidas not blind to the anomaly of the arrangement, but with full
they
i!ration of the objections to which it was liable they determined as
jeet ' ltd*--(Hear, hear.) There is another Act connected with this sub-
toli; l'lean the Act for the Relief of the Disabilities of the Roman Ca-
ttle „ ' The Noble Lord was pleased to taunt me for the part I took in
teffe'-asdog of this measure. I can only say that I hear with perfect in-
ject . 'fee any taunts which may be thrown out against me on this sub.
did 'l..o'°r, I feel that, if I had taken any other course than the one I
pride ri the Purpose of gratifying any feelings of personal ambition or
be, '. ' should have been so ashamed of my conduct that I should have
inclined at once to retire from public life. I brought forward that
measure,
a on account of the state of the public mind of the people of Eng-
tineks_rto that period, apprehending more danger from the fact of ranging
laii,irthtestants of this country in hostile feeling against those of Ire.
entert • from the privileges conferred by that enactment. 1
I.
..,searined that the
; I submitted it to the Crown ; and was
der having ,0 done, to go out of office, and for the sake of an appear.

ante of public consistency to offer a sham opposition to the very measure
I had just recommended to the King because I had always hitherto done
so, and yet permit It to be carried ? In my opinion, Sir, such conduct
would have been dishonourable and dishonest to the fullest extent.—
(Opp'Oaition cheers) In truth it would have been much more convenient
to me at that period to have gone out of office, and allowed the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to pass this Bill ; but having advised the King to
pass this Bill, and the King having adopted my advice, I felt bound to
sacrifice all personal considerations of every kind, and to assist in passing
it. Some may say that I should have come to this decision earlier than
I did, but no one can say that having adopted that opinion I left office, or
shrunk from any ofthe personal responsibility which that opinion en.
tailed upon me, including the sacrifice of party ties in which I had hitherto
been bound up, and the risk of losing the confidence of those with whom
I had been always accustomed to act.—(Cheers.) Would any one say that
it was any purpose of party power or aggrandisement that induced me to
abandon what had been the chief pride of my life, the representation of
the University of Oxford?—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord, when he taunts
me for my change of conduct in respect to the Roman Catholic Relief
Act, and when he taunts my Noble Friend near me for now acting in
concurrence with me on this and other questions, can surely not forget
the very evident rejoinder to which he subjects himself. The Noble Lord
can surely not forget the year 1827, when, on the great subject of Par-
liamentary Reform, he published an opinion that he saw no necessity for
such a measure. But I will not pursue this further.—(Opposition cheers.)
These are too important subjects to be trifled with in this manner. I
will not retort upon the Noble Lord any of his taunts. Ido not, in fact,
feel anything of the kind that has been said, because I know that any
imputations of the sort, whether upon myself or my Noble Friend, are
unjust and unfounded. Ido not feel them, they make no impression on
me, and therefore I shall not reply to them.—(Opposition cheers.) I was
speaking of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and I said that at the time
of the Union we had a guarantee that the Protestant Church
should be maintained as the Established Church in Ireland; and
although the passing the Roman Catholic Bill was not in the nature of
a compact, yet I am convinced that every person in the country believed
that civil equality to Roman Catholics might be conceded by that
measure with perfect security to that Establishment. If, at the time of
debating that proposition, the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
had told us that the measure of relief world yet be incomplete—if he
had told us his story of the Scotch going up the mountain armed with
swords, and informed us that the first consequence of the Roman Ca-
tholic Relief Bill would be the spoliation of the Church of Ireland,
let me tell him that that measure never would have been passed.--(Loud
Opposition cheers.) No ; the people of this country would never have
consented to the removal of those disabilities, if they had known that the
inevitable consequence of it was to be the alienation of the property of
the Church. So far from such a result being contemplated, I refer
to the opinions of Lord Plunket, Mr. Grattan, Lord Carbery, and
others, who distinctly denied that such would be the case. I
refer also to the preamble of the Bill, which stated that the
removal of the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics would tend to
strengthen and maintain the Irish Church.--(Hear.) This is our posi-
tion now; but the moment you wish us to depart from it, and to pur-
chase a little diversion of hostility from the Church, at a cost of 50,0001.
or 60,0001, that very moment the principle upon which we stood is
abandoned—the Act of Union no longer guarantees the inviolability of
the Church of Ireland—and we admit a principle of appropriating the
revenues of the Church to purposes of education, but of education ex-
clusive of the Establishment.— (Hear, and Oh.) Ido not mean to say
that it would become illegal for a Protestant father to give his children
the benefit of this instruction, but it cannot be denied that in bringing
forward an indiscriminate system of education we imply that it is to be
a course of instruction not in the principles of the Established Church ;
and, therefore, the whole state of things in that respect would be at
once changed.—(Hear, hear.) With respect also to your amount
as applied to your principle. You say that 400,0001. is too much
far the revenues of the Church—(Hear)—and you propose to abstract
50,0001.; but surely if you cannot defend the maintenance of that
Church upon the grounds of morality and reason, do you think that the
Catholics of Ireland will be satisfied with an eighth only of these reve-
nues ? The principle of the Noble Lord is at once fatal to the Establish-
ment, whilst it has not the advantage of purchasing even present peace.
On these grounds, therefore, I think that the present position of the
Church of Ireland is better than it would be by accepting any such com.
position The Noble Lord says that the question now before us is a
question between two distinct principles of government. lam ready,
with the Noble Lord, to come forward to give all civil privileges to the
people of Ireland, provided we can do so, still adhering to the prin-
ciple of maintaining the integrity of the Established Church. This was
the condition upon which I agreed to, and the people of England al-
lowed of, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; and unless we now have
satisfaction on this head—namely, the senility of the Church of
Ireland—we shall prefer the satisfaction of awaiting the devolution
of the new powers which may be directed to undermine its strength,
to voluntarily giving up an eighth of its revenues, to be diverted to
purposes foreign to its objects.—(Hear, hear.) With reference to edu-
cation, I should like, I must confess, to see the country so circumstanced
as to allow of a system of education being conducted by members of
the Church Establishment.—(oh, oh.) Hon. Members who laugh at
this observation, can surely not rightly understand its import. I said
that I should like to see the country so circumstanced as to allow of that
principle of administering instruction ; but I am too well aware that that
cannot be the case in Ireland if any doctrines of the Established Church,
or of any section of Dissent, are made a sine quo non in the room of in-
struction.—(Hear.) I am perfectly ready, however, to allow of instruc-
tion being provided for the Roman Catholic copulation in general subjects
of education ; for I conceive that the interests of the country would be
better consulted by making them educated, instead of ignorant.—(Hear,
hear.) The alternative, therefore, is not between a course of Protestant
education or of Catholic education, but a third course is open to us
of general moral education, which I should willingly adopt. I
certainly prefer a general course of instruction of this kind; and so
far as the duties of the State are concerned in it, I should not ob-
ject to allow thegrant of any sum of money which might be deemed neces-
sary for the purpose. And here, in fact, there is no real difference
of opinion between me and the Noble Lord. It is just as
well that this instruction should be paid for direct and at once out of the
Consolidated Fund, as by the complicated machinery of your sixth re-
solution, which, in fact, is a mere delusion.—(Opposition cheers )
And whilst I object at all to the principle of alienating the funds of the
Church from strictly ecclesiastical purposes, I still more strongly object
to applying such alienated funds to a course of education from which
the principles of Protestant faith are excluded. The principles on
which I object to this mode of appropriation are these.—(Cries of " ques.
tion," and " order.") By this measure no satisfactory arrangement
can be arrived at; it will alienate a part of the property of the Church,
whilst, at the same time, it will still not give satisfaction to the Roman
Catholics of Ireland. In passing such a measure as this you would be
abandoning your duty as a Protestant Legislature, by allowing a prin-
ciple which will in itself undermine the Protestant Church, or at least
give the means, by future agitation and discontent, to bring it to state
of ruin. Upon these grounds, therefore, I give my cordial support to
the amendment of my Honourable Friend, in order to show my consis.
tent maintenance of a principle which I ever defended in office, and
which I still adhere to in Opposition.—(Cheers.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER commenced by ob-
serving that the disadvantage of rising to address the House at so late
an hour on the second night of an adjourned debate was not diminished
by the circumstance of his having to reply to the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite, whom all admitted to be the leader in point of ability and elocu-
tion, as he was the leader in station, of the great party of the Opposi-
tion. He felt, however, that as the question upon which the house had
to decide, when disencumbered of the extraneous circumstanc; t pressed
into the service—by no speaker with more profusion than the Right
Hon. Baronet himself—was a very simple one, it would not be neccs.
nary for him to occupy their attention for any length of time ; and that,
confining himself to the real merits of the particular point at issue, but
a plain, easy, and simple duty awaited him. No one could more regret
than he did that either angry feeling or party bias should have been
introduced into the present debate. But who was responsible for its
introduction ? What had led to it ? Why, he took it on the showing
of the Right Hon. Baronet himself, for he could require no stronger au-
thority than which his (Sir R. Peel's) words afforded. The Right
Honourable Baronet admitted that the proposition which had been
made was one in which, he well knew, her Majesty's Government
could not be expected to acquiesce.—(Cheers.) Why, then, had it been
introduced at the present moment ? If the resolutions on the table had
involved the question of appropriation, he should not have quarrelled
with the Honourable Baronet for saying to the House " Before you
discuss those resolutions, I will have you discuss the resolutions of ap-
propriation which they include." But how stood the case ? Did the
resolutions of his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) contain the prin-
ciple of appropriation ? The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to say he
was uncertain as to whether they did or not; but he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) defied any man, who came to the discussion of the
subject with the smallest practical knowledge, to entertain a doubt on
the point.—(Hear, hear.) If there had been doubt on the subject,
whydid not the Hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon, or some
other Member of the opposition, rise in his place and seek information
from the Government as to whether or not it was their in-
tention to include the question of appropriation in their
resolutions? No, that course would not have suited the designs of
the Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Cheers ) They well knew that what
was wanted was a trial of strength on the matter—they came to it, and
he for one thanked them for thus giving the House an opportunity of
reconsidering the matter.—(Cheers.) He regretted the course that had
been taken by the Opposition, but he did so on higher and better
grounds than any connected with party discussion.—(Cheers.) He re.
gretted the course that had been taken, because he saw the effect of it
must be to deprive the Government of the chance of having brought the
question to an unanimous discussion.—(Cheers.) He would put an
analogous case to the flight Honourable Baronet opposite upon another
subject on which the two parties in that House were at issue—the question
of Municipal Corporations for Ireland. Suppose the Right Honourable
Baronet had carried a resolution that it was inexpedient to establish
Municipal Corporations in Ireland, and that the existence of corporations
in Ireland was dangerous to the Protestant Church, and that subse-
quently he had determined to bring forward a measure for the
settlement of the question, would he have thought it generous,
wise, or statesmanlike if they had said to him—" No, before
you do this you must recind your resolution, you must humble your.
self into the dust before us, and then when you have done so we will
listen to you."—(Cheers.) The case was perfectly the same, except that
the Right Hon. Baronet, fortunately for them, never had an opportu.
nity of carrying such a resolution, while they had the benefit of carry-
ing theirs.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had referred
to some observations of his on a former occasion. It was perfectly true
that on that occasion he had told him (Sir R. Peel) that the more direct
and more manly course would have been to move the recinding of the
appropriation resolutions. But why did he do so ? Why, because the
Bill they were at that time discussing did involve the appropriation prin-
ciple, and if the resolutions now on the table involved it equally,
he for one should not have objected to •r disapproved ef the
course adopted on the
cheers.) present occasion by the Opposition.—(Loud
Were the Gentlemen opposite forgetful of what had al-
ready taken place on this subject ? Did they forget that in 1834
a Bill for the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland was
sent up to the House of Lords, which Bill did not contain the
appropriation clauses ? And yet the very party who were now so
anxious to rescind the resolutions of that House with respect to the
appropriation were the party who in 1834 rejected the Bill in which
the appropriation clauses were not inserted.—(Hear, hear.) Words
had been frequently
and they had be en used by several gentlemen on the other side,
repeated by the Right Honourable Member for
Tamworth, to the effect that the appropriation resolutions had been
got up in 1835 for the purpose of effecting a change in the Ge-
vernment.—(Hear.) Now, suppose that that had actually been the
case, surely there was nothing more politically dishonourable in getting
up those resolutions for the purpose of effecting a change of Govern-
ment than there was in moving to rescind those resolutions for the pur-
pose of effecting a change of Government.—(Hear, hear.) But lie
was prepared to show, on evidence entirely incontrovertible, not
only that the assertion that the appropriation resolutions were got
up for the purpose of effecting a change of Government was
not only not true, but that it was the very reverse of the fact. The
witness whom he should call into Court was the Hon. Baronet the
Member for North Warwickshire. On the 12th of June, 1834, that
Hon. Baronet addressed a letter to his constituents, in which he com-
municated to them the fact that Ministers had promised to apply any
surplus that might be derived from the ecclesiastical revenue in Ireland
to the moral and religious instruction of the poor in that country of all
denominations.—(Hear) That letter was written by the seconder of the
motion of the Hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire.—
(Hear, hear.) It was distinctly stated in that letter, that in 1834,
when the present Ministers were in power, they were preparing steps so
to appropriate the surplus, if any, of the ecclesiastical revenue in Ire-
land ; and yet the House was now told that the appropriation reso-
lutions were taken up in 1835 for the purpose of depriving the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth of power.—(Hear.)
Never was any charge more completely refuted by evidence. He
mlelit be asked, "as your present resolutions do not :Arm the
proposition contained in the appropriation resolutions, why refuse
to rescind the appropriation resolutions ?" In the first place,
because to do so would involve a loss of character. In the second