The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-03 00:00:00

7-...

Such he believed to be the disposition of the people of Ire-i
land, and that they were ready to sacrifice their own feelings
and opinions when they saw a Government anxious to pro-
mote their interests. They had sent the Bill back, rejecting
that which the Rolls° of Commons had declared was an
inseparable part of it,---they had sent it back, increasing the
amount of tithe to be paid, while they make the distribution
of the Church revenues, if possible, more obnoxious than
before. How then was tb a House of Commons to deal with it?
As for himself he wouldnot depart from the principle which
that House had more than once recognized.—(Cheers.)
It might be for the House to consider whether, after hav-
ing solemnly affirmed a principle, because it had been re-
jected by the House of Lords, they should now re-consi-
der that resolution. If the Members of the House of
Commons went with a Message to the bar of the House
of Lords, agreeing to the change in the principle of the
Bill, and acknowledging that they were in error, he (Lord J.
Russell) would not accompany the House of Commons
on such a message. He was prepared to stand by the principle
he had advocated when out of office, and with the affirm-
ance of the opposite principle to that, of course it would be
his duty to resign, and no longer pretend to govern the
Councils of his Majesty.--(Loud cheers.) He would ask
Bon. Members to consider at what settlement of the ques-
tion they could arrive. It had been said that the Bill as it
now was would tranquillize Ireland, but nothing could be
more wild or extravagant than such an idea.—( Hear.)
He felt convinced that if the Bill was sent back to the
House of Lords, agreeing in the amendments, so far from
:its being a settlement of the question, it would be the be-
ginning of a fresh contest.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Look at the Catholic question—see the good that had been
effected by that ; for the good that would be effected by it,
he had the eloquent words of a Noble Friend—one
',whom he should ever respect—Lord Brougham.—(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord then read an extract from the speech
of Lord Brougham, in which the Noble Lord depicted, in
the most eloquent terms, the deplorable state of Ireland,
and the blessings that would be effected by passing the
Catholic Relief Bill. At the time that great measure
was passed, the great hero of the age was at the head
of the Government, and he did not think that he
compromised his magnanimity in granting the concessions
he did to the Catholics.—(Loud cheers.) In his (Lord
John Russell's) opinion, in granting those concessions, he
had gained more laurels, and had done more good for
this country than he had effected by the numberless vic-
tories he had won—(Cheers)—and he would do more good
towards relieving the present state of Ireland than any
other person. The people of this country had been called
upon to side against the people of Ireland—now on the
ground of their religion—now on the ground of their being a
different race.—(Cheers.) It had been attempted to excite
against them a national feeling on the part of the English,
that they were bound to resist the claims made upon them—
a national feeling on the part of the Irish, that they could
not hope for justice from England.—(Cheers.) No means
had been spared to excite these feelings—(Cheers)—even
forgery itself had been resorted to—(lmmense cheering)
—and injustice had been perpetrated under the name of
law—while feelings of hatred had been inculcated under
the cloak of religion.—(Cheers.) Even if they left the
tithe question unsettled, there was a feeling on the part of
Ireland, that even though the Legislature was against
them, while they had the present representative of
the King they would obtain justice.—(Loud cheers.)
Even with that question unsettled, and the Corporation
question left over, under the influence of that noble person
a very great improvement was observable in the country.—
(Cheers.) If all these excitements, all these insults, all
these marks of contempt towards the people of Ireland
abetted, or supposed to be abetted by the Govern-
ment of that country, he would ask what
there was in the Tithe Bill then which would pro-
mote tranquillity in that country? He was not
afraid of proposing that the House should not agree to the
Lords' amendments, because a large majority of the other
HoUse had decided against them. He knew full
well that on the American question those who con-
tended for justice to the Colonies were not one fourth
of the whole House. He was told by a near rela-
tive that he had divided with Lord Chatham on the
question, when only four Noble Lords divided with them.
He trusted the House, in agreeing to the motion he was
about to make, to refer the consideration of these amend-
ments till this day three months, would give their decided
assent to the proposition, that the Bill which was now
sent down from the Lords could not form the
basis of a settlement in Ireland.—(Hear, hear,
and loud cheers.) By doing that, they would do what
was consistent with justice, and they would still be to the
people of Ireland, that House of Representatives to
which they would look for future redress.—(Cheers.)
If they took the opposite course they might depend upon it
they would be preparing the way for great evils. He was
convinced that if the House pursued that course which
it had hitherto adopted, that although their progress might
be uncertain—although it might for some time be interrupted
—yet they would at length have the reward of tranquillity and
satisfaction in Ireland. They would not then have to re-
gret that they had preferred what was just—that they had
preferred what was conciliatory--to the attempt of doing what
was neither just nor conciliatory ; thereby maintaining
the character which they ought to have as the House of
Commons of England, and come what might finally, the
triumph must be theirs. The Noble Lord sat down amidst
loud and long-continued cheers.
Sir R. PEEL then rose and said—Sir, the motion with
which the Noble Lord has just concluded his speech is tan-
tamount to a postponement for another year of the settlement
of the question of tithes in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) It ap-
pears that he submits this motion to the House on a double
ground. In the first place, on a doubt which he entertains
whether the amendments introduced in the Bill by the House
of Lords are not an unconstitutional interference with the pri-
vileges of the House of Commons ; and, in the second place,
on the specific merits of the case, and the impolicy of the al-
terations which they have wrought in this Bill by the subtrac-
tion of the appropriation clause. I shall endeavour to follow
the Noble Lord on both his grounds of exception to these
amendments ; but, first, I maybe permitted to say that, if the
former objection stated by the Noble Lord be a sound
one—if the ground taken up by him of the interference of the
other House with our constitutional privileges be a substantial
one—it ought to be decidedly stated so, and made the
ground of a preliminary obstacle to any further considera-
tion of, or proceedings with, this Bill.—(hear, hear.)
Before we go further, I would :now submit to you,
Sir, whether this is or is not the proper course for the deli-
berations of the House to take in the present state of the pro-
ceedings, arid I shall beg at once to appeal to you to say, in
reference to this ground of objection adduced by the Noble
Lord, whether the obstacles attaching to this interference are
so great and sufficient as to warrant the throwing aside the
present Bill as informal and unconstitutional, and then bring-
ing, in a new Bill to which such objections shall not attach ?
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord says that he agrees with the
patriotic sentiment expressed by Mr. Pym, that our powers
and privileges are not to be considered of importance as merely
exercised for our own benefit, but for that of the whole
kingdom ; and in that light they cannot be viewed as the airy
and unsubstantial nothings which some have represented them.
Sir, I shall not dissent from the views taken by the Noble
Lord, and which he has illustrated by the authority referred
to ; on the contrary, I call on him to take the course
-which he has indicated the propriety of, and (if he really
feels the importance of the objection to be equal to the stress
he has laid on it in his address this evening) to join me in
disposing of it as a preliminary point.—Hear, hear.) If
he does, and if the Bill should thereupon be set aside, I give
notice that I myself will bring in a new Bill on the subject,
which will equally afford him an opportunity to maintain our
constitutional privileges, and which will further give him the
opportunity of bringing the question of Tithes in Ireland to a
speedy settlement.—( Cheers.) If these privileges, then, are
not mere airy and unsubstantial nothings, I think the Noble
Lord should not content himself with merely hinting dislike in
his speech to what he considers an unconstitutional interference
therewith, but should place his opposition on record in the
shape of an appeal to the House and the decision of its Speaker.
—( Hear.) I fully agree with the opinions of Hatsell on this
subject. He says-_" That we should studiously avoid cncoe4,
raging jealousies or questions of rights andprivileges the two Houses. From the beginning- of th reser
be`..ween.
a period of above fourscore years, the claim of thePz. -
'6
century,
mons to their rights and privileges in matt -louse of Com-
been seldom, or but faintly, controvertecP- -,rs of supply have
tdhe Lords. The rules
which they have from time to tim
owndto be observed
haarceens;easne
clinrdens upon
in Bills of Aid, or in Bills imp,;m-
-g-efterally
the people, have been very
practice of both House; of parliamess e
beenin ; and the
has
adapted to these rules, It perharps, be difficult tuonireprmlsy
with precision and correctness the doctrine which isexforebe
collected out of thee` precedents ; but, as far as my observa-
tions have
,y
gene, I think the following propositions contain
pretty near;} everything which has at any time been claimed
by the Commons upon this subject : First, that in Bills of
Aid w.id Supply, as the Lords cannot begin them, so they can.
not make any alterations, either as to the quantum of the rate
or the disposition of it, or, indeed, any amendment whatso-
ever, except in correcting verbal or literal mistakes ; and even
these the House of Commons direct to be entered specially in
-their journals, that the nature of the amendments may ap-
pear; and that no argument prejudicial to their privileges
may be hereaft'r drawn from their having agreed to such
amendments. Secondly, that in Bills which are not for the
special grant of
upon supply but which, however, impose burthens
people, such 'as Bills for turnpike roads, for nevi-
gti'ans, for paving, for managing the poor, &c., for which
twls and rates must' be collected—in these, though the Lords
may make amendments, these amendments must not make
any alteration in the quantum of the toll or rate, in the dis-
position or duration of it, or in the persons, commissioners,
or collectors appointed to manage it. In all the other parts
and clauses of these Bills, not relative to any of these mat-
ters, the Commons have not objected to the Lords making
jAlterations or amendments. Thirdly, where the Bill or the
3-..------4--,,,itmendments made by the Lords appear to be of a nature
4, 41,-11;r.vdrukhough not immediately
FoOf ,yet in their consequences,
.")41--7-' g a charge upon the people, the Commons have de-
)44e right of the Lords to make such amendments,
kyr tire Lords have acquiesced. And, lastly, the Com-
-- i r.sesert, that the Lords have no right to insert in
), i
evuniary peQalties orforfeitures, or to alter the pecu-

niary forfeitures which haltp beers inserted by the Commons.
These rules, witli respectiockhe passing or amending of Bills,
are clear, distinct, and easy to beamderstood and applied in
all the cases which may occur. It has been sometimes at-
tempted to extend its claim, on the part of the Commons, still
further; or rather so to construe this claim as to tend very
much to embarrass the proceedings of the House of Lords
upon Bills sent from the Commons. This has never appeared
to me a prudent measure. I think the House of Commons
may rest satisfied with the observance of those rules, which
they maintain upon the ground of ancient practice and ad-
mitted precedents. Their sole and exclusive right of begin-
ning all aids and charges upon the people, and not suffering
any alterations to be made by the Lords, is sufficiently guarded
by the claims as here expressed ; and it does not. seem to be
either for their honour or advantage to push this matter fur-
ther; and, by affecting privileges which may be subjects of
doubt and discussion, thereby to weaken their claim to those
clear and indisputable rights which are vested in them by the
Constitution, and have been confirmed to them by the constant
and uniform practice of Parliament." In following up these
just and prudent opinions, I may be permitted to say that it
appears to me that it would be far better to waive at once the
plea of constitutional privilege, and reject the Bill as amended
on the question of its merits, than to litigate the point with
the House of Lords, or leave the public in doubt of the har-
mony existing between the two Houses of British Legislature.
( Hear.) I hope the Noble Lord feels the force of this view
of the case, and will consent to disembarrass the debate of this
one of his grounds of objection.
Lord J. RUSSELL and several Hon. Members on the
Treasury benches here exclaimed " No, no."
Sir R. PEEL continued—Then, Sir, I must appeal to you,
and beg you will at once declare your sense of the case,
whether the ground of objection taken by the Noble Lord is
sufficient to merit the attention of the House? If you think it
is, then I will at once go with him into the discussion of
the question of privilege ; but I must say that it is not fair to
leave a point of this nature subject to a doubt that can be so
readily solved by an appeal to you, Sir. It is not right to mix
up questions of privilege and policy, which can serve no other
purpose than to entrap the younger Members of the
House, and to catch a few stray votes, by embarrassing the
feelings and judgments of those whose inexperience in these
matters might lead them to range themselves in support of
the privileges of this House, although the attack was only
imaginary._( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had judiciously
combined his grounds of objection, so as to make up a doubt-
ful case, suited to the most tender capacities.—( Laughter.)
He seemed to say to his young friends, object on what
what ground you please, choose which you will, but give
us the benefit of the doubt, at all events.—(Cheers and
laughter.) I asked him to confer with me on this point; but
he prefers the effect of his speech on the sensibilities of the
House.—( Hear, hear.) But it appears, if I understand him
right, there arc four other grounds of objection to which he
attaches importance.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the subjects to which he
had alluded were the four parts of the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL continued—l understood the Noble Lord
to say, that he objects, in the first place, to the alteration from
seventy per cent. to seventy-five.
Lord J. RUSSELL never meant to raise a question on
that point of difference, but he had called their attention to
the consideration whether (there being a grant out of the Con-
solidated Eund included in the Bill) the Lords could consti-
tutionally interfere with the portion of it which provided for
its application.
Sir R. PEEL—WeII, then, Sir, as that is the most impor-
tant point, I think we ought to have the benefit of your opinion
on the question of privilege, to pave the way to it. If, on the
one hand, you think there is so much real ground of objection
attaching to the amendments of the other House, as the No-
ble Lord does, I am ready to acquiesce, and to shape my course
accordingly : but, if on the other, you agree with Mr. Hat-
sell, that it would be better not to raise a doubt of the respec-
tive rights and privileges of the two branches of the Legisla-
ture, then lam ready to go at once into the substantial points
of the Bill. For my own part, I never understood that the
surplus contemplated by this Bill was to go to the Consoli-
dated Fund.—( Hear, hear.) I thought, with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that the only legitimate purpose to which
it could be applied was to further the efforts of the Board of
National Education, not to be thrown into a common fund, for
the alleviation of the public burthens, or to promote colonisa-
tion in New South Wales, or any other secular purpose that
might be deemed expedient.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that that part of the Bill
which gave a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues to the uses
of the Board of National Education (and which portion was
to be supplied directly out of the Consolidated Fund), being
interfered with by the Lords' amendments, might bring that
interference within the privileges of that House, and such
would be highly objectionable as a matter of precedent. Ne-
vertheless, he had stated that, as the amendments made to the
pecuniary clauses of this Bill did not interfere with any sup-
plies voted and intended by the House for his Majesty's ser-
vice, although they did with the good of Ireland, he thought
that the House might allowably proceed with it as amended by
their Lordships.
Sir R. PEEL continued_l thought I heard the Noble
Lord say, further, that there had been a good old time when,
if such a Bill had been sent down by the Lords, so interfered
with, it would have at once been rejected by the Speaker,
and kicked, by the rest of the Members, out of the House.
If the Noble Lord did not quote that as an example to be
followed in the present day, he certainly expected to gain
some votes at least by the feelings he was endeavouring to ex-
cite on the subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL'S explanation was inaudible at our
end of the gallery.
Sir R. PEEL then sat down.
The SPEAKER—As my opinion has been called for I
shall endeavour to state it as clearly and briefly as I can, con-
sistently with the importance of the subject. If the Bill had
been limited to a new distribution of the existing property of
the Irish Church, I am of opinion that a difference between
this House and the House of Lords as to the proportions in
which that property should be distributed would not have been
a violation of the privileges of the Commons. If the grant
of 50,0001. per annum for education had been left in the Bill
the Lords could not have diminished the amount of the con-
templated surplus, because that would have diminished the
fund to be applied to the re-payment of the Consolidated
Fund, and would have been inconsistent with the privileges of
this House, because it would have increased the burdens of
the people. The difficulty arises from the insertion of
50,0001. for education. In considering the Bill I have looked
to the privileges of the Lords as well as of the Commons, and
I feel that, that clause remaining, the Lords could have made
no other amendment than to give a little more or less to the
Clergy, but without altering the total amount. Still it may
be said that this House has made a grant on the condition of
the Lords agreeing to the whole Bill, and the question is,
whether they might not contend that, that grant having been
made, the Lords had no right to alter the Bill. This would
he a strong assertion of privilege, and it was chiefly from this
case being pointed at as a precedent that I think this question
important. The House had, therefore, to consider whether
they will press their privilege so far, or whether, if they con-
sent to agree with the Lords' amendments, they will not guard
against the effect of the precedent by a special entry on their
journals.

Sir R. PEEL again rose and said —Now, Sir, as this diffi-
culty has been set aside by your decision, we shall have, I pre-
svme, no further doubts on that head, and may turn to a review
of the amendments on their merits.--(A cry of " No, no.")
I shall defer to the sense of the House ; but I understood that
you, Sir, had so expressed yourself to that effect. I shall say
this is my own impression.
The SPEAKER was understood to intimate his assent.
Sir R. PE EL continued—The Bill contained a vote of
50,0001. to education purposes, which it was directed should
be paid out of the Consolidated Fund fur the present, because
there was no surplus in hand. But the Lords had omitted the
grant : and if they did it was, he conceived, done in the justi-
fiable exercise of their own right to amend the Bill as it might
appear expedient.
The SPEAKER explained that this House had made the
grant in consideration of its being charged on the Consolidated
Fund for the present ; and the question really was, whether
the Bill should be returned to the Commons as it went to the
House of Lords ? [The remainder of his observations did
not reach us l.
Sir R. PEEL continued—Then the question is disembar-
rassed of the doubts arising on the subject of interference
with the constitutional privileges of this House, and I may, I
hope, proceed to address myself to the second part of the
Noble Lord's objections. The Bill as sent down by the Lords
will decl:4o from the amount of tithe composition 25 per cent.
insfrad of 30. The Noble Lord says that he secs no reason
:eny they should not adopt 30 per cent. ; and I may say with
equal consis,ency that we can see no reason why he should not
be satisfied with 25. We are told, however, that it is parti-
cularly absurd in us to refuse to alienate this sum of 50,000/.
for the purposes of public instruction in Ireland when we have
already consented to the transference of 25 per cent. of the
incomes of the Clergy to the pockets of the landlords. But
we consent to it on the understanding that it is only a just
compensation for the transference
i of liability which accompa-
nies it. But, if you prove that tis too little, I will consent
to the substitution of 30 per cent. inits place, but I must say
that I think 25 per cent. appears fully sufheient. The Bill,
as sent down by the Lords, subjects the landlcrds to that
liability which will ensure the regular payment of tithes
in future, while it relieves the poor tenantry from the vex-
atious proceedings hitherto made on them in its collection,
and at the same time relieves the Clergy from the harsh ne-
cessity to which they were so long exposed of entering into
collision with their flock to obtain a subsistence. The most
satisfactory measures are adopted for the collection of tithe
until Parliament shall otherwise provide for its redemption,
and the arrangement for the support of the Clergy from a less
objectionable fund. Now the collectors are not the indivi-
duals concerned, but the authorities appointed by Parliament.
A gradual reform of the whole establishment is provided for ;
benefices above the value of 500/. per annum, and with
a Protestant population not exceeding 100 souls, are to be
reduced.
The Bill further subjects to the care of the Lord
Lieutenant in Council to provide that no benefice shall in
future include more than thirty square miles, or be increased
beyond 300/. per annum, if situate in the country. It also pro-
vides that there shall be a separate fund established to pay
off charges on benefices, and the surplus shall be applied to
the building of glebe houses, the enlargement of churches or
chapels, and the augmentation of small benefices. It surely
cannot be deemed. unreasonable to apply such a surplus to the
purpose of providing glebe houses, when it is recollected that
there are only 850 glebe houses in Ireland, while there are
1,230 benefices. Thus there were yet 400 glebe houses ab-
solutely wanted before the Protestant Ministers could be ac-
commodated with residencies to attend to their spiritual duties ;
and, I will ask, can there be any more consistent application
of the surplus? The Noble Lord called their attention to the
despair that the poor farmer would feel if the surplus saved