The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-24 00:00:00

THE SUN-, LONDON; TUESDAY; JULY .24 1835.

testent Church, or of interfering with its property. No; on I
the contrary, his ( Sir R. Peel's) decjaration was, that at the
time of the passing of the Bill they had the most distinct and
positive assurances from the most eminent authorities, that in
their opinion the restoration of civil equality was perfectly
compatible with the maintenance of the Established Church.
He was alluding to Mr. Canning, to Lord Piunket, who told
them the Established Church was the essential bond between
the countries, and that he would throw Catholic Emancipation
to the winds if he thought that one of its indirect results would
be to injure the Establishment. He was speaking of Lord
Castlereagh—of all elm had not disguised their opinions, but
had given the most solemn assurances that, by the removal of
the disabilities, they were only taking fresh security for
the Church. So much for that part of the question. With
respect to any opinion which the Noble Lord might choose to
express or maintain, as an individual Member, he ( Sir R.
Peel) was not disposed to quarrel, but he bad objected to the
Noble Lord's speech as being the speech of a 111 nester of the
Crown.—( Hear, hear.) That was what made it absolutely
necessary for him ( Sir R. Peel)to be equally explicit as to his
views of the arrangements now making, and the light in which
they ought to be taken. The Noble Lord (Howick) con.
tended that it was perfectly right and absolutely necessary for
all persons, at all times to express their opinions, and yet he
proved, in the course of his speech, that his rule might some-
times be infringes on, and that in all cases it was not appro-
priate for a Minister of the Crown to be so frank. The Noble
Lord said that he had made up his mind as to the future fate
of the Irish Church, arid yet they had it, on the Noble Lord's
authority, that it would at present be highly dangerous to ex-
press any opinion on the subject.—( Cheers.) It appeared,
then, that there might be occasions in which the expression of
opinion ought to be dispensed with. The Noble Lord had
also said the longer the people of Ireland could be persuaded
to acquiesce in the present Establishment, the greater would
be the harmony of the empire. His ( Sir Robert Peel's)
fear was that the speech they had heard from the Noble Lord
the other night would disturb that harmony.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HO WICK put it to the Right Hon. Baronet and
to the House whether the Right Hon. Baronet had alluded
fairly to what he ( Lord Howick) said the other evening. In
the first place, in saying that there was a wide diff rence be-
tween his opinion and those of his Noble Friend (Lord J.
Russell), the Right Hon. Baronet was greatly mistaken. He
(Lord Howick) thought that when the two opinions came to
be closely scrutinised there would not appear any such wide
d;fferenca between them. The Right Hon. Baronet had
also accused him ( Lord Howick) of saying that men should
at all times state their opinions, and of afterwards departing
from that rule. In so stating the Right Hon. Baronet had
not repeated correctly what fell from him on those points. He
(Lord Howick) said in the first place, with regard to opinions,
that it was the safest and best policy on questions of great im-
portance not to conceal or keep back views on which it after-
wards might prove necessary to act.—( Hear, hear.) This was
the substance of what he said, and he never meant to put forth
so absurd an opinion as that, it was necessary for every indi-
vidual Member to trouble tine House with a statement of all
his views and opinions. Then the Right Hon. Baronet had
accused him of saying that it was sometimes dangerous to ex-
press an opinion ; what he ( Lord Howick) said was, that now
it would be dangerous to enter into any explanation of political
opinions, as it would be impossible to carry any measure
founded on them through the House.
Sir R. PEEL had no wish to magnify the differences be-
tween the two Noble Lords, nor was his inference drawn from
their conflicting arguments, but never was he more mistaken if
he did not hear the Noble Secretary for the Home Department
say that " he could not concur in his ( Sir R. Peel's) opinion,
but that neither could he subscribe to those of his Noble
Friend."—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.) This was no in-
ference drawn from conflicting sentiments but from words ac-
tually heard.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAY, if he were to choose between the plan of the
Noble Lord and that of the Right Honourab'e Baronet,
should certainly prefer the former. Because while he
thought that whatever was objectionable in principle was
equally applicable to both, inasmuch as both involved a grant
of public money, still, as the plan of the Noble Lord com-
pelled the tithe-owner to take the money, and that of the
Right Hon. Baronet left a door open for resistance, the for-
mer should have his support. The plan of the Noble Lord
went to the purchase of peace, while that of the Right Hon.
Baronet involved a sacrifice of public money, without appeas-
ing the dissensions by which Ireland was now troubled. He
wished the public clearly to understand the monstrous nature
of the proposition which thiS grant implied. It was no less
than this—that we gave indemnity, by a grant of public money,
to certain subjects of. the Crown of England, against whom
there were legal claims to a large amount. This indemnity
was against debts fairly due, but which they could not recover,
from fraudulent debtors, and which the Ministers of the Crown
also declared their inability to recover. The claim ought to be
either abandoned or asserted. On what ground of justice
could they propose to take one-fourth of his property from the
titheowner ? Surely it could not be on the score of collection,
which at the highest rate could not come to more than ten per
cent. If the tithes were a just claim, why not assert it by en-
forcing the law ? Those on the opposite side of the House
must either be actuated by party feelieg in not seeking the
enforcement of the law, or else they were most pusillanimous
in not acting up to the principle which they professed. If the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had no other ground
for the agitation of a repeal of the Union, the Church Esta-
blishment would be in itself sufficient. Were the House to grant
the sum it would only bean adjournment—as the Noble Lord the
Secretary at War admitted—of the great principle at issue, and,
under these circumstances, he ( Mr. Clay) would not consent to
tax the industry of the people of England and Scotland for the
purpose of adjourning the final adjustment of this question for
a short period, and relieving the fraudulent debtor, who re-
fused to pay that which it was asserted was legally due of him.
Lord STANLEY rejoiced that the experience of the last
four years had taught his Noble Friend the Secretary of State
fur the Home Department, the imprudence of manifesting
any difference of opinion which might exist in the Cabinet-
-( Hear, hear)—but it was surprising, with the views which
the Noble Lord the Secretary at War now entertained, that he
could have supported the appropriation clause. The Noble
Lord ( Lord John Russell) did consider the appropriation
principle as a fair and honourable compromise ; but if his
Noble Friend the Secretary of State thought that this was a
fair and reasonable compromise, he knew that there was at that
time in the Cabinet itself one who thought that it neither
could nor would be satisfactory to the country.
Viscount HO WICK did think that it would have been
satisfactory.
Lord STANLEY was now surprised at the ishible Lord's
change. He was surprised at what he had communicated to
to the House, that he did not entertain any sanguine hopes of
the success of that principle. But he ( Lord Stanley) would
pass by this. It was satisfactory to him to see the doctrine
universally recognised, and to see it admitted by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Home Department, that the appropriation
clause was abandoned—that whilst it violated the principles
contended for by one party, it was not accepted by the
others. The appropriation clause, and he thanked God for
it, was now given up by the Secretary of State, and was
condemned both on the one side and on the other.—( Cheers. )
What a justification to those who had all along opposed it was
the admission of hie Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) lie
( Lord Stanley) had listened with surprise to the speech of
the lion. Member who had just sat down, and to the manner
in which that speech had brought him to vote. The Hon.
Gentleman had thought it convenient to taunt them with the
gross injustice of giving up any thing to the landowners, lay
or clerical. He had charged those who differed from him
with want of firmness and pusillanimity; with not enforcing
the legal claims, and with not pressing their demands for the
debts which were due. Would they, said the Hon. Member,
in any English case, have permitted such injustice ? No, not
if there had been ten Ratheormacs instead of one, would they
have prevented the enforcing of a legal claim of this kind in
England. The Hon. Member had argued for the enforcement
of the legal debt, but to what conclusion had he come ? To
give no grant of the public money, and yet to vote for the pro-
position of the Noble Lord and against the proposition of his
Right Horn. Friend, and thus, without endeavouring to collect
any which remained due, he would extinguish all tithe arrears.
That was the conclusion of the man who, in his speech, was
for enforcing the law and upholding the rigid demands of
justice ; and till he ( Lord Stanley) had heard it, he did not
believe that any man would have proposed to take away the
legal claim of the clergy to the debt, without giving any com-
pensation whatever. He was happy, however, that this was
noz a question which Parliament was called upon to consider.
The difference between the Noble Lord opposite and his
Noble Friend near him was this, that the Noble Lord would
extinguish all claim to the arrears of tithes, although he would
at the same time grant 260,000/. or 300,000/, an indefinite
sum, wholly. His Noble Friend said that whilst he would
grant 300,0001., which was not an equivalent for the amount
due, it was but just to keep alive the demand for the arrears
of tithes. He would not extinguish them, he would not enact
that they should not be collected ; bet he would offer that
amount as a fair and liberal and equitable compromise to in-
duce the titheowners to forego their demands. This was the only
question between his Hon. Friend near him and the Govern):
mcnt. Moreover, he would not abandon the claim; but if the
Hon. Gentleman wished to place the question on the low prin-
ciples of his money, his Noble Friend proposed to grant the
300,0001., not to extinguish the tithes; but that such persons
as chose to accept the compromise might transfer their claims
to the Government, leaving the Executive Government to
press for the re-payment, when, and in what cases it might think
fit, and to recover the amount for the people of England and
the people of Scotland. Now, which plan was nearest to the
views of the Hon. Gentleman—which would best keep alive
the debt which was nearest the non-extinguishment of a just
debt ?—( Hear, hear.) Which would abandon the entire lia-
bility—which would give every encouragement to the resist-
ance of the law—the proposition of his Hon. Friend or that
of the Noble Lord, for which the Hon. Gentleman was about
to vote that night ?—( Chum ) Which would give the
fairest equivalent to the tithe-owner? The Noble Lord pro-
posed to give an indefinite sum—he did not know the amount
—and, in return, he proposed that the tithe-owner should
abandon the whole amount of his claim, the aggregate of
which the Noble Lord was not aware of. He would give the
amount absolutely ; lie neither knew the amount that would be
demanded, nor that which could be afforded ; it all depended
would on the amount which tine Government should recover of the
original debt. That was the proposal of the Government ;
they du e ; buuldt, if the
enable
him to grant an amount in return which ought to be, and
whilst his Honourable Friend said that he would grant tine
same amount—he held the sum not as a full equivalent--
titheownersh e
a• acknowledgedould handta t over elra rtgheeli r debtclaimw was
s
which he thought would be satisfactory, considering the trou-
ble and difficulty which the titheowners would have in collect-
ing the arrears. The amount would be paid by tho Stag;,
and if they handed over their claims, well and good; if not,
the law was open to them, and they would have every assist-
ance on the part of the Government to enforce it.—( Cheers.)

That waS the proposition of his Right Honourable Friend ;
and would the Honourable Gentleman say that there was most
justice in that of the Noble Lord or of his Right Hon. Friend?
—( Heer, hear.) The Noble Lord had abandoned, forced by
the argument of his Right Hon. Friend—the Noble Lord bad
told them that h,•, had abandoned the limitation to the last two
years loan.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was indifferent about it.

Lord STANLEY—But it was not a matter of indifference.
A matter of indifference! Why, the largest views of general
justice which he had ever heard put forward by the Govern-
ment or by any Member of Parliament had been advanced by
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets ;
but the strangust indifference had also been shown by the Go-
vernment as to what they (the Opposition) considered to be
the principles ofjustice:--( Hear, hear.) Differing, however,
from the arguments of the Noble Lord he was willing to come
to the same conclusion, and he was ready to take arrears of
tithes of 1834, 1835, 1836. and 1837. He (Lord Stanley)
would not enter upon the questi.,n of deficiency of the
sum of 300,0001., or of the definite sum of 260.00 a,
added to an indefinite amount which the Noble Lord
thought he could recover. That was not the condition
on which his Right Honourablo Fiend had proposel his
amendment. He would however, deal with the 260,0001. and
the amount to be recovered. The Noble Lord said that they
would be giving no option to the Clergymen. The Noble
Lord did not object to give the option, enforced by the argu-
ment of his Right Hon. Friend. The Noble Lord thought
that it would be most just ; ho was compelled to admit that
they ought to give the option where they took the property ;
but then the Noble Lord said that the option could not really
be exercised, because it would be invidious on the part of a
Clergyman, when his parishioners saw others take the grant,
not to accept the amount, but to proceed for the arrears of
tithes against the owners. Now he ( Lord Stanley) did not
deny the injustice of the option—he did not deny the extent
of the iuconvenience. It would and ought to weigh deeply in
the minds of the proprietors, both lay and clerical, and it would
induce them to accept the instalment. But, at the same time,
the mend force of these considerations was a very different thing
from giving the titheowner no option, from forcing bim to accept
the instalment. In spite of all that had been said, and all that
might be said, about the expenditure of 27,0001. to recover
12,000/. which he had heard twenty times repeated in that
House, he (Lord Stanley) did not regret that he had incurred
that expense ; and when he recollected the considerations
which, though he could not state their purport, then marked
the deliberations of the Government, he would say, that if it
had not been for unfortunate circumstances over which he had
ro controul, that expense would have had the effect of secur-
ing not only the 12,0001., but also a large proportion of the
amount which was due. If the plan of the Hon. Gentleman
who would that night vote against his speech—( Laughter)—
were adopted, it would be effectual and decisive, but it con-
tained that superlative degree of
,injustice to which the Go-
vernment had not yet worked up their minds; Government
took the intermediate course, they would not abolish the legal
claims without compensation; whilst they (the Opposition)
proposed that which would perpetrate an injustice, they made
a sound proposition founded on strict justice, they kept alive
the arrears, they transferred them to the Executive Govern-
ment from all parties, high and low, rich and poor, solvent
and insolvent, that wherever they were able the law might be
rendered effectual, as it bad already been in several distin-
guished instances. —( Cheers. )
Mr. CLAY explained.
Lord STANLEY thought he very clearly apprehended the
arguments of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member wished
to vote for the total abolition of arrears, and, notwithstanding,
to vote for a grant in shape of compensation, thus opposing his
own prineiple.—k Hear, hear.)

,
CLAY thought both the proposition of the Government
and that of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite were bad, but he
supported the proposition of Government, because it was less
objectionable.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN thought the proposition of the
Right Hon. Baronet ought to be extended to the sum of money
commonly known by the name of the Million Laan ; it had
been proposed in 1836 to remit it, and he did not see that any
Bill would at present be perfect or just without it; for it had
been found fair in 1836, and it was just as fair in principle in
1,838. As regarded the Million Loan, it ought to be remitted
to the Clergy, unless in cases where the amount given by the
Government had been subsequently recovered from the tithe-
payer, and, of course, in this case he would not extend the
remission of the loan. With respect to the subsequent ar-
rears, he thought it would be well to grant some compensa-
tion, but with respect to both propositions, he would never
allow public advantage to interfere with the principles of
justice.
Mr. RE DDINGTON wished it to be understood that he
did not think the present measure would accomplish a final
settlement; and, though he would support it, his hatred to
tithes and his opposition to them would be as great as pre-
viously to its passing.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
offsr a few observations to the House before they came to a
division. The first proposition of the Government was not
what may now appear before the House—it was that in case
the loan of 640,0001. had been remitted, the Government
would collect as much as possible of what was due by the
landlords, not by the occupying tenants, and this was to be
applied to the demands of the Church. As an equivalent
'they demanded that the Church should remit the arrears, not
of any given year, but those due generally by the occupying
tenant, and be would then state again his firm conviction that
whatever arrangement they might make would be incomplete
if the occupying tenant were not remitted his arrears. The
Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had stated that there
were cases where the occupying tenant, so far from being a
needy person, whose position required that the arrears should
be remitted, he was, in some cases in a better situation with
regard to property than the landlord—that he was more
wealthy and solvent. There might, he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) admitted, be such cases; but the majority in
a vast proportion were persons in circumstances the very
reverse of wealthy or solvent, at least in comparison to the
landlords. The divided balance of evidence was against the
existence of many such cases es that cited by the Noble Lord.
Would any Honourable Gentleman who heard him say that
the majority of the tenants were at all to be compared to the
landlords in wealth or solvency ? Would not every Honour-
able Member who had any acquaintance with Ireland admit
that the very reverse was the fact in the great `majority of
cases? Did any Hon. Member believe that there etas any
possibility of recovering the more ancient arrears from the oc-
cupying tenant ? Did the Noble Lord think it possible to re-
cover them, or did the Right Hon. Baronet suppose that any
one of the writers of those fifty letters which he had received
b.lieves that there was the remotest possibility of their col-
lection ? There was direct and undoubted evidence that the
contrary was the fact. Was the recovery of arrears become
more facile in proper-lion to the length of time they were due ?
Were Irish arrears, like wine, improved by age ?—( Laughter. )
He would appeal to any Hon. Member who heard him. With
respect to the compensation to the clergy, he would say that in
calling upon them to remit those arrears, they demanded a
very poor sacrifice, for they would nut be able to obtain from
the occupying tenants those as rears which they claim. He
was told that by refusing an option to the clergy they were in-
terfering with, and violating the rights of property. He could
not cite a better answer to this argument than that adduced by
his Hon. Friend near him, namely, the Slavery Abolition
Bill, which left no option to the proprietors of slaves in the
West Indies. The whole Bill was a compromise between two
contending parties. The Government had stepped in between
the tithe-owner and the defaulter, and undertook to say for
itself how much one should pay and how much another should
receive. They were not called upon to sacrifice any de-
mands for tithes which would in future accrue. The object of
the Bill was to present expense and litigation, to afford the
Clergy compensation for the amount of tithes which they were
likely to receive, and when the House considered that a great
portion of the tithes were totally irrecoverable, they would
see that the amount of compensation was fairly proportioned.
Now he would direct the attention of the House to the differ-
ence between both the plans proposed. One was, that in case
a concession was made, the public would obtain a security that
the purpose for which this concession was granted should be
fulfilled. If, however, they sdopted the principle of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, there was no security that the concession
would be productive of peace or tranquillity in the country. The
Right Hon. Baronet had proposed that the arrears should be
vested in the Government, arid that they should have a per-
fectly arbitrary power as to the defaulters—they should pro-
ceed against them for the arrears, and those to whom they
should grant a remission. That was a most objectionable
power to vest the Government with, and he protested
against it. Let there be no misunderstanding nor any charge
of delusion at a future period, for he distinctly repeated that
he would not undertake to take to collect a single farthing of
arrears from the occupying tenants. With respect to the
landlords the case was totally distinct. From them the tithes
could be recovered, and they ought. The concession was for
the purpose of securing peace to the country by giving peace to
the occupying tenant ; there was a better chance of securing
the efficient working of the Bill, and he would be then enabled
to say to the people of England that if they sacrificed a sum
of money they would at least have an equivalent.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not ask the vote of compensation
in order that they should go begging about the couutry asking
what Clergyman would take ten shillings, and what Clergy-
man would take fifteen shillings in the pound; but he asked in
order to be so arranged as to secure peace by leaving no op-
tion. If they extinguished the demands of the Clergymen they
would secure their objects. Did the Noble Lord expect that all
the clergymen would consent to accept the compensation ? He
could tell him they would not, and he therefore would place
in a position of hostility to the Irish people those who would
He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that the Government
refuse.h had not gone far enough, they ought to include those cases of
tithe arrears which were the subject of litigation, and allow
the clergymen a certain portion of the costs. On these
grounds he (Mr. O'Connell) respectfully but totally repu.
dieted the plan of the Right Honourable Gentleman. Tue
Right Honourable Gentleman had stated that his plan was in
accordance with Mr. Grattan's Bill, but that measure was re.
pudieted by the Catholics of Ireland before it was rejected
by that House; and the Catholics of Ireland, therefore,
had nothing whatever to do with it. And as to the opinions
of Lord Plunket on the subject, though they were enforced
with the most consummate talent, and though he (Mr. O'Con-
nell) had the greatest respect for them on that account, he
felt bound to state that the Irish Catholics repudiated them
too ; and, in proof of it, withdrew their Hation from his
hands, and transferred them to those of the then Honourable
Member for Westminster.—( Laughter.) The Noble Lord the
Member for Lancashire had ssmenrted the elln of the Right
Hon. Baronet, and referred to hie own proeeedings in doing
se. But hoW steed the ease in respect to the Noble Lord ?
The Noble Lord had expended 27,0001. in the recovery of
12,000/. arrears of tithes. Why did not the Noble Lord
answer that taunt against his course of proceeding ? And
yet, though the Noble Lord expended that sum, he was quite
.• ‘•

in error in supposing that he bad made any way in the recovery
of the arrears of tithe in Ireland. The Legislature was now
about to attack the landlords. A_ worse experiment could not
be made if the stability-of • the tithe system were the point in
view. The Protestant landlords would now join with the
Catholics, and the payment of the tithes would be refused by
them conjointly instead of separately, as at present, unless
some plan very different from that of the Right Honourable
Baronet were adopted. Even now, at all the tithe meetings
which took place in Ireland, it was usual to find a Protestant
gentleman of station and property take the chair, Protestant
gentlemen of wealth and respectability propose the resolutions.
If, with that fact before the House, any attempt was made to
keep up the system of collecting the old arrears of tithes, the:e
was not, he would be bound to say, the remotest prospect of
peace, quietness. settlement, or even adjournment of the ques
tion, and all its evil consequences in Ireland. Hi (Mr; O'Con-
nell) was one of those who wished for an adjournment of the
question. He fully concurred in the wide and stat. sman-like
views of the Noble Lord the Secretary at War.—( Hear, hear,
and laughter.) All that could be purchased by the scheme of
the Government was a postponement of the question. What
' he (Mr. O'Connell) desired was, that every existing incum-
bent of Church livings in Ireland should have his pr.ifits for
life; but that a settlement should take place on his death, by
which all future incumbents should be paid proportionately to
their services, and the residue be devoted;tu the furtherance of
education and other national purposes—to the benefit of the
public ; in short, he should implore the Hou-e, in dea ing
with the plan before it, tot begin with expunging altogether
the outstanding arrears of tithe in Irela id and by that means
to give quiet and peace to the resideat landholders. Under
these circumstances, he should oppose the Right Hon. Baro-
net's proposition.
Mr. SHIEL did not mean to enter on the whole merits of
the ease, but to address himself to one point in the plan of the
Right Hon. Baronet. With the greatest respect he begged
to suggest a difficulty in that plan which he did not see how
the Right Hon. Baronet could get over. What did the Right
Hon. Baronet intend to do in regard to executors ? Would
executors have the power to accept the 50 per cent. proposed
if left without the protection of an act of Parliament? He
(Mr. Shiel) thought they would not.
Sir R. PEEL was understood to say across the table that
they would have the power to consent to the proposition.
Mr. SHIEL—The Right Hon. Baronet had said that exe-
cutors would have the power to consent to the proposition ;
But he (Mr. Shiel) thought they would not unless, indeed,
they had the sanction of the Court of Chancery or the Court
of Exchequer for every case of acceptance. In every in-
stance in which a Clergyman died leaving property of the
nature of tithes in trust, the executors would have no power
to accept less than the sum so demised, and no discretion left
them in the matter, but would be compelled to enforce it. But
was the previous conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet consis-
tent with the course he now pursued? The House Would

be enabled to judge from the (acts. When in 1835 the Right
Hon. Baronet brought forward his plan for the settlement
of tithes proposed by the Right Hon. and Gallant Member
for Launceston, did he make the collection of the au-ears an
element in it ? He did not. Yet, what did he do now ?

Now that be was out of office he suggests to those that are in
a different course from that which he had himself pursued
when in possession of power. The plan of the Government
did not essentially differ from the plan of the Right Honour-
able Baronet in 1835. It was founded on the pre-'up-
position that Ireland was injured by the collection of tithe
from the occupying tenant of the land. That was quite
in conformity with the
.principles of the Right Honour-
able Baronet's plan. Why did he, then, propose an-
other, the effect of which could only be to mar
the good that might be derived from it ? He (Mr.
Sheil) did not mean to say that the present tithe
measure would succeed in Ireland=-(Hear, hear)—he had
never offered even a prediction to that effect ; the Honourable
Gentlemen opposite did ; they asserted that the country would
be tranquillized if the payment of that impost were placed on
the landlords. What did they do to advance it ? If the plan
proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet were adopted, they were
not to look for peace in Ireland ; if the arrears of tithe were
to be collected at the option of individuals, there was no pas-
sible ground to hope for tranquillity in that country. The
Government proposed to discharge the occupying tenants—
that, according to the expressed assertion of Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, was the main promovent of peace for Ireland; yet
what course did they suggest? To give the Clergy a power
of negativing that project, and to leave to individual caprice,
and individual passion, the peace of the country. That was
one of his (Mr. Shiel's) strong objections to the, plan of the
Right Hon. Baronet. On soother part of the case he (Mr.
Shell) did not think the objection taken by the Right Hon.
Baronet to the speech—the remarkable speech--of the Noble
Lord the Secretary at War—(Laughter)—for which he ( Mr.,
Sheil) thanked the. Noble Lord—he did not think they were
quite appropriate. 'he Right Hon. Baronet had said in the
early part of the debate that he heard the speech of the Noble
Lord with regret—
Sir R. PEEL was understood to say that he could have
said no such thing, as he was absent when the speech alluded
to was delivered.--( Laughter.)
Mr. SI-HE L then said that if the Right Hon. Baronet was
not present to hear it, the Noble Lord the Member for North
Lancashire, who reflected his opin'ons—his fidus Achates—
was —( A laugh.) At least the Pylades and Orestes of the
party, the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Pembrokeshire, were there to reply to it.
Lord ST kN LE Y—To a speech made three days ago.
Mr. SHIEL said, that fact was important, inasmuch as it
showed the necessity of replying at once. However, what
struck him in that speech was the circumstance that the No-
ble Lord approved of the appropriation principle in 1835,
though he did not believe in its efficacy as a remedy now. He
(Mr. Shiel) did not perceive any difference whatever between
the speech of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home
department and the Noble Lord the Secretary at `Var.—
( Laughter.) He had read them both— he knew their politi-
cal history well—and he was quite at a loss to discover any
essential difference—any difference in point of principle—be-
tween them. It was the interest of the Hon. Gentleman on the
other side of the House to saw dissension in the Cabinet—
( Laughter)—but in that he tru tel they would fail. He was
sure they would fail.—(Laughter.) When he found the
House affirming the resolution of the Right Hon. Baronet in
1835 he c 'red' little' for any attempt on the other side to sow
dissensions; but if the Government gave up the appropriation
principle, he would unhesitatingly say that they abandoned
altogether their claims to public respect. —( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL rose merely to address himself to the only
two points ured by the Hon. and Leared Member against
his prop( sitiong. Nothing gratified him more than the fact
that after all the cogitation of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, he could adduce no greater difficulty to urge against it
than that relating to the duties of executors. The plain an.
swer he (Sir R. Peel) should give to this objection was to
state that, by the ordinary operation of the law as it stands,
executors had the power to accept the best terms offered them.
So much for the Hon. Gentleman's first objection. He (Sir
R. Peel) would now come to the second. The Hon. Gentle-
man had said that in 1835 he (Sir R. Peel) proposed a cer-
tain sum in lieu of the arrears of Tithes, and soefar the
Honourable Gentleman was right.— ( Cries of " Hear.") He
( Sir R. Peel) had at that time a balance of 360,0001. at his
disposal, and he had proposed it as a compensation for one
year's arrears of Tithes. Four years' arrears were, however,
now due, and yet the Hon. Gentleman proposed to give less
for those four years than he ( Sir R. Peel) did for one year.
So much for the Hon. Gentleman's second objection. With
respect to the particular observations of the Hon. Member, in
regard to his (Sir R. Peel's) conduct towards the Govern-
neent on this question, he ( Sir R. Peel) might be permitted
to say that he should always feel inclined to correct the Green-
wich observations by reference to those of another observatory.
—( Cheers, and great laughter.)
After a few words from Lord MORPFTH,
The Committee divided—.
Ayes
Noes
Majority against the amendment —2l
On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. HOME pro-
posing the omission of the clau,e altogether, as being framed
for the benefit of the Church of Ireland at the expense of the
people of England.
Sir IL PE E L could not at that moment support the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, whose consent oppo-
sition to the interests of the Irish Church rendered it prudent
to consider seriously befure acquiescing in any motion of his
on that subject.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would be very desi,able
to avoid delay, and wished to know when the Right Hon.
Gentleman would be prepared to enter on this discussion.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was far from wishing or asking
for any delay. If the House pleased it might proceed on the
motion, but he would reserve himself for the third reading.
Perhaps the Noble Lord could say when he would be pre-
pared to take the third reading.
Lord J. RUSSELL, after some consultation with his
colleagues, hoped to be able to bring the third reading before
the House on Thursday.

Sir R. PEEL would be ready 'to give his decided ouilion
on Thursday.

Mr. HUME pressed his motion, and the House divided—
For the original clause
For its rejection 43

Majority
On our return we found Sir R. PEEL declaring bis in-
tention of moving, in reference to the next clause, the total
remission of arrears to the actual occupier, excepting in cases
where he should also be the total and absolute possessor as
well as occupier.
On the sth clause being proposed,
Lord STANLEY said that the loss of the 640,000/. which
had been paid, was caused to the public because of the ap-
propriation principle which the Government had introduced,
and which they had since given up.—(Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the appropriation of the 640,0001. was proposed long before
the appropriation clause was even introduced.
Lord STANLEY repeated that it was the appropriation
principle of 1834 which led to the 640,0001. being paid to the
Protestant Clergy of Ireland.
Sir R. PEEL proposed soma verbal amendment, which
were agreed to.
Mr. O' C QI•INELL proposed that the words zt the end of
the clause should be left out.
Tbc Committee then divide& when the numbers were—
Ayes
N.ae;

Majority
I% 34
We subsequently understood tha% it was Sir R. Peel, and
not Mr. O'Conrwii, who moved and carried this Amendment.
CLitt,:es 1.-:t to it inqlusi%e were then agreed to.
go r!ia:r,,e 12 ', •ing proposed,

Lord MORPETH' skigesttest Oay the costs of litigation
should be paid by the p,eron who should recover in the action.
Sir R, pqgi, thought that the Treasury, and not the C'vely,

ought to bear these expenses, an,l moved an amendment to that
effect ; on which
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 62
Agairist it
Atijarity
The clause was then agreed to, as were also the remaining
clauses.

The House then resumed, the report was received, and the
Bill ordered for the third reading on ThUrsday..
The County of Cl.rre (Ireland) Advance Bill, which stood
for the third readin,/ was withr%-.rwn ; And lease was given to
i;ri:•.g in a fr..,sh Bill for raisiog money ri:quired on the
secu:-ity of the couot) rates, ins:ead of the manner previously
proposed.

The Sea Coast Irelaqd) Bill was, on the motion of Lord
MORPETH, viithdrawn.
The Tiihes and Land Merger Bill was read a third time
and passed.

The Liverpool Clergy Endowment Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to he committed.

The Arms and Guopowder (Iceland) Bill went through a
Committ• e, and was ordered to be report. d
•The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER move,dtbe
third rending of the Schools ( Scotand) Bill.
Mr. GIL L.ON said that late as the hour was he felt it to be
his duty to state his objections to the Bill.—( Loud cries of
Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Brotherion.") He objected to the
way in which the money was to be raised, and he thought the
only effect which such a measure could have, would be to in-
troduce a narrow and sectarian system of education in Scot-
land. He also objected to the arrangements with respect to
schoolmasters, and he could only say that the Bill would not
satisfy those at whose instance it had been brought forward.
It %%RS a measure fraught with injustice to the Scotch Dis-
senters ; and before such a Bill was passed, the Government
should recollect that it was from the Dissenters of Scotland
they received the best supplies. He would not be discharging
his duty if he did not move that the Bill be read a third time
that day six months.
Mr. P. HO WARD seconded *he motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended
the Bill, and he hoped the House would allow it to pass the
final stage.
Mr. WYSE, if he received an assurance from the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a
general inquiry into the subject of Education in Scotland should
take place, would support the motion for the third reading of
this Bill, but otherwise he must oppose it.
The House then divided, when there appeared.--
For the third reading ..• 42
For the amendment l7
Majority
25
The Bill was then read a third time end passed.
Mr. F. MAUL E moved the third reading of the Parlia-
mentary Burghs (Scotland) Ball.
Mr GIL LON moved the re-insertion of clause 6.
The House divided on the motion of the Hon. Member,
For the re-insertion of the clause 6
Against it ...
Majority against it —4o
EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, a Select Co nmit ee was granted to inquire into
the state cf Education in Scotland.
Committee to be named to-morrow (this day).
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-pest One o'Clock.

WILFUL MURDER AGAINST MYERS
AND MRS. POW.

ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. POW.
(Concluded from Tke Sun of yesterday.)
Caroline Hastings, who stated that she was a married woman, and
lived at No. 31, Queen-street, New_cut, Lambeth, was next examined
—Had known the deceased for the last two years. He had lodged its
witness's house for the last twelve months of the saki time with a lady,
who he (deceased) said was his wife. The deceased was of very intem-
perate habits, constantly drinking gin. The deceased had informed
witness that he had 601. per annum ; 41. paid monthly to himself, and 11.
monthly to his (deceased's) infant daughter. Witness also understood
that Mrs. Pow had an allowance of lOs. weekly, but she (witness) did
not know from what source it came. On Wednesday week last Mrs.
P.iw and Mr. Myers called upon witness and informed her of the de-
ceased's death.

FOREMAN—Do you know a man named Pite ?
Witness—l do, Sir; he was in the habit of coming to see Mr. and
Mrs. Pow whilst they lodged 01 r 4 house.
Mr. BODKIN (to the witness)—Now, on your oath, are you sot aware
that Mrs. Pow left her husband and went to live with Pite?
Witness—Yes, Sir, I am aware ot that circumstance.
Martha Bullen, keeping a coffee-house at No. 205, Tatenham-court-
road, was next examined; her testimony, however, merely went to
prove that, about three weeks back, Mrs. Pow and Mr. Myers took a
lodging for the night at her house.
Mrs. Chapman, the landlady of the house where the deceased died,
and who was the first witness examined in the case, was re.called, by
her own wean, and said that she had forgot then to state to the Jury that
Mr. Myers had, whilst the deceased was on the floor, taken a pint and
half of blood from him, during which he had made the observation,
" Why, Mrs. Chapman, he will yet rally and make your house shake
again, for he (deceased) is a very powerful man."

The whole of the evidence being coycluded, the CORONER summed
up at considerable length ; after which die room was cleared ofstrangers.
At the expiration of two hours the Jdry returned a verdict of " Wil-
ful murder against Henry Myers, and also against Angelina Pow (the
deceased's wife), as an accessary before the fact." The inquiry termi—
nated at seven o'clock.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.--Mr. Colburn, of Great
Marlborough.street, has just published the following interesting New
Works in History, Biography, and Travel :-1. Captain Spencer's Tra-
vels in the Western Caucasus, &c., in 1836, a Sequel to his "Travels it
Circassia," 2 vols. Bvo., v ith Plates, 285.-2. Dr. Jenner's Life ant
Correspondence, by Dr. Bsron, row first Published complete, 2 vote.
Bvo., with Portraits, 245.-3. The American in Paris, a New View of
Society in that Capital, 2 vols. post Bvo., 185.-4. The Veterar. ; or, 40
Years la the British Service, by Captain John Harley, 2 vols., 218.-5.
Mr. Bennett's Guide to North Wales, 1 vol. Bvo., with 20 etchings, by
Alfred Clint, 18s. bound.-6. The British Senate in 1838, kirming
Second Series of Random Recollections of the Lords-and Commons, by
the author of" The Bench and the Bar," &c., 23ors. 215.-7. The Rost
Fancier's Manual, comprising an Atcount of,the Culture and Propaga-
tion of Roses, &c., by Mrs. Gore, 1 voly6aatud, 10s. 61-8. A Visit to
China in 1836-7, by C. T. Downing.7Esq., M.R.C.S., 3 vo's., with
lustrations, 315.6d.-9 Queen Jl'zabeth and Her Times, a Series of
Original Letters, dedicated by permission to the Queen, 2 vols. Bvo-,
with Portraits, 32s.—And 10. The Duchess of Marlborough's Private
Correspondence, illustrative of the Court of Queen Anne, with her
Sketches and Opinions of her Contemporaries, second edition, 2 vole.
Bvo., with portraits, 28s.
MRS. JAMESON'S MEMOIRS OF THE BEAUTIES
OF THE COURT OF CHARLES IL—Mr. Colburn has just issued the con-
cluding Part of the new edition of this beautiful work, which is now
complt ted in six Parts at only 7s. 6d. each, and comprises 21 splendid
Portraits. The graphic portions of the work are truly worthy both of
the exquisite graces of those surpassing beauties whose forms they coin'
memorate, and the skill and genius of the mighty masters ofp—Ortraiture
whose works are thus multiplied. We have the muitum in parvo of
the finest forms of female beauty in the world—the choicest excellence
of England's ancient school of port rait painting..:-the most masterly exe-
cution which modern engraving can bestoet—and an interesting Memoir of each of the celebrated characters' thus.-ought before our eyes by the
chaste and judicious pen of one of the most accomplished female writers
of the day. Nothing, in fact, is wanting to make this publication per'
fect in its kind. The paper and typography are of the most superior de-
scription, and the price is moderate in the extreme.—Dublin Eveniag-
Mail.
A short time ago, a turkey cock belonging to Mrs.
Addeman, of Rossington Bridge, was observed to be wandering about
in a desolate state. At length the bird found a hen's nest containing
only one egg, and began to slt tipon it. This circumstance having, been
observed by the farmer's wife, sic placed underneath him eigkt hen's
eggs. He continued faithful in the work of incubation, and may now
be seen strutting about the farm-yard with eight chickens wi.th all pater-
nal care and affection.—Doncaster Gazette.
An old lady, remarkable for her confused idea of the
meaning of words, dcsc;ibedo clear summer evenhig thus:—" was A
beautiful bright night-ithe moon made everytk:mg as light as a cork 1.--
New York Mirror.

-.!!! PATENT LEVER WATCHES,
With silver double-bottom cases £6 6 °
With silver hunting cases • 6 16 ° This celebrated cons4uction (the most accurate on which a
watch can be made) is offered, with the, latest improvements,
i. e. the detached escapement, jewelletlviii four holes, capped'
hand to mark the seconds, hard enapaellial, and maintaining poweg to continue going while winding a/at the above price, by
T. CO X fAVORY'S,
Working Silver and Goldsmith, 47, Cornhill, London,
(Seven doors from Gram-church-street.)
N.B.—Second-hand Watches purchased in exchange.

___
.._..2_____...-
___
R 11?7 H.S. --
On the 17th inst., at Fulmer-place, Bucks, the lady of Henry
Waterton, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 19th inst., at Springfield House, the lady of John R.
Shaw, Esq., of Arrow Hall, Cheshire, of a daughter.
On the •,od inst., in
N Albion-street, Hyde•park, the 3ady of 11.
. Middleton, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 23d inst., in Brunswick-square, Airs. Henry Cheape, of
a daughter.
On the 22.(1 inst., in Lower Berkele,y.street, Mrs. Maberly, of
a son.
On the 12th inst., in Alontague.square, the lady F. G.
of W.
Farmer, Esq., of a son.
On the a
daughter.l2th inst., at the Grove, Blackheath,
Mrs. Rickards, of

MARRIED.
On the 19th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, Henry, se'll
of J. Bowden, Esq., of Grosvenor plsce, to Marianne Cathee.ner
youngest daughter of the late Major .General Sir M. Burpoynet
Bart., of Sutton Park, Bedfordshire.
On the 19th inst. , at Tottenham Church, Calvert Toulm'in, 'Esq''
of Lode-place, Regent's-park, the youngest son of J. Tams'
Esq., of Hackney, to Eliza, daughter of the late J. H. Livings"'
Esq , of Jamaica.
On the 19th inst., at St. Paul's, Islington, Chv les Hitchco_ckf
Esq., of Highbury-park. to Caroline Anne, second daughter of "'
Hanley, Esq., of Newington-green.

----
..„..._______
D IE D.
On the 21st inst.., aged 52, Sarah, relict of W. Lloyd, Esq., stir'
many y, ofears Barresidennet, Hetrthere.ts, and daughter of the late John Cerpe,l%scl"
On the 30th of April, near Kotah, Lieutenant W. i Briggt
74th Bengal Native Infantry, Diplomatic Assistant at the
Mit
dency of Rajpootana, second son of T. F. Briggs, Esq., Somerset-
place, place, London.
At Bromley, Kent, on the 14th inst., the wife of LieuterPott'
General Sir J4ti Keane, K. C. 8., G.C. H.
On th.z Ltth inst., at Wheatley, aged 15, Louisa, eldest doughtier
of Sif W, B. Cooke, Bart.
Seymour-street Portman-square.
On the 14th inst., Henry Tremayne, infant son of Mr. Irabh, °f
UlSnertSheeylm3
of rimurnontAiitvi, g
E. A' e
On 1,-..k., lath of April, at Nwiseerabad, Rajpootana, Mrsria
o_o
rptita•ingdh_tioana,cet:lizabeth Mary Richardson, lit.
%^h, wife of of
R. Rich, 22d Regiment. of Be g Native Infantry.

1°"(1T1- printed an.' Published by M O URDO YUNG , of
:1,2 Strand, at The Sun Office, No, 112, Stran4) it the Geo
Qf Middesex, - u e sday , July 24, 1838.

//