The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-26 00:00:00

had been expressed relative to the adoption of a general
rule as regarded the Railway Bills that might come under
the notice of the Legislature, he begged to state that a Com-
mittee of the other House had been for some time sitting, and
would very shortly report upon the subject. He should
now move that a Committee be appointed, to ascertain how
fir it might be expedient to make alterations in the Standing
Order relative to Railways, between this and next Session.
The Duke of WELLINGTON enquired if the Com-
mittee would examine evidence ?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not think such a
step would be necessary at that advanced period of the
Session.

After a few words from the Marquis of CLAN
RICKARDE, the motion was agreed to.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND.)

The House then went into Committee on the Established
Church (Ireland) Bill.
The preamble was postponed.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Upon clause 3, declaring all lands subject to the payment of
tithe compositions charged with an annual sum by way of rent-
charge, equal to seven-tenths of such compositions, to be pay-
able by the party having the first estate of inheritance in such
lands, being proposed,
Lord L YND HURST, as an amendment upon this clause,
proposed that the word " Leven-tenths" be struck out, for the
purpose of substituting " three-fourths." He certainly did
not think it unreasonable that, in consideration of the addi-
tional security afforded to the incumbents of parishes, by
transferring the charge for tithes from the occupiers to the
landlord, the consequence of that change being advantageous
to the incumbent—he did not think it unreasonable that some
deduction should be made, as a per centage, from the income
of the incumbent. In the Bill of last Session 25 per cent.
was proposed to be deducted, and he did not see any reason
now for extending the allowance to be made to landlords from
25 to 30 per cent.—( Hear, hear, from the Peers on the Oppo-
sition benches.)
Viscount ME LBOU RN E—No.

Lord L YND HUR ST presumed that the Noble Lord did
not assent to the correctness of that statement. It was true
that in the Bill of last year 30 per cent. was to be deducted,
but then there was to be a reimbursement of 5 per cent. to
the present occupiers. The Noble Viscount gave some
reason for this alteration—a reason that was not to him
very intelligible ; but the reason assigned by the Noble
Viscount was this, that the greater the delay of this
question the greater must be the difficulty in collecting
tithes ; and, therefore, for a single year's delay, they
were to have a deduction of 25 per cent. increased to 30 per
cent.--( Hear, hear, and cheers from Opposition Peers.) The
argument appeared to him to be an extraordinary one ; but
how did it affect the question at issue ?—(Hear, hear.) But
this was the assumption of the Noble Viscount. What, how-
ever, was the fact? Why, if they went according to the fact,
instead of there being a deduction, there ought rather to be an
increase ; for the collection of tithes had been more easily ef-
fected in the last year by the rigour of the law : to that they
were indebted for what the supineness of the Government had
neglected,
Lord H ATHERTON had heard a rumour that it was in-

tended to propose an alteration in this part of the clause;
but though he had beard, he avowed, he hardly credited it.
He scarcely thought that the Noble Lords opposite could
have adopted a course so inconsistent as this, particularly
when it was remembered what had been done by them in the
course of the last year. He begged to call the attention of
the House to what measure had been prescribed to it upon
this subject. Each time that the question came before them
a deduction in the income of the clergymen was proposed.
Three different Bills bad been submitted to their considera-

tion. Four different measures had been proposed. One of
them was proposed by Sir Henry Hardinge at the time that
Sir Robert Peel was at the head of the Government. The
Bill of Sir Henry Hardinge never was submitted to that
House, but three Bills came before them. In 1834, he, on
behalf of Lord Grey, had the honour to propose a measure,
by which it was proposed to grant certain incomes to the
clergy—a deduction was made by which their incomes would
amount to 753 per cent. Their Lordships would bear in mind
that not only was this amount secured to the clergy, but fur-
ther, there was an assurance of the complete protection of the
payment. That measure was deliberately rejected-772 per
cent. for the clergy, unconnected with appropriation, was de-
liberately rejected by their Lordships._( Hear, and cheers
from the Ministerial Peers.) Under the government of Sir
Robert Peel, it was proposed that there should be a deduc-
tion of 25 per cent.—that after the imposition of a rent-charge
their incomes should be but 75 per cent. The principle of ap-
propriation having been adopted by the House of Commons,
the Government of Sir Robert Peel retired. It was not to
be expected that the Government of the Noble Viscount would
also have rejected the appropriation clause. The resolution
having been adopted, the appropriation clause was inserted.
The Noble and Learned Lord said that there was a diffe-
rence of 5 per cent. between this Bill and the Bill of last
year. The 5 per cent. to which the Noble and Learned Lord
referred, was to be taken from the perpetuity fund, to make
up the income of existing incumbents. As regarded future
incumbents, this Bill and the Bill of last year were pre-
cisely the same.—( Hear, hear.) But he now called their
Lordships' attention to what was a curious fact. By the Bill
of last year the clergy were only to have 722 per cent. Their
Lordships did not object to that arrangement ; they passed
that part of the Bill in committee.—( Noble Lords on the Op-
position benches—" No, no.") He was not aware that any
division took place on the amount of the rent-charge. There
was this double inconsistency on the part of the Opposition—
they first proposed 75 per cent., and then they did not object
to 723. per cent.—( Hear, hear.) He had no chief secretary
for Ireland to frame a Bill upon this measure, and he knew the
extreme difficulty of obtaining the assent of popular Irish Mem-
bers--.( Cheers from the Opposition Peers)—and of the land-
owners of Ireland, to the imposition of a rent charge even to
that amount.—( Hear. )
The Earl of RIPON considered that if a reduction had
taken place in tithes hitherto, it was not a reason for rejecting
this amendment, but adopting it.
Viscount B ERE SFORD begged to assure the Noble Lord
that the Irish proprietors whom he might fancy to designate
"illiberal," would be very well satisfied with 25 per cent.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE stated that his great objection to
the measure was, that it made the clergy stipendaries.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI observed that it was
not the Bill sanctioned by Lord Grey that he and other No-
ble Lords, and those with whom they acted in the Commons,
opposed ; but it was the Bill as afterwards altered by the No-
ble Lord, and rejected by those who had been Members of
Lord Grey's Government.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed that tithes, it
had been stated by the Noble and Learned Lord, had been col-
lected with more facility this year than last year. He would
state that the fact was the reverse. What were the establish-
ments and institutions of this country for ? The benefit of
the people. Acting upon such principles as these, his Noble
Friend did wisely to make his measure palatable to the land-
lords and the popular party in Ireland.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH should support the
amendment moved by the Noble and Learned Lord.
Lord PLUNKET wished Noble Lords to recollect this,
that the Bill now before them was not one proposed for the
purpose of disturbing the Protestant Establishment in Ireland.
What, he would ask, was the situation of the Protestant Esta-
blishment in Ireland ? What was the situation of its clergy ?
Every one must admit, both were placed in difficulty and dan-
ger. Every friend to that establishment must desire to place
it in a better position. As long as he had known Ireland,
there was a disposition to get rid of tithes. As to any particu-
lar force in the expression " extinction of tithes," he did not
know that any should be attached to it. Noble Lords might
recollect that in a Committee of that House, sitting for the
purpose of investigating tithes, it was the universal opinion of
the Committee that those in Ireland must be got rid of. If
he was not mistaken, too, a Noble Earl, distinguished for the
accuracy of his expressions, adopted this phrase.
The Earl of li ARROWBY wished to know if he were al-
luded to ? If lie were, the Noble and Learned Lord was en-
tirely mistaken. The word was not his suggestion.
Lord PLUNKET remembered they were all agreed in the
Committee. The Noble Earl would excuse him for saying
that he (the Noble Earl) was so precise in his expressions that
he would cast about to get at the word that would exactly ex-
press his particular meaning. He would rather go a round-
about way, or he would rather journey through a periphrasis,
titan endanger himself, like the Noble Earl, by a particular
expression.--(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought, however, he
might say this, that the Noble Earl was an assenter to, if not
an originator of, this expression. Now upon this measure he
should say, that like every other there was the misfortune of
its coming too late. The favourable opportunity for consider-
ing it was lost. That which they now witnessed with respect
to this measure was the same with reform. The continued
and vexatious and foolish opposition to reform caused it,
when conceded, to be a more comprehensive measure than
when first proposed. He rejoiced in the folly of those
who opposed reform, because they made that reform the
more successful. So it was with the Catholic question,
carried by the Noble Duke in 1829. That measure was ad-
vocated by Mr. Fox, Lords Grenville and Grey, and other
distinguished patriots. Had their advice been attended to,
would not the Roman Catholic question have yielded more
satisfaction than it had done ? and there would have been none
of these heartburnings which so many felt when it arrived.
What did they do by resisting it? They stripped from the
brows of meritorious patriots the laurels to which they were
entitled, and they weaved them into a garland to put upon a
single individual, whom they thus made the favourite of his
countrymen, and identified him with their feelings.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter from the Duke of Cumberland.) If he
had attempted a joke it was probable he should not have ex.
cited the laughter of the Illustrious Duke. Noble Lords
made solemn declarations that they would never concede this
measure. He had heard solemn declarations—a readiness, it
was said, to sacrifice life and fortune sooner than submit to a
measure of reform. Much stronger declarations were made
against Catholic Emancipation, but all these declarations
meant this, that they would not do any thing until next session.
( Hear, and laughter.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON begged to call to the re-
collection of the House that a large portion of the landlords
were paying the whole amount of
10
0 per cent. He did not mean to say that all, but a large
now under the necessity of
proportion of them, paid 100 per cent. Other landlords
made a bargain to collect the tithes for 15 per cent. ; these
now paid 85 per cent. as the amount of tithe composition.
The Bill proposed that the rent-charge should be 7-10ths;
his Noble Friend behind him proposed that it should be
0;;;• cent. Now, he would. ask their Lordships, was not
fart iipiposition, considering what. had been done
uzorf++ell t, d that which had been in
that a
tstated the other Wolin even-
ucoPntteorntpileatiPortiP.Tt
ing,
thaF the amount
it was a point aureocl tO last yP4r,