The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-01 00:00:00

IRISH CORPORATIONS.

Lord ACHESON presented a petition from Armlgh,
praying that House not to receive the Irish Corporation
Bill as amended by the Lords.

MUNICIPAL-CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
Mr. O'BRIEN presented a petition, praying the House
not to sanction any amendment made by the Lords in the
Irish Municipal Corporation Bill.

Mr. POTTER presented a similar petition from Ro-
chester, agreed to at a public meeting. The Hon. Member
said that an Hon. Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Sinclair)
had denounced such petitions as hue and cry petitions ; but
be was glad a hue and cry had been raised, and he trusted
it would continue as long as justice wag withheld from Ire-
land.—( Hear, hear.)

,
Mr. BROCK LtHUIIST presented several petitions
from Macclesfield and other places, against the Lords'
Irish Municipal Bill ; also a petition, praying •for a 'Fen
Hours Factory Bill ; and several petitions against the pre-
sent Tithe system.

Mr. 'MAHER presented several petitions praying for
the abolition of Tithes. •

Lord G. SOMERSET presented -a petition from the
town of Gloucester, praying the House to pass the lush
Municipal Bill as amended by the Lords. The petition
was signed by no less than five magistrateS, 21 clergymen—
(lronical cheering from the Ministerial benches)—six sur-
geons, six bankers, 72 gentlemen, and 200 other respect-
able individuals.

Mr. FIUME begged to ask the Noble Lotd whether
the petition was agreed to at a public meeting, or at a
hole-and-corner meeting?
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said. it had been
got up in consequence of a meeting held by the other
party, and he believed it fully expressed the opinions of
those by whom it had been signed.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL presented two petitions
praying for the abolition of tithes.
(EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

On the motin❑ of Sir C. B: VERB, the Eastern Coun-
ties Railway Bill was read a third time and passed.

IRISH CHURCH BILL:

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Noble Lord opposite
(Stanle%) had given notice of an amendment which he in-
tended to move on the Order of the Day for the second
reading of the Irish Church Bill—the amendment was for
leave to bring in a Bill to commute the tithes in Ireland into
a rent charge, and for the more equal distribution of the church
revenues in Ireland. He wished to state to his Noble Friend
that if his object was to bring in a Bill for such a purpose,
(Lord J. Russell) would not object to such a course ; but
he would take the same course as he had done last year on
the motion for the second reading of the Tithe Commuta-
tion Bill, brought in by the Hon. and Gallant Member
opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) ; that was to say, lie would
offer- no opposition to the bringing in of the Bill—(Hear)—
But, of course, if his Noble Friend persisted in bringing on
the meico as an amendment to the motion of his Noble
Friend (1.0,-(1 Morpeth), then he must oppose it. He
merely stated this in order that his Noble Friend might
decide upon wLat course he should pursue.
Lord STANLEY said his wish was to bring in a
Bill in conformity with his notice of motion. He
had no other intention whatever than to take that course
which would be most cow% enient to the Government and
to the House, so that he might have his Bill under the
consideration of the House along with that of the Govern-
ment, for which he meant his to be a substitute. He
-.should not then object to his Noble Friend's proposition,
f he would consent to postpone the second reading of the

•r \ •

Government Bill for three weeks—(Oh, oh !)—so that .botlii4
might he fairly before the itrITIO!--(Chee• )
Lord J. RUSSELL moat undoubtedlTcaiTTl
sent to postpone the second reading of the Bill. It had
been for a very considerable time before the Douse, and it.
was now absolutely necessary that they should come to a de-
cision upon it. It was Lis intention, dale second reading was
carried, to postpone the Committee for sonic time. But
be could not co::scnt now to I:ostpone the second reading.
--(Cheers.)
Sir It. PEEL—The Noble Lord spoke of taking the
same courl:e on this occasion as he had done last year upon
his (Sir R. Peel's) Bill for the Commutation of Tithes.
Upon that occasion the Noble Lord distictly said he could
not agree. to the second reading of the Bill, fir that would
acknowledge its principlc—(Hear, bear, hear)—then how
could he call urinal to give this Bill a second reading ?
If, therefore, the Noble Lord intenled to pursue the same
course as he pursued with respect to another Bill last Ses-
sion, he could not object to postpone the second reading
of this Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not posiponc the
second reading of this Bill as a matter of course.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he did not ask the Noble
Lord to postpone the second reading, but he objected to
its being treated as &matter of course.
Lord MORPETH moved the reading of the order of
the day for the second reading of the Church of Ireland
Bill.

Lord STANLEY then rose. He hoped the interest he
had at all times taken in subjects of this kind, and the part
he had been led to perform on various occasions would at
least vindicate him from any charge of presumption, if lie
offered himself tos the consideration of the House at this
early period of the discussion.—(Hear, hear.) . Ile could
assure his Noble Friend that be felt compelled to come for-
ward on the present occasion, on account of the overwlieming
importance of the subject.—(Cheers.) He wished the sub-
ject was in other hands, for he felt he was taking upon him-
self a task for which lie was unequal, and which lie would
not undertake, except upon the consideration that it was
the bounden duty of every man who felt well to his country
to do all in his power to settle a question affecting Go-
vernment after Government, and Administration after Ad-
ministration.—(Cheers.) The present question, as long as
it remained unsettled, affected materially the interests of Ire-
land and the nation at large, and fostered and kept up enmities,
excitement, and differences, not only between parties in that
House, but also between the two branches ofthe Legislature.
If he thought the present state of the law safe towards the
Church, creditable to the Government, and consistent with
the maintenance of peace and tranquillity, his task on the
present occasion would be,easy and short. There would be
little difficulty in exposing the vices in principle, and the
grievous and many faults in the details of the present Bill
so as to justify the straight-forward and simple course
of moving the rejection of the Bill on the second read-
ing. But he did not feel that the present state of
the law was safe to the Church, creditable to the
Government, or consistent with the welfare and peace of
Ireland. It was true, that by the Act which he had been
fortunate enough to be the instrument of passing, the
clergy in a great portion of Ireland had recovered their in-
comes with comparative ease, and were now resting from
their collisions with the peasantry, and, in point of fact,
were in possession of a considerable portion of their incomes.
It was true, that by the active and extraordinary remedies in
the courts of law, the rights of the clergy were vindicated
under circumstances of great difficulty. It was true, also,
that by the patience, forbearance, and moderation of the
Clergy for the most part of Ireland—(Great cheers from
the Oppositiela of the House, which were answered by
ironical 64;ra from the other side)—he thought that the
worst enemies 'of the Church could not deny that great mode-
ration and forbearance—( Cheers, and cries of ," Oh, oh !")
with which the great. -majority of the clergy had borne the
sufferings and privat4'-vis inflicted upon them individually
and collectively. If any Gentleman wanted to know—if
they wanted a clear and convincing proof of the feelings
that this conduct had excited, he called upon him to look
at the extraordinary liberality that Protestant sufferings
forbearance and patience had called forth among their Pro-
testant bethren. Whilst they relieved the distresses of
individual clergymen, they had given a striking and con-
vincing proof that they would not allow the Church to be
overborne by the machinations, the fraud and the vio-
knee of others.—(Loud cheering from the Opposition.)
It was because the clergy had been relived thus liberally
and kindly—it was because their moderation had elicited
this liberality—it was this that induced the friends and
members of the Church to exhibit that moderation in
their demands and concessions which the clergy were
pressed to do in their hour cf need.—(Hear, hear.)
It was because the Courts of Law had in some cases pro-
cured a partial remedy that he did not desire to see those
extreme remedies brought into operation, and it was be-
cause they stood in a better situation' than they
stood last year that he desired to come forward,
not opposing the second reading of the Bill with-
out submitting some distinct and tangible propositions
to the House, but lie asked of the House leave to state
how far they were prepared to go. He might be asked
why did lie not take the course taken by his Right Hon.
Friend- the Member for Tamworth in the course of last
year, and agree with him to go into Committee on
this Bill, or to move an instruction previous to going into
Committee, for the purpose of separating_ those parts which
they objected to from those parts, and some there were
to which they acceded. To that lie would say in the first
instance, that his Noble Friend had so ingeniously
trived to mix up throughout the whole of the Bill the ob-
jectionable principles to which they could not and would
not consent—(Loud cheers from the Opposition)—
he had embarrassed the principle, already so vi-
cious, with so much new detail, as to raise that
almost to the rank of principle, that it was impossible
to separato the portions of the Bill which, they had at-
tempted to separate last year.—(Hear, hear.) But again,
his Majesty's Government were placed in a different po-
sition to that in which they stood last year. (Hear,
hear, hear.) They had not forgotten the coarse which
his Majesty's Government had thought it their duty to
was a strange idea of duty in his mind to pursue, when
they refused the great practical boon which both branches
of the Legislature had consented to, unless it was accom-
panied with the assertion of a principle which they admitted
could barely be brought into practical operation, which
was mischievous in itself and pregnant with infinite
danger.—(Loud cries of hear, hear, hear.) It was his
duty, after the course. which his Majesty's Government
had announced it their intention to pursue, to appeal to
the Government and the House of Commons with reason
and moderation, to state what they were prepared to do,
—frankly deal with the grievances which frankly they
acknowledged, and to declare that they would go so far
and no further. ( Hear, hear, hear, and cheers.)
Perfectly sensible as lie was of the difficulty which any
individual Member of that House had to contend with in
bringing forward a proposition of thiS nature, he had, not-
withstanding, felt it his duty to make the attempt, and he
trusted that although the House might not agree in his
proposition, yet that they would give him their patient at-
tention while he stated the course that the Legislature
had hitherto pursued upon this question, and how trifling
a practical result it was upon which they now differed.
In legislating on the subject of the revenues of the Church
three things were to be taken into consideration—first, the
amount of tithe revenue ; secondly, the distribution ; and
thirdly, the appropriation. Upon the two first of these
points, there were two Acts which bore distinctly upon it.
The Church Temporalities Act, introduced by his Noble
Friend (Earl Spencer), and the Tithe Composition Act.
With respect to the question of pluralities and other points
which were common to both countries, it was not his
intention to deal in his present Bill. The tithe
CompositiOn Act had made a most important alteration,
Tithes were no longer a tax upon industry, it was con-
, nected with a rent-charge payable by the landlords,
and, as far as the interest of the Tithe-payer was con-
cerned, they stood in a much better situation. With
regard to this Bill, and the payment to be made by
the tithe-payers, there was no other alteration in the Bill
brought forward by his Noble Friend than that in consi-
deration of the charge being thrown on the shoulders of the
landlord he would receive an increased reduction from the
amount of tithes he was bound to pay.—(Hear, hear.)
But it unfortunately happened, that in addition to
that question various other interests were brought to
bear. Interests as various and conflicting as possible—
some dealing with the amount and others with the distribu-
tion, and thereby prevensing, the settlenient of the whole,
or any part of the question. And, most unfortunately,
for Ireland—most unfortunately for them, and most unfor-
tunately for the well-being of the country, his Majesty's
Ministers, in an evil hour, for political purposes—
(Tremertous cheering from the Opposition) bound
themselves down to that princ;ple which his Noble Friend
so feelingly declared his inability to shake off,—(Renewed
cheering.) They would not give peace to Ireland until
a principle was sanctioned, which they must know
could not be sanctioned by the Legislature.—(Cheers.)
Who were the parties concerned in the question, and what
were their interests ? The landlords and tenants were only
concerned in the amount of the burden on the shoulders of
each. Those also were concerned, who, from religious or other
motives, were anxious to destroy the Church off reland. There
were also those sincere but mistaken friends who desired to
reform the most glaring abuses of the Church, and thought
that such was necessary to effect their purposes. There wa); also
those economical ,politicians who thought they could screw
out of the Church, to effect some pitiful economy that would
never be felt—(Great Opposition cheers)—a sum of
50,0001., to promote education, or assist the estimates, and
who brought that forward as a reason which should lead
that House to refuse a settlement of the tithe question.
It might be said, that the Tithe payer had an indirect in-