The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-20 00:00:00

AGRICULTURAL_ DISTRESS,

Mr. WESTERN gave notice, that on some day during the
Session he would subiliit to the House some'Resblutions decla-
ratory of the general distress of the country, and particularly
of the Agricultural,classes and also descriptive of the extent
to which the change in the currency had operated the present
state otthetountry. _ _

GOULBOIN gave notice of a motion for Friday, on
the subject of a vote of Money forlreland.
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
Mr. ROBINSON moved the Order Of,the Day for the third
reading of this BilL
Mr. CURIVEN rose merely to say, that his sentiment,s on
this subject weredn no way altered. He did not think that any
attack should be made .upon the fundholder further than that
funded property should be assessed to bear a share of the bur-
then, of the.poor-rates. He hoped some such measure as that
would, at no distant period, be introduced, in 'order to relieve,
.in some degree, the land-owner of that grievous and increasing
burden. He therefore moved, that the Bill be read a third time
that day three months, only for the sake of recording his opi-
nion, and not with the intention of pressing the motion.
Mr. BRIGHT said he very much wished that something
should be done to liberate the capital embarked in foreign corn,
in order that that capital might be employed m the home-mar-

Mr. WESTERN felt his various objections to the Bill in
creased by a contemplation of the present state of Ireland.—
The distresses of that country arose? not, frOm a want of pro,
visions, but from the want of money in the labouring classes to
.possess them, arising frbm
:the want of employment. To
transport the capital of this country to the labourers of forei,,,,n
nations, by facilitating, as this Bill did,
.the importation of fo-
reign produce, therefore he never could:agree to. Ireland, was
quite competentto7gTow all the. corn this-country might want.
Mr. DENNIS BROWNE said, he did not see any reason
to fear the importation of foreign corn with the prospect of the
'harvest before us. " . •

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
IRISH T YTH ES,

The SPEAKER having called upon Mr. DALY to proceed
'with his motion on the subject of Irish Tythes,
Mr. Secretary PEEL rose to point the attention of his Hon.
.Friend to the situation of such a motion at that late period of
...the Session. It appeared to him that it was impossible to frame
any practical measure now, and the house could therefore only
enter into the general question. It had done this already, and
the effect of persevering in this motion would be, that the
.I-louse would give two pledges to enter upon an inquiry next
Session, having given one already.
Mr. DALY rose amidst cries of "Go On." He was very
-willing to accede to any request made by the Right Hon. -Se-
..cretary, in whose judgment he had so much confidence ; but
there seemed to be a general feeling in the House that this Ses-
,sion should not be lost. ',
Sir E. O'BRIEN observed, that the Noble Marquis at the
'.head of the Irish Government 'could not be expected to take
any steps upon the subject of tithes at. present ; but he was
-satisfied that next Session some measure would be brought
forward.
• Mr. SPRING INCE said that,the House and Ireland would

*not he fairly dealt with if the Hon. Member suffered himself to
/be persuaded against bringing on this motion, as many Hon.
..Members had omitted to give notice of motion on this subject

in deference to the Hon. Member,

Sir J. NEWPORT said, that if the Hon. Member did not
"proceed, he should not allow the Session to pass without mak.:
.Ing a motion on the subjects
Mr..D. BROWNE hoped the Hon. Member would not bring
on iris motion this Session.
Mr. DALY said, if he could understand that he would not
be opposed by his Majesty's Government in moving for a Com-
. mittee at the commencement of next SeSsion; he, would with-
, draw his motion.
• Mr. GOULBURN repeated what he • had before said, that
this subject was under the serious Consideration of the Govern-
ment of Ireland, and that he expected to state to the House, at
the beginning of next Session, whether he fhould be able to
;propose any measure or not. Beyond this he could not then
pledge himself.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD thought the Hon. Member (Mr:
Daly) had better portpone his motion, in doing which no one
could doubt that he was actuated by any other motive than that
of acting in the way most likely to promote the best Settlement
of this important question.
Mr. C. H. HIITCJIINON, Sir H. PARNELL, and Mr. CAL-
cnAFT' were of opinion that the Hon. Member for Galway
(Mr. Daly), had better proceed with his motion.
Mr. PLUNKETT advised the Ilon: Gentleman to postpone
'his irlotion: With regard to the general question, he never had
said that no specific measure could be proposed ; although he
himself could not see his way to•one. He thouht that next
:Session some specific measure would be brought forward; and
thought so far the principle of commutation might enter into
it, as that land might be- commuted for tithes ; and that was a
..desirable way of removing the difficulty. if this motion were
persevered in until,the final settlement of the matter, no one in
Ireland would be found to pay Et portion of tithes.
Mr. DALY said, as he was then, called upon to make a de-
cision; lie must say, that as his principal reason for making the
motion was to see how they were to stand at the beginning of
next Session, lie was willing, after what he had heard, to
abandon his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. HUME then rose and said, that in consequence of the
Hon. Member for Galway having quitted the field, it was his
intention forthwith to take the matter in hand, and bring the
whole queition of Irish Tithes before the House.—(Hear, hear,
tear !)--He had for some time contemplated a motion on the
-subject, and seeing, as he dill, with surprise, his Majesty's
Ministers were contented to sit idle for the rest of the Session
with regard to this heart-burning subject, whilst Ireland was
in a state which required a military establishment, at an ex-
pence of two millions, he was not sorry for the opportunity
of stating his views on the subject. If they were errone-
ous lie would he corrected • if not, he relied upon the sup-
„port of .the House to rectify the, evils which he considered

to be at the bottom of the present state of that country.—
His views might be wild. and visionary, btit he confessed that
he was not, able to reconcile the long series of insurreetions
in Ireland with the existence of the present tithe system.
alone. Tithes were indeed the principal cause'of the disturb-
ances of Ireland. He was -anxious to enable the Clergy of
Ireland to discharge their duties, but he protested against
making them allowances disproportionate to those duties. He
wished to avoid both extremes. It had been stated that tithes
were property as sacred as property of any.other description.
He was for, preserving the rights of property inviolate, but
church property had always been considered as at the disposal
of the Government; and he contended they had a right to dis-
pose of it, subject to the rights of persons actually in existence.
This right of interference had been . exercised by the Parlia-
ments of both countries ; the same sight had been also exer-
cised by the Governments of foreign countries. Church esta-
blishments were in fact no part of the Christian Religion, nor
were they necessary for its support. He had the authority
of Doctor Paley for this position, and he (Mr. Hume) con-
tended- that, at all events,- the allowance made to the Irish
Clergy was considerably too much. This allowance was,
of itself, a source of disaffection • but it happened that the
duties themselves were most inefficiently performed. He
admitted the service and respectability of a resident Clergy ;
but a great proportion of the Irish Clergy were absentees ;
and the money drawn from the industry of the people was
spent at Bath, Paris, and,- other places. Another objec-
tion to the present system was the present practice of the
Ecclesiastical Courts ; and another was to be found in the
mode of collecting the tithes. The landed Gentlemen had low-
ered their rents, but few of the Clergy had lowered their
tithes.—[The Honourable Blernber here stated an instance
of a refusal to lower tithes proportionably with the fall
in the agricultural produce.]—He had received' many letiers
containing other examples on the same subject ; one from
the Earl of Glengall, stating, a rise in the amount of tythe
made by the Bishop of Waterford. He had also the copy
of an address to the Grand Jury of Galway, in the Spring
Assizes of 1822, complaining of the pressure of tythes,
and stating that the Petitioners were charged as much for
'tythe as they were when their produce was four times its
present value. These Petitioners admitted that their rents
had not been increased for ,thirty years. He mentioned this
circumstance to show how unfair was the charge made by his
Majesty's Ministers against the landed Gentlemen of Ireland ;
but Ministers were ready enough to shift blame from their own
shoulders upon those of others. This was a subject of the
first consequence to this country, which was' compelled to
support the expence of keeping down the unhappy people
.who were goaded by oppression to resistance. And yet
the two Right Honourable Secretaries apposite, and the Attor-
ney-General for Ireland, were perfectly • willing to deprecate
inquiry, and to leave this load of suffering untouched for the
ensuing six months. If the Government suffered this oppres-
sion, anirshewed no disposition to remove it, the people would
be driven to 'resistance. He believed that neither the Arch-
bishops nor the BiShops had done their duty ; for he was pre-
pared to' show the evils attending their non-residence. In
support of .this, his assertion, he had only to refer to the pub-
lished -correspohdence between Lord Blayney and the Inha-
bitants (+Castle Blayney, respecting the neglect shown to their
and his application to the Bishop of Cloglier.—LThe Hon. :31 em-
ber here read the. Correspondencel—He would ask the Right
' Hon. Secretary himself, whether he had not, during the con-
tinuance of his office in Ireland, heard many complaints of
clerical Absenteeship ; -and this he (Mr. H.) believed was a
painful cause of the absence of Landed Proprietors. lie found
by returns on the table, that there were 1270 benefices in Ireland,
and there were only 770 Clergymen'who resided upon their liv-
ings. None were more ready to cant about religion than his Ma-
jesty's Ministers • yet it was they who appointed the Bishops
that suffered such a system of disgraceful neglect. It was a
perfect mockery to suppose that the power of leasing would
remove, the evil, for the evil consisted in absenteeship. He
understood that the late Bishop of Derry was absent fifteen
or twenty years from Ireland. The Honourable Member
here referred to the- answers 'given by the Irish Bishops
to a circular letter from the Lord Lieutenant, inquiring the
state of the Church. - One of the inquiries was, as to -the
value of the. land in each diocese, and only one Bishop an-
swered the question. Of the 1270 persons holding benefices,
only 460 had made the returns required of them. The pro-,
perty of the Bishops consisted of two-elevenths of the whole
property. , The Bishops on the whole Continent had not an
income equal to that of the Bishops of Ireland. He would
prove this if the House would go into a' Committee on the sub-
ject. He believed England and Ireland were the only coun-
tries in Europe in which a tenth was exacted from the' produce
to support the Church. It was said the Government was con-
nected with the Church ; but a Government which could be
supported only by the Church did not deserve to be supported
at all. Ile knew of no reason why this country should not
follow the example of France and other countries, in which
tithes were abolished, and allowances made to • the Clergy.—
In some countries the Clergy. were allowed only a third of the
tenth, and yet they were highly respectable.—l The Honour-
able Member here referred to a statement in support of his
latter proposition, shewing the mode in which the Clergy of
foreign countries were paid, and the amount of the pay-
ments.l—Unless the root of the evil were to be aimed at, it
would be impossible to expect relief, and he therefore intreated
the House not to refuse inquiry. Parliament had -voted away
sums for the support of the Church ' • but he was prepared to
shew that most of the sums had found their way into the
pockets of the great Dignitaries, while the poor Curates were left
to starve. The object of the Committee he intended to propose
was principally t 6 ascertain the value and distribution of the
Church property of Ireland. Unless a review of this Establish-
ment were taken, it would be impossible to expect any remedy
for this grievance of so many centuries standing. He had no
desire to interfere with existing interests. He would be satis-
fied, as he had no doubt the people would 'be, with a Resolu-
tion
.pledging itself early in the next Session to take into its
consideration the state of the Church Establishment of Ireland,
with a view to make such alterations as may be found desirable.
The Honourable Member concluded by moving a Resolution
to this effect. _ _

Mr. ELLICE seconded the motion. Ile regretted that the
Hon. Member opposite had given up his own motion on this
subject. He preferred a motion of la limited nature„ but he
was quite prepared to support the present motion: This, he
apprehended, was no new question, for it had long been consi-
dered-that the subject would ultimately press itself on the con-
sideration of Government. Ile denied that the property called
church property was any other than national property, subject
to the rights-of persons at present in possession of it. The
tithe system of Ireland was most oppressive; he understood
that there were as many as 46;000 suits for tithes in the county
of Galway within the last five or six years. Yet he was not
disposed to exempt the landlord from the payment of tithes,
because, as he had before mentioned, he considered the tithes
as church property.
Mr. D. BROM- NE said he was in favour. of a commutation
of tithes ; but he thought the revolUtionary speech of the lion.
Member would disindine many Members from such a com-
mutation. He (Mr. B.) called upon all those who supported
commutation to vote againsf the present motion.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT trusted he should be considered as
one taking as strong an inttvst in the affairs of Ireland as any
man in that House.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—The House had
been told to be satisfied with the assurance of the Right Hon.
Secretary, that the important subject of tithes -was under the
serious consideration of Government. This very declaration
had been made five years ago by the Noble Earl at the head
of his Majesty's Government. He (Sir Johti) therefore, could
not be` satisfied with an assurance' merely repeated. The
evil was of so notorious and so extensive a nature, that the
House, he thought, ought not to separates without coming to
some resolution on the subject. Much inconvenience was oc- '
casioned by the union of parishes under episcopal authority ;
inconsequence of which there .wdre -many parishioners unable
to attend their parish churches on account of the distance.—
The Protestant population of Ireland was fast diminishing in
consequence 'of this last circumstance. Five vicarages were
united in 1818, comprising a district of 22 miles from East to.
'West, and 14 from North to South. If the- Government would
not meet circumstances of this description, they must expect
the Protestant population to diminish. It had long been di-
minishing, while the general population had increased. He
thought the House should give its entire attention to subjects
which admitted of a particular- and distinct remedy, and he
should therefore move an , amendment to the present motion.
He should have nothi to do with measures of spoliation.
Those he left to the Union' Parliament of Ireland, which
passed the Agistment Bill in five days. This was a spoliation ;
and yet he believed his 'Right Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr.
Plunkett) did not oppose that Bill which was brought into that
Parliament by Viscount Castlereagh. He (Sir John) would
not spoliate, but he would support any measure which tended
to the advantage of the country without violating existing
rights, by a fair system of commutation. The people and the
Parliament of Ireland had consented, to the Union on the ex-
press condition that this subject should be examined by the
United Parliament. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by
-moving as an amendment a resolution, " That, with a view to
the tranquillity and happiness of 'lreland, this House will,
early in the next Session, take into its serious consideration
the state of the Tithe Laws of Ireland, for the purpose of sup-
pressing the vexatious system attending their enforcement, and
to provide a fair equivalent for the Established Church."
Mr. GOULBURN said, he had no right to expect the
Right Hon. baronet to concur in opinion with him. It was his
misfortune to be opposed to the flight Honourable Baronet
upon the amendment, because he considered it prejudicial
to the interest of Ireland. The question propounded was,
whether the House should pledge itself to take into considera-
tion the tythes of Ireland, with a view to give the clergy proper

support. He did not mean to enter into the question of com-
mutation of tythes. The argument was not whether the com-
mutation of tythes was useful or practical. It was not before
the House, and he should only state how far he considered
it inexpedient. He was not willing to give credit to pledges
made by the House. The Honourable Baronet had told them
the collection of tithes was unproductive, and he might ask
him what would be the effect upon the collection of tythes,
if the Right Honourable Baronet's motion were carried ? The
effect of the motion if carried would be to stop the payment
of tithes. Some topics had been intr6duced'by the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet, and others, which required a few observa-
tions. With respect to the residence of the Clergy, he felt
the advantage which must arise from having a numerous re-
sident Clergy in Ireland. It was the source to which they
must look for civilization of the people of Ireland ; but there
were cases in which non-reeidence was justified. If the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen had looked a little further into the re-
turns, he would have found 47 incumbents residing in parishes
adjoining the parishes to which they belonged. In the case of
one individual, Mr. Knox, that individual was obliged to leave
the county to accompany a wife in a melancholy state of sick-
ness. Having followed her to the grave, he returned to his
living. This was the case which the Hon. Gentleman consid-
ered one of so much importance. The Hon. Gent. had said the
Bishop of Waterford had levied too largely upon tithes, but it
would be found that the Bishop of Waterford did not levy
tithes in the parish mentioned by the Hon. Gent. for the purpose
of adding to his own income, but as the trustee of persons entit-
led to the tithes. The Hon. Gent. denied the right of the Church
to tithes, but that proposition he denied. He might cite the opi-
nions of lawyers and eminent men in that House, who had uni-
formly allowed that tithes were property. Sir S. Romilly,
who was not a man willing to resign too much to the Church,
had allowed tithes to be property ; with these authorities he
could not agree to the doctrine of the lion. Gentleman. If the
Hon. Gentleman came forward to take away the income of
the Clergy, who was to say what ought to be the sums taken
from the highest Dignitaries of the Church ? If they were
to reduce the income of the Archbishop, and confiscate the pro-
perty of the Church, why not reduce the income of persons in
other high situations ? The Hon. Gentleman's proposition at.
tacked the property of thp Church, and who could say it would
not lead to the spoliation of other property ? On these grounds
he was adverse to the amendment.

Sir J. NEWPORT explained.
Mr. DALY said, he had withdrawn his motion in conse-
quence of the pledge given by the Right Honourable Secretary
(Mr. Peel); -but as he thought the pledge of the House of
Commons preferable to that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he
should support the Amendment of the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir J. Newport).
Mr. S. RICE observed, that Mr. Perceval had given a pledge,
as large as that of thesßight Hon. Secretary, in 1811. • A simi-
lar pledge had also been given to his Hon. Friend the Member
for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell) by the present Lord Al ary-
borough. He was satisfied that there would be no tranquillity
for Ireland until this question met with a full and deliberate
consideration ; and, if anything were calculated to allay the pre-
sent discontents, it was a pledge on the part of Parliament, that
they would examine the whole subject. The Irish Members
were almost all favourable to a commutation of tithes ; he ad-
dressed himself, therefore, principally to English Members, and
he relied upon their justice and generosity, that they would not.
resist a change of system which was admitted to be neces...
sary by the great mass of the Irish Representation. If Parlia-
ment threw cold water on this motion, he trusted that every
county, town, and hamlet in Ireland would demand it from the
justice and generosity of Parlianient. He was satisfied that a
commutation of tithes was the only effectual corrective for the
evils of the tithe system in Ireland, and he claimed the adoption
of this measure on behalf of that suffering and injured country.
If Ministers did not exert themselves to pour balm into the
wounds of Ireland, measures of coercion would be unavailing,
for they would be regarded only as the instruments of a heart-
less and despotic Government. He cordially supported the
motion. • •

Mr. PEEL denied that any collusion had taken place between
the Government and the Honourable Member for Galway (Mr.
Daly). He (Mr. P.) had merely requested that Honourable
Member to withdraw his motion, and scarcely any conversation
had passed between them, He did not believe that the present
motion was calculated to promote tranquillity in Ireland, for if
Parliament were to give such a pledge, and afterwards should be
unable to redeem it, the worst consequences might result from
the disappointment of the hopes which it would excite. He ob-
jected generally to the principle of giving pledges in one Session
as to the course which Parliament would pursue in another.—
He had given much consideration to this subject, and he felt
himself bound to state, lest his opinions should possibly
be misconceived, that a commutation of tithes was liable,
he would not say to insuperable,' but to very great objections.—
He protested against the whole statement assumed in the speech
of the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume.) Well,
indeed, might his Honourable Friend the Member for Galway
(Mr. Daly) say, that if the opponefits wanted a most efficient
ally to defeat such a measure, they could find one in the Hon.
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). Whatever previous opi-
nions his (Mr. Peel's) connexion with the Irish Government
might have induced him to form on this question, he begged to
assure the House that to its future consideration he should feel
it his duty to give the most unprejudiced attention.
Mr. BROUGHAM supported the amendment. The Bill
brought in met none of the grand and paramount difficulties.—
Nothing to satisfy the minds of the people of Ireland. The
Government, after taking thirty years to consider the subject,
required six months more, and then they would tell whether the
could do any thing or not. His wish was that it might not be
thirty years more the subject of consideration. Precedents bore
out pledges on the part of the House. :Something must be done
on this question, and Parliament could lose no time in doing it.
The discussion was necessary for the preservation of Ireland,
and the support of the church of that country.
Mr. HUTCHINSON supported the amendment. No per-
son who had heard the statement of the Hon. Member for
Montrose, would deny that there was a crying grievance which
called for remedy.
Mr. PLUNKET did not rise to detain the House. The mo-
tion of the Right Hon. Baronet was premature and dangerous.
The motion stated that the measure to be introduced by his
Majesty's Ministers could not be attended with any benefit.
Was it fair or candid, before the Bill was read a second time,
and the details known, to condemn it as useless ? He was con-
vinced that it would be hailed as a boon by Ireland. The Hon.
Member for Montrose had introduced principles of spoliation
and robbery ; principles which went to the subversion of all
the property in the kingdom. Would the Hon. Member ad-
mit that lay improprietors were entitled to tithes ?
Mr. lIUME answered, yes. •
Mr. PLUNKET then•observed, why deny the same right to
the Church ? The principles laid down by the Hon. and •
Learned Member for Montrose, would go to the destruction 'of
all property. Following up the principles of the Hon. Member
by a pledge, would lead the people of Ireland to believe there
would be an end to all property. Long and anxious attention
to the subject convinced him that a commutation • of tithes
would not relieve the discontent of Ireland. It would be un-:
wise to enter into any pledge ; therefore, he concluded by mov-
ing the previous question on the amendment moved by the
Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. D. BROWNE said, he was bound to vote for the mo-
tion of the Right Honourable Baronet. The Hon. Member
would vote for the amendment, but oppose the motion of the
Member for Aberdeen.
Mr. TRENCH spoke in favour of a general commutation
of tithes.
'Mr. DAWSON defended the Bishops alluded to by Mr.
Hume.
Sir E. O'BRIEN supported the Amendment.
' Mr. MARTIN (of- Galway) •was unwilling to pledge the
House, but said he should be ready to discuss the question the
next Session-of Parliament.
The question was then loudly called for.
Mr. lILTME replied, and after defending himself against the
charges applied to-his statement and principles, consented to
withdraw his motion, admitting, at the same time, that the
Amendinent of the Right Hon. Baronet was entitled to more
attention than his.
The House then divided on the Amendment—
Ayes
Noes

- - - - 72
Majority against the Amendment —7

On bur return to the Gallery, we found the House on the
other Orders of the Day, which were postponed.
Mr. HUME asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
the persons who had been prosecuted by the Board of Excise
for selling roasted grain, were not, according to the pledge of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, to find indulgence from his. Ma-
jesty's Government ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, no di-
rect pledge had ever been given on the subject, but inquiry had
been made, and no case of hardship had been found.to require
a remedy.
The House adjourned at a QUARTER to THREE O'CLOCK.

SCOTCII SEQUESTRATIONS.
MEETINGS, &C. _

David Wilson, merchant, St. Andrew's, to be examined in
the Tontine, Cupar, 26th June and 17th July, at 12.
Creditors of John Drysdale, grocer, Glasgow, meet in the
office of George Miller, jun., accountant there, 11th July,
at I.

Creditors of Archibald. Cochran, of Ashkirk, some time mer-
chant, Fisherrow, meet in the Royal Exchange-Coffeehouse,
Edinburgh, 3d July, at 2.
James Ferguson, banker
,and writer in Stewarton, has ap-
plied for a discharge.