The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-16 00:00:00

pcnsable td the settlement of the tithe question. I told the Noble is, rd ,
that he would have the opportunity of his triumph over me equally by
,
pringing in a practical measure, but I deprecated the introduction of a
principle in a resolution which would have a tendency to bind Parliamen
heraftee, I said," bring in your own measure, adopt your own principle,
if it is a good etlee!ind capable of practical development, and if your re
sons prevail, your success shall be equally decisive ofmy fate." Not co
tent with that, however, the principle was pressed which declared that
there were a surplus it se,seild be applied to purposes of education;
farie
this was superadded, that at no time could any
tory which did not embody that principle. Such a res.. was lite;
fectly unnecessary. I foretold the consequences of its ad;Vtion. I
you that your triumph as public men would be of short die•ati°n•-
laugh ) I cid not mean official triumph; it is possible for men" to be 14
sitions
office and not to be triumphant.--(Great cheering from the Oppr'
sestleinent be satis
No man is perhaps better entitled to lay down that maxim than m.V'el
I asked you to avoid establishing a principle which, for all time to CO
must preclude a compromise. I begged you to avoid a single vote u
riding so great a question. I warned you against a course which
peered to have the effect, though it had not really, of passing by th
House of Lords. You persevered, though you knew that the sue
cess of a practical measure Must be equally decisive of MY
fate ; you persevered, and you said, " We will lay down f°
the guidance of public men and fringe Parliaments this Fri
elide, and they shall not approach the tithe question
sue-
,
less they adopt it." The Honourable Gentlemen opposite
seeded. I said then, as I say now, that I never would be a party tO
thartY,
principle. I will not consent to the alienation of the Cherch proper
the I
Wok
from purpose tier thy ecclesiastical, and rather than do
comae which every honourable man would take under similar' eircurebat
stances—l relinquished office, The Hon. Gentlemen opposite I..'rnng n
forward their own measure in 1835. When they did so, I move.
amendment. We moved that the Bill be separated into two, for .
""
purpose of manifesting our adherence, in opposition to our own principle:- •
We moved that the Bill be separated into two, for the purpose of estab-
lishing a rent-charge in lieu of Tithe composition, and effecting the ne-
cessary reforms in the Church, being of opinion that the diverting an,'
surplus to purposes of education would be properly the subject of
_aa
separate Bill. How were we met when we made this proposition ? Ale-.
w
now 1 want to know who were the real parties who obstructed the se
ttl
ment of this question.—(Loud cheers.) As I said before, when we at.:
tempted to bring this question to a satisfactory conclusion by pi:sting 1....
on that footing upon which it could be brought under practical gosh
iteration, we were met by this resolution, upon which the cornl7ef!
alliance was formed.—(Hear, hear, cheers, and laughter.)
upon this resolution we went out.--(Hear, hear.) And when Ice,
proposed the separation of the two measures, how were see not ?
Why, the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Chancellor of th,e
chequer, who is now taking notes—(A laugh)—thus replied, are.
c`..
served that we attempted to lay down no abstract principle of our OF ~
we did not meet the proposition of the Noble Lord by the principle th 87,
Church property should stand devoted to spiritual purposes only ; ms
merely said let us have a separate Bill. How were we met? Da°
Chancellor of the Exchequer said—" The Honourable Baronet calls ore.
the House to sever the two propositions, either for no purpose at all, o'v
for the purpose of passing that portion of the Bill relating to the sou-• •
cession of the million and the settlement of the tithe question, and
throwing out the other part of the measure relating to appropriation.
Would it not, then, have been better for the Honourable Baronet tO-
have candidly called on the House to rescind its former resolution?
The more straightforward course would have been for the House tc',
have been called on to rescind its former resolution; and if
t-
-31?
Honourable Gentleman thinks he can vote for this resolution
with
out rescinding the former vote, let him recollect the cheese wit,,
which the announcement was received ; that it was intended'
negative one part of this Bill and to carry the other part.—(l at',
hear.) lam prepared to argue the case when we go into the COOt.
mittee after having negatived this resolution, but I will not allow srl3a,
was a Parliamentary minority on a former occasion to convert itself jai',
a majority by a little sleight of hand and legerdemain dexterity, sue
as moving a resolution which is apparently one thing, though most
questionably it means another." Thus, when we propose the particul-r.
course that would have avoided the difficulty, we are told that we 31.C.'
not candid and straightforward. And when we now come with a Prc.-4,'
position to rescind the resolution, when we adopt the very euggesllcti,
that was offered to us, we are told that we may be very candid r
straightforward, but we are making you pass under a disgraceful and uf
‘:
honourable yoke, and your flesh and blood revolt against it.--(LA4.;i
cheers.) Thus passed 1835. In 1836 the question was again broug"
forward. My Noble Friend (Lord Francis Egerton) asked for leave.
t
bring in a Bill embodying your own principles, and at the same
asked the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to postpone his Bill then
fore the House. " No," said the Noble Lord, " I will not postlwne
measure." My Noble Friend then moved his Bill as an amendment,osdno.
again it was rejected. The Noble Land's Bill was sent to the
of Lords, that is the Bill passed by the Noble Lord in 1836. rent,
House of Lords passed the Bill reducing the composition to a
charge by 25 per cent., making reforms in the Church, but not
.e": 0".
bodying the principle of appropriation. I asked the Noble
Ile
take the amendments intoconsideration. The Noble Lord refused to
them into consideration, because they did not adopt the PrinetP ineeays&
the resolution, and the Noble Lord said that if this House entered
a consideration of the Bill as sent by the House of Lords, it would rsi,
recantation of their former resolution, and thus this Bill was 216°,yines;
The year 1836, therefore, passed with an ineffectual attempt to
t.
this question to a settlement; 1837 came, and now I
part of the Noble Lord's speech in which he made use of this lang. fcgr,„
that attempts had been made to deceive him by the declarations P•tn;
ward by us, and that hereafter he would consider such declaratotorso4
nothing more than tricks and stratagems.—(Locel cheers.) 1
, refuse‘,'
beg leave to say that whilst I have been in opposition, I "a have he'w-
to have any secret negotiation.—(Continued cheering.) I ..,,,,earile
no communications, and this not from any personal disresree'
s etursai
those who differ from me, but because I think
shakes the confidence of a party in those in whom they place cor,mitia.,...,
approachwils.ta:
—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches, re.echoed frons the OPL pesettl
' Whatever has passed upon this or upon any other occasion b
in the face of day, and in this House, and therefore in the 01°i,,,ess
remptory terms, as peremptory as is consistent with the cooties,'
liamentary usage, I deny that the Noble Lord has been deco !use,.
(Cheers.) I will first refer to what passed at the close of the lasint
sion of Parliament with respect to the Irish Tithe Bill. That B "
ill
~.,"""ch,
no progress in this llouse, on account of circumstances for which
yernment were not responsible, the lamented death of his late Miries,",
A debate arose upon the Municipal Corporation Bill for Ireland.
question between us is this—Has the Noble Lord ever had the slighstCr•
t ground for believing that I had relaxed in my opposition to the princiS'''
I of the resolution of 1835 ? Has any act or declaration of mine ever el ts
titled the Noble Lord to believe that I would be a party to any settlemere!
t of the Irish tithe question, which should involve directly or indirectlsi
the principle of appropriation ?—(Cheers.) I peremptorily deny
(Cheers.) The Noble Lord made this declaration—" That no false
racy, no false pride, or improper fear of reproach, would induce hirn et-
stinately to adhere to anything that heretofore had passed." Do I tty,
the Noble Lord with this declaration ? Do I turn round and sal, and
forced me out of office upon this question, and now you apoloeiee,
recant your former declaration ?" : for my part I declare, the'tle,
that resolution of 1835 was fatal to my Government, not a word of t'hi,
should the Noble Lord have heard from me on this subject ; and if
Noble Lord will now adopt that course, if he will consent to aban.7,
the resolution—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial benches)---iii",„,
Noble Lord will proceed to the consideration of the question Wwhi4„,
view to a final and satisfactory adjustment, that is the only way
the question can now be satisfactorily settled. Do not let it reisoLu.
suspended as at present. Do not let us aggravate the evil by discu
without any specific object. Do not let us vote upon a resol
which, whether it be adopted or abandoned, will he the cause
gendering bitterness in Ireland. The Noble Lord and his colleag,
know that it is impossible to leave the question in its present
a:,
This declaration I made last year upon the subject. This deelat_asse
I made in the same Session in which my Noble Friend declared the ,
was desirous to see those great questions which divided the Ilenw'reedl
loish matters brought to a satisfactory settlement, and that te,
participate in all measures that would have that effect, but h t
never should consent to a settlement of Irish tithes upon the prineiPosaf-
the appropriation of Church property to secular uses. This wasq,sr•
was said by my Hon. Friend, who, I suppose, is also included in `
proach of the Noble Lord—this was what he said at a later Petlt;,
-t,
namely, on the 9th of June. And what course did we take t;l:csss
Bill of last year ? We supported the Noble Lord's Bill on 111... 01'6'
reading; and so little desirous were we of offering a mere facti°`_s3ilis r.
sion to the Bill, that when Mr. Sharman Crawfurd opposed o'l4 wen
the second reading, my Honourable Friend and myself di Bts
Government against the
at motion. Although we thought that L"
contained a principle th was objectionable, what course did Wo' .
:
We said, "There will be an opportunity in Committee to oppose eon('
jectionable parts ; do not, therefore, let us refuse our assent to the 6e on('
reading." We consented to the second reading of the Bill,
there were many, at least some, on the other side of the House, Wryeei
posed it. The Hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W. 14?,•t dire
opposed it on the ground that it did not go far enough, and ths'• coos
not give enough of Church property, but we declined to co.operst tuesi.e
those who sought to obstruct the measure of Government. Wll3,t'vert.
said my Noble Friend ? What was the language that was calcms u
•
• deceive, and which entitled the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) troa
that he had been placed in a false position in consequence of
twee.l
and stratagems? This was the language of my Noble FAend yria •s
Stanley) : " However anxious I may be to see this measure ea if •
as the basis and ground-work of a great national settlement of the )1 s'
portant questions which agitate the public mind, I should not dighaSti,..,
my bounden duty if I did not frankly declare that no corisidelyeta•
whatever, with reference to this or any other Bill—no asserted P.osa.,
I bility of a settlement—no profession of acquiescence in its Prntlitt'
will ever induce me to give my consent to the taxatioe of the eiC'rsa
this uniust and illegal purpose." Now what was the principle (,'
, Bill of 1837 ? It laid a tax of ten per cent. for the eclucalicnt%iries
classes of all religious denominations ; and against that Pri° rat'
which virtually contained the appropriation principle, I objected Wash
when was the language used which had deceived the Noble Lord ? „see
in the course of this Session it was used ? 1 professed my de'irtehe
. the question settled, but I said without the abandonment ""'i
. propriation principle no settlement could be satisfactory'.
yestletnet,'S.
regret the obstacles that have arisen in the way of thein-
of this question ; I lament those divisions that ;1, d,
sincerely, and more so than if they existed in i-j)grnatqn_,'-
' cause in the former they are more dangerous ; but this is a 'h.. echur''_,L.
• Gorr of principle, involving the permanent security of the stew
and I repeat that I cannot consent to a settlement which
any portion of Church property to secular uses --(Loud cheerL)pelid(if.
what I now contend for is, that I never led the Noble Lord tO
that I would consent to a settlement upon any other conclitinutigaftar
Noble Lord said that he had postponed the Irish Municipal heh'S'
the Irish Tithe Bill at a request of mine, and that by that Mean' plins-if,
been placed in a mere unfavourable position.—(Cheers fromtbeasitions
terial benches.) I deny the fart.—(Loud cheers from the 011 too,-
The Noble Lord gave a formal notice that he would ask a quel ctatioi-
me, and he did ask that question late in March, but so little e%PebjectO
had the Noble Lord that I would make a compromise on the %top frt
the Municipal Corporations Bill, or any other Bill, that the (Piepions
by him was simply this—namely, if I would let him know, if Purest
Friend would make a motion as he had done last year, whelnbdeweetl•C
tended to divide the Municipal Corporation Bill into two; a Dot 32`.1
he intended to submit to the House a proposal for abolishing' 1.6
reforming Municipal Corporations.—(Hear, hear, and checords:o
to
Noble Lord was so con pletely in ignorance of the C so PS
zd
meant to pursue oa this or any other measure, eacel.'
of 010.
as he could collect from our public declarations. The propos ent''
therefore, was not made from me, but it originated in
nevi tinusu-ositicne
lion being put by the leader of a Government to
After the Noble Lord's formal notice, I said that I could ii°%_go guts'
explanation as to my future course; but I begged leave to tisine. o'o
tion of the Noble Lord respecting Irish tithes, and in al:la'afilat
question I made use of this explanation, This was on th est
March last, before the recess. I made use of this explanatroin_h or,
found entered on the journals of Parliament this resolution wb._c_re
remained in force.—(An Hon. Member on ths Treasury Bench 600.
66 CLIO'
terrupted the Right Honourable Baronet by calling out lio its
question.") He (Sir It. Peel) must really submit that the P°';her
which he had been placed by the Noble Lord's gustation was re,
_nete
unusual one, and he was now merely laying the foundation !ends,
(sleep,
hear.)on,
H
theo ae d thisnfsow.enrto which
io resohlius owntnon the
journals eplyw would mainly
finelY
ord'l.
—" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee,
oil
to consider the present state of the Church Establi:he
ute", nog
Ireland, with a view to apply any surplus of its rc
en
_nee
required for the spiritual care of its members to
ineg.7_l.o,
education of all classes of her Majesty's subjects, without distt
religious persuasion ; and it is the opinion of this House than.. a i,"'ne„
sure on the subject of tithes can lead to a satisfactory and
eti
_eir_l_4on4
resolutions." These resolutions were voted by a forme
ade
o'
ment that does not embody the principles contained in time
etieshe
Commons, at the instance of the Noble Lord now the .le s
present House. Coupling the existence of those resolutions
sef
notification of the s the throe, he thouht lino '
after the lapse of fourpeech monthsfrom and a half,n entitled togput this 'lnesti"