The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

was made the object of a special compact, it was the existence
of the Church of Enssland in Ireland. That was a distinctive
ohjeet which too Parliaments had agreed in carrying out as
perpetual. This was one of the articles which they were dis-
tinctly pledged to maintain. The Noble Earl said that. he did
not desire them to repeal the union, but that which he de-
sired, he stated, was that they should adopt the adalrese which
was to lead to the putting down the Church of England in
Ireland, which was to deprive the Church of England in
• Ireland of its present possessions, and which must end in the
repeal of any treaty of union, which the Noble Earl
stated it was not his desire should be conceded.
The Irish Parliament was, as a body, capable of legislating on
that subject. It was because they had formally agreed to the
union that Parliament ventured on the consideration of the
question, tinder the auspices of the Government of Gent ge
and then it was agreed and stipulated that the sth article, by
which the Church of England in Ireland was to be unifed for
ever to the Chinch in this country, was to be for the future
maintained. They could not place the Irish nation and the
Irish Parliament in the same situation in which they both stood
at the time that compact was made, and lie said, therefore,
that they could not depart from that compact without a breach
of the engagement then entered into. He maintained that
they had no power upset the subject, and therefore, he recom-
mended their Lordships not to agree to the address proposed to
them by the N',ble Earl. Undoubtedly, measures could be
adopted calculated to benefit Ireland, anti that and , the other
House of Parliament ought in every case to adopt measures,
and to legislate for the good of Ireland, whenever the in-
terests of that country came under their consideration. He
would say to their Lordships that in his opinion Parliament
had done its duty on that subject. He believed that the Noble
Lord did nit deny that: He believed that there never was a
country which had so advanced in improvements of all descrip-
tions as Ireland since the period of the union.—( Hear, hear.)
He would not go into details on this subject, because perhaps
Noble Lords would speak in the course of the evening more
capable than he was of doing so, but it was quite remarkable
in every way, in trade, in commerce, in shipping, in revenue, in
the customs, in the excise, and indeed in every thing, the in-
crease had been enormous, but the Noble Lord said in the
earlier part of his speech that foreigners, who went to Ireland,
expatiated on the miseries which they witnessed there. It was
true there was misery and great poverty there, as there was its
Aber countries, but yet in Ireland there was a vast capital,
there were great riches; Ireland was at that moment setting an
example to the world, an example which could be
imitated in few countries of Europe, she was laying out mil-
lions at this moment in the construction of railways, at the pri-
vate expense of individuals. There were, it was true, railways
in the course of construction in the other countries of Europe,
but how were they constructed? At the expense of Govern-
ment; not one of them was constructed at the expanse of pri-
vate individuals. It was in this country that they were con-
structed at the expense of private individuals—only in this
country and in Irelansl—in every other country in the world
they were constructed at the expense of the public treasury.
Now, he did nut much care whetherthis capital was the pro-
perty of Irishmen, or whether it had been borrowed in this
country. If it were sent there, it was sent oq...the credit of
Irishmen ; if it were the property of,lrishmen, Wad he hoped
it was) why it showed the vast improvement in that country, to
which at least the Noble Lord ought to have given Parliament
and those who governed that country some credit for. If it were
the property of England and lent to Ireland, it showed there
ras some credit in Ireland, and that men hail little
more canfidence in the restoration, and continued existence of
peace than the Noble Lord had, He was sure the Govern-
ment would do everything in its power to bring forward mea-
sures which would be calculated to give satisfaction to that
country, vd to insure public tranquillity. Now, he thought
:hat there was evidence to show that the Noble Earl was a
little mistaken as to the very greet dislike which Irishmen en-

by compact to maintain the United Church of England and
Ireland, and considering the great advantages they derived
from the existence of the Church of England, advantages which
were enjoyed alike by Catholics as well as Protestants, he
called upon their Lorddtips (by rejecting. the motion) not to
give rise to the supposition that they were inclined to enter-
tain any such meesures as those proposed by the Noble Earl.
Earl FORTESICUE concur red cordially in the views of his
Noble Friend, and he should certainly support the motion
bef,re. their Lordships. He gave a reluctant consent to Ihe
third reading of the Protection to Life Bill, but not from any
confidence in the law or its administrators, but because, after
the statement of the Noble Earl opposite, of the amount of
crime committed in Ireland, he thought sonic strong measure
was necessary for its suppression. He considered that,
under the existing circumstances of Ireland, it was their citify,
not merely to grant pecuniary assistance for the relief of the
present distress, and pass severe laws for the detection and
punishment of crimes, but measures ought, without future de-
lay, to be adopted, for the purpose-of effecting a real and per-
manent improvement in the condition of that part of her
Majesty's dominions. These were the only terms in the id
dress which pledged the House in any way, and he thought it
was too bad to reject it, because the Noble Earl who proposed
it, had expressed his opinion that a great reform was necessary in
the establishment of the church of reland. In that sentiment he
most cordially cuacurred, and he agreed also with the Noble
Earl that they would never have perfect contentment amongst
the people of Ireland until the Catholic Church was placed
upon the same footing as the Protestant.—( Cheers.) He
had always considered a general distribution of land among all
classes in the country as one of its safeguards, and one of its
bulwarks, and without pretending for a moment to defend the
Anti-Corn-law League, he must say that great obligation was
due to them for directing parties how to invest the products of
their industry in small freeholds. Of this general distribution
of land great want was felt in Ireland. He had been told,
when he wished to introduce a measure to extend the fran-
chise to 40s. freeholders, that there was no such class. He

Government had made appointments equally political. If
they had a facksln, and a Lefroy, and a Smith, they had also
an O'Loughlin, a Perrin, a Ball, a Brady, a Wolfe, and a
Compton—every ono of them politicians. It resulted from the
nec ssity of the rate. All the political bar of Ireland was
tinged with politic,, and such would be the case till a third
party aro,e and introduced a different state of things. As long
as there ware two great parties at the bar, 9 out of 10 of the
barristers would be ioliticians. Ile thought it his duty to make
these observations. ale word as to the s vial state of
Ireland, which was divided into seven millions of Catholics, and
one millian of Plotestan's. He con!endetbthat the Catholics
had no right to complain of the alienation of the religious pro.
perty in Ireland, as the property was granted for Christian '
uees, and Pa,liarnent had a perfect right to appropriate it to
those purposes, and to the State religion. The maser grievance
of Ireland was, that these seven millions received no emolu-
ment for their own religion. That was a great difficulty, he
admitted—co difficult as to amount to an impossibility. The
people, he considered, should not be subjected to the burden
of paying for their own religious instruction. It might be
said that the clergy would not take an endowment. His life
on it they would take it.—(Laughter.) Ihey might not take
it the first quarter, but they would the next. He denied
that Catholics were challenged on juries for their reli-
gion. They were challenged for other objections, which
would have equally applied had they been Protestants.
If a question should arise as to the eligibility of a juror, it
would be one not at all connected with religion. But taking a
full review of the whole statement of the Noble Lord, he
(Lord Brougham) di 1 not believe that this was a question
which could be de..lt with by legislative enactment, but by the
determination of the Government not to palter to or bargain
with agitators, be they priests or laymen. He quite agreed
with his Noble Friend that the processes of law in Ireland
should be made more facile and less expensive ; but then it
should not be forgotten that the law in England was ten times
more expensive. He felt great pain is being obliged to make
many observations that he had made; but he did think this
House should not lend itself to the malpractices of certain par-
ties ; and if they did, he did think they would be lending them-
selves to those agitators in Ireland to whom he believed was

would ask, why was there not? There were numbers of per-
sons in that country who expended as much in purchasing
tenant-right as would enable them to obtain small freeholdi.
He did not, therefore, think that it arose from the want of
money to enable them to become freeholders. He thought
that the Government ought to introduce some measure to faci-
litate the purchase of these small freeholds, and at the same
time to keep some of that money in the pockets of those which,
under the existing law, now weat to the attorneys.
Lord BROUGHAM—There is a Bill of that nature Wore
the House.
Earl FORTESCUE would wish to see the measure ex-

attributable much of the agrarian outrages that had been
committed. He had read speeches made at public meetings
by priests and others, who spoke of property having its duties
as well as its rights, and he believed that the landlords of Ire-
land had observed that maxirn.—( Hear, hear.) But he could
not agree with his Noble friend that the Irish landlords should
not exercise that right as they thought proper.
Earl FITZWILLIAM did think that the House was much

tended to Ireland. He wished to see Ireland placed upon the
same footing as England. The Noble Duke (the Duke of
Wellington) had said, in the course of his speech delivered that
night, that all the concessions made to Ireland only produced
fresh agitation. He (Earl Fortescue) would beg; to remind
. _ _ .

indebted to Lis Noble Friend for having brought forward this
motion, inasmuch as it would have the effect of bringing the
state of Ireland before this House and this country, because
Ireland was a country not understood by Englishmen, and also
because she was a sort of mirror in which Englishmen did not
like to look, for it did not reflect anything creditable to the
Government of England. His Noble Friend had spoken of

their Lordships that all concessions made to Ireland had been
the fruit of previous agitation, and it was not to be wondered if,
after the lesson which had been set them, they would fail of
pursuing the same ►ine of conduct while any chance of success
remained to them. He contended that '.f they had more con-
fidence in the administration of the cJuntry—if they were put
upon an equal footing both in Church and State, they would
then effectually put down agitation among those who, however
excitable, were certainly not the less entitled to the considera-
tion of their Lordships. Having tried such measures to their

the difficulty of dealing with the monster grievance of Ireland,
the Irish Church ; and the Noble Duke opposite had said it
would be impossible to do so ; but that the latter phrase would
be a sort of disinheritance of this House of its power of legis-
lating for Ireland, or of removing the grievance by legislative

enactment. He had heard a great deal said about the pay-
ment of the Catholic clergy ; but if he were a Roman Catholic
he would never consent to such a regulation. If the 'House
did not deal with this question justly and impartially, *depend
upon it they would have to deal with questions of still greater
difficulty in reference to the rights of property in that
country. This was a matter in which he was deeply
interested as a proprietor of land in Ireland. There
was a time when certain villains in Ireland made
propositions to the Lord Chancellor of the day,
though these fellows held their estates by a very insecure
tenure ; yet such a state of things was brought that these men
became firm legal holders of those estates. He knew that
what was said here went abroad by means which he did not
approve of ; but he spoke to their Lordships, and he told them
not to inquire too nicely into the the tenure by which property
was held in Ireland, for the result would not be as satisfactory
as they might expect. The Noble Earl then alluded to the
state of Scotland, and the circumstances under viiich the

•
fullest extent, and having found them not to answer, then and
then only ought the Government to adopt coercive measures.
Lord lIROUG lIA. NI would not have addressed their Lord-
ships, had it net been that the Noble Earl, who moved the
address, had in the course of his speech made refer-
ence to one or two matters in which he felt, himself if
not juiticially, at least profesionally bound to make one or
two observations, alike injustice to himself, to the Government,
and to the country at large. First of all, he would say that,
with reference to that part of the Noble Earl's speech, whether
with reference to the afflicting statements of the amount of dis-
tress, or of the evil of the Administrations which have con-
ducted the affairs of Leland, or whether, with regard to the
misery which prevailed among a large portion of the people, or
of the crimes and frightful outrages upon life as well as pro-
perty, whether resulting from misery or other causes, which
had, as it were, scared the soul of society, and which had
forced their Lordships reluctantly to have recourse to mea-
sures of a severe, coercive nature, which broached upon the
natural rights of our fellow-countrymen—all these statements
were but too true. They could be matters of no controversy.
No person would dispute thsm. They were reiterated over and
over again in the course of the discussion on the late coercive
measures. But these thinks, the existence of which we all
deplore, had (as his Noble Friend who had last spoken had
reminded their Lordships) their root far deeper than in any
misgovernment of the present or any other day. Its root lay
deeper than in any political agitation of the present day,
although he thought they were not in some sort uncon-
nected with that agitation, as he should presently show,
they had had their roots deeper plunged and wider spread in
the social condition of the Irish people. With reference to
their engagements in landed property, and their great predilec-
tion for agricultural pursuits in their own style, he did not
think they could interfere. They could not interfere with the
rights of property, the most sacred of all rights—those sacred
rights upon which society itself depended—the great corner-
stone of the whole social edifice in every country, as they must
ever necessarily be. They constitute the line of demarcation
which separates the savage from the civilised state of society.
In the one property is safe—in the other unsafe. This consti-
tutes the difference between a governed country and a country
where anarchy prevailed. Here property is safe—there, there
are no sacred rights of property. This constitutes the differ-
ence between the two states of society. It was a wide differ-
ence—it was a contra t—it was a diametrical contrast between
the civilised and savage state of society. Therefore it is that
property, having all those rights, must be deemed sacred. For
that reason it was that they must in all they did, in all they
said, and in all they meditated to do—make all spring from this
as from a first principle ; and:no man who desired the name of
a reasonable being, or even a person claiming for himself the
least grain of common sense, or the smallest amoust of reflec-
tion, can entertain a doubt upon the subject. Nor could any
person suffer a thought to cross his mind—to pass over the
mere surface of his imagination—could entertain for a moment
an hesitating thought—a shade or the shadow of a shade upon
the most sacred and fundamental of all principles—the sacred
rights of property. If, then, there were speculators—practical
speculators—who suffered to pass across their imaginations the
abstract ideas that those sacred rights of property may be in-
terfered with with impunity, and who propounded this inter-
ference with property as one of their remedies for existing evils,
who carried out the absurd principle for the purpose of deluding
their dupes in the country, who were for the most part ignorant
persons when compared with themselves—but more thought-
less, more reckless than they who suffered it to be said, and to
go out to the world upon their authority—and propounded
Bills in Parliament of which he had heard that night for the
first time. He could not have believed it possible in this 19th
century, in a British House of Commons, that there could have
been propounded, what hod been called by the gentle phrase—
euphonious and eugolistic " fixity."—(Laughter and cheers.)
Meaning thereby, by an Act of Parliament, that any person,
being the occupant or tenant of a piece of land, or other pro
perty, was to have a personal property nut of his landlord's
estate, in the shape of the house or tenement, or lands, which
he must have occupied for a limited number of years, and
which he was to become entitled to by payment of fixed rent.
That was an interference with, a desecration of the sacred
rights of property, which their Lordships must strenuously re-
sist, honestly, fairly, openly, downrightly. It was a gross
monstrosity to give the tenant property upon such conditions.
'l'o place the tenant in the landlord 's place, in consequence of
his having formerly paid the rent. He could only understand
how it was that such a proposal was not instantly put down by
the strong arm of talent in the other House, except that it was
thought, either that the matter was of so little im-
portance, or else so extravagant in itself as not
co deserve the attention of the House. At all
events it was brought forward in the middle of August,
when long discussions are deprecated, and Government being
anxious for a prorogation, mentioned at the same time that
they intended to send over a Commission. He knew, more-
over, that a Commission was intended long before that tires,
and the Commission, wnen formed, was not formed to inquire
as to the best mode of improving the sacred and inalienable
rights of property. It was not appointed to inquire into fixity
of tenure, nor the robbery of landlords for the sake of tenants.
It was lamentable that there should lie such a state of things in
the United Kingdom as had grown up in the sister country.
Matters omeht to be far otherwise in the management of pro-
perty. The Noble Lord who had just spoken had given us an
illustration. He (Lord Brougham) w uld give his Noble
Friend another illustration, with which he was familiar, to
show him the difference between the two countries. What
would he think of an estate, the rent of which was 15,000 or
20,0)01. a-year, upon which there were not SO or 100 tenants,
but 1,300 or 1,40) tenants in chief paying rent, and perhaps half as
many more again—probably 3,000 paid the rent of under-tenants;
none of whom paid so much as 401. a-year. Numbers of them
paid 71. and 101., and some 10s., 125., and 15s. rent. It was
a great mistake to say, that if the land was underlet the law of
Ireland was the same as that of England; and to say if the poor
sub-tenant had paid his rent to the middle-man, and the middle-
man should fail, that the landlord could not destrain upon the
sub-tenant. It was a gross mistake—he could do so, and it
was only an act of kindness or good feeling that he did not do so.
And again in another case, to which the Noble Earl who moved
the address adverted, which he ( Lord Brougham) hoped rarely
happened, that upon a lease being out, and the owner wishing
to have his farm better cultivated, and in order to bring about
that result, found it necessary to reduce the number of his
tenants, in order that he might apply that skill and capital which
a number of small tenants were not able to command, and were
not able therefore to improve the condition of the land. He
considered it a great hardship that the landlord could not exer-
cise the powers granted him by law of dismissing all the
small men, and consolidatiog the farms as had been done in
Scotland some years ago. To consolidate these farms it must
be necessary that a number of these small men should emigrate.
It was a considerable hardship that a man should not have some
Power to act, as he thought for the good management of his
estate. He would be loath to believe that the example quoted
by his Noble Friend had been much followed. It appeared
from his statement that a vast number of persons were evicted
the moment the lease fell in. It was undottbledly right for the
landlord to do that if he thought it was for the benefit of his
estate, and it was nothing more than an act of kindness, and
neither more nor less, on the part of the landlord toward his
tenantry if it was not done more frequently, and they Must be
made by the strong arm of the law to understand that such was
his right ; and if he should choose to stand upon his right, they
had no right to oppose, or resist, or thwart him, for that is the
law of the land; and property would be valueless, and
no longer worth having or cultivating if such laws
were repealed. The landlord had an indissoluble right
to do as he wished with his own estate. He con-
sidered that by passing the late coercion measures for
putting down outrages, that they had begun at the right end.
He rejoiced to see it. They had armed Government with a
compulsory power, and the first lesson to be taught to the Irish
people was, that they must obey the law • that they must sub-
mit themselves to the law, and that their' agitators and evil
counsellors, be they laymen or ptiestS, Shall in vain attempt to
urge upon them to resist the law, or persist in the commission
of outrages ; and they should know, and must knows that if
they do so resist and persist, they must suffer the penalty of the
condign punishment of criminals. So carefully did the Noble
Earl abstain, from telling them what he Wished to prdpdse to
remedy the grievances of Ireland, that it was only when he
alluded to the Irish church, at the end of his speech, that he
( Lord Brougham) could know what tangible femede he had in
view. The mode of collecting the tithe was, it appeared, the
master grievance. But since 1832, when his Noble Friend op-
posite, with himself, made the change in the tithe, there
was no such thing to be found in Ireland as a tithe proctor.
To use the wards of Lord Plonliett, he Was ai.rare to be found
othero
noHneo uf
that sj e n os
tf s
eule:
;aj
are I
cni
as an ostrich. In the year 1823 he
resented a petition in the
tdamwhehenitch,hadheeeeraesgi complaining of the mal-adminis-
roentttehden wereto mbank
to observa-
tionsten
true.
Some of the judges who then executed the la* were sailed
"Union judges,"dheily rsbo
aagtseorewhvoielcri,e'h'
afterwards. i t
e t
htheirer then
regard,
made,
dee:
as it so happened that they owed their origin to the union, and
statement aistrong
gha
ce
political
days gas
lwoeokee da actuated
et
and he could say that no such grievance now remained. It
pqtionuiensmenn,t,hbonwtever,
whatiw,eash
andotbewenhastinaeej.udgfieawd
might be said that political men now sat on the bench, The
wagthe
beforeermine
i his abeenp-
stained with faction? Were they political judges? It
was said that such appointments were not liked by the peo-
ple of Ireland. He could say that one-half of the population
might disapprove of the appointment, but a half rend more ap-
proved of them.—(Great laughter.) No doubt four or five
Judges were appointed, who were said to he political
judges ;but were they the only political judges A former

ertained towards the Establi—shed Church (f England in Ire-
and. He thought it was a very remarkable circumstance,
hut it was a faet th it their Lor.l:4;Ms would tied. nu s:•archin,r
the records of Parliament, that after the Irish Parliament and

the English Parliament had been endeavoui ing to discover the
node of enabling the Irish Roman Catholics to testify their
sllrgiance to their Sovereign, by stiiking out from the oaths the
iath of supremacy, and all refire:ice to the peculiar
Roman Catholic doctrines of transubstantiAtion, and
everything else, those parts of this declaration or
oath which had reference to the property of the
;hurch, or to the existence of the Church, were inverted in the
oaths on the petition of the Roman Catholics 'themselves.
!lose petitions commenced in 1805 ; th.,y went on from that

Preai;terian religion had been established in that country, and
asked why the people of Ireland should not have as good a right
to have the Roman Catholic religion established as their reli-
gion as the people of Scotland had to establish Presbyterianism.
The episcopacy of some of the aristocracy of Scotland was no
reason for its being established there, nor was it any reason
bnause the aristocracy of Ireland were Prptestant that their n 0...
...

ime to 1826; and on the passine of the Roman Cetholic Relief
Bill, the Roman Catholics themselves repeatedly denied that
they had any wish to deprive the Church of England of her
iroperty, or injure in any m-enner the privileges of pesessions
-he held in Ireland. All they desired was the removal of civil
lisabilities, and that they might stand in the same manner as
sthers of her Majesty's subjects under the laws and government
,f the country. lie said, therefore, that he thought it not very
nrobeble that there should be a total change of sentiment on
hat subject. It was very true that some might look after pro-
derty of all description, but if one thing was more certain than
mother, it was this, that the insertion of those words ie the
eath or declaration which was now the law of the land, had been
made by the very persons who were claiming advantages under
the law. These words were suggested and desired to he in-
serted by the Roman Catholics themselves. Now he had stated
that the institution of the Church of England in Ireland, and
is union with the Church in this country, was a matter of
compact which could not be departed from. But he would
go further, and say that there was no one pro-
position in the Constitution of the country, for
the maintenance of which more solemn engagements
had been entered into, than for the preservation
of the Church of England. The Roman Catholics themselves
declared in the year 1828, on the repeal of the Test Act, and
I again in 1829, on the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief
Bill—indeed, on every occasion on which a concession of pri-
vileges were made with regard to that point, the declaration
universally was—that the persons claiming the privileges of
Roman Catholic subjects under these Acts of Parliament,
universally made declaration of reservation to the property of
the Church of England in that country. So in Parliament
the principle had been uaifermly acted upon to preserve the
Church of England in Ireland. But he would go a little
further. Ile believed that the Noble Lord was further
mistaken in some of the causes of discontent in Ireland.
He (the Duke of Wellington) saw, some years ago, a
petition from some Peers in Ireland, complaining of
the discontent prevailing in that country. Among the
subjects of discontent, there was certainly the existence of
the Church Establishment mentioned; but there were other
causes of discontent also. They mentioned that the relative
proportion of Members of Parliament from Ireland and from
England, referring to the population of Ireland and
England, was not what it ought to be. Did the Noble Lord
mean to concede that ? They mentioned also that in the Cor-
poration Act, the qualification had been raised higher than it
had been in the English Corporation Reform Act, when the
property in Ireland was taken into consideration; they met:-
-ioned also that the number of Irish Judges—of Roman Ca-
tholic Judges—were not sufficiently numerous on the Irish
Bench. lie (the Duke of Wellington) had always understood
chat the Judges were selected according to the best judgment of
the country, from those most capable of performing the duties of
those judicial offices. He had been told it had been so in Eng-
land, and he did not see why it should not be in Ireland also.
He had never beers told that the Irish Judges were deficient in
those qualities which fitted them for their office. But these were
not things to be incorperated in an Act of Parliament, yet they
were the grievances which were stated to exist by the Noble
Lords who had signed the petition, which he (the Duke of
Wellington) had seen in print, from Charlemont House.
He thought he could show, from what had passed hereto-
fore, that the most ample concessions would not put an end to
the cause of all the mischief. He meant agitation—a perpetual
agitation for the repeal of the union; and whether it were the
restriction of titres, or churcheralea or any other measure of
the moment—no matter what the concession might be—
he thought he could show simply, from what had passed
heretofore, that it had been followed by additional agitation
and a iditional discontent.--(Hear, hear.) A great measure of
concession was made in the. year 1829, and what happened
after it? The law passed in the month of April, 1821, and in
the month of June in the SAME year an agitator commenced
his work in the county of Clare, calling on the people, now
that they had got religious liberty, to demand civil liberty and
a repeal of the union. From Clare he went to Dublin, and in
the month of December, 1829, he commenced there a system
of agitation, which hr continued throughout the year 1830, up
to January in the following year, at different times, under dif-
ferent circumstances, and in different parts of
the country, until a Noble Friend, whom he did
not see in his place, issued a publication, by which he put an
end to this description of agitation. Now, their Lordships
would observe thatthis fresh system of agitation upon the sub-
ject of tithes; a repeal of the church rates, and a repeal of the
union, commenced on the very morrow of the passing of the
Catholic Relief Bill. Well, then, soon after this publication
had been issued, an agitation was recommenced fur the sus-
pension of tithes and church rates, and then the Government
were under the necessity of passing the Coercion Bill, which
they were induced to do by a dispatch of Lord Wellesley, who
stated that he had invariably found a connexion between the
agitation for the repeal and extinction of tithes, and popular
discontent, and agrarian outrage. Now, your Lordships will
observe, from these facts, (and he hoped the Noble Earl
would see it too), that the moment concessions of
any sort were made, agitation was recommenced
for some other object; perhaps for obtaining the
property of parties who gave occasion for discontent, or for
exciting the population to commit agrarian outrage. After
the Coercion Bill of 1833, there was another passed in 1834,
which lasted for a twelvemonth, and it was succeeded by a third,
which was passed in 1835, for a period of five years, but which
terminated in the year 1840. There was, he believed, some
little cessation of agitation in the yeats 1835 and 1835, owing,
as it was supposed, to some political arrangement which was
made in London ; but that apparent tranquillity did not last
long. The agitation was continued under different forms, in
1837, le3B, 1839, and 1840 ; and in the latter year the monster
meetings commenced, and they were continued to the end of
the year 1840, through 1841 and 1842, and part of 1843. In
the month of November of that year they were put down by a
proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant. During
this time there was no want of measures of conces
sion, for the tithe arrangement was brought to a
complete conclusion—the Relief Bill was passed, and the Cor-
poration Bill was passed; and, in fact, every measure was
adopted which could tend to the prosperity of Ireland; and
Parliament acted upon all these occasions, as if it were an
Irish Parliament, acting solely for the benefit of the Irish
People. But still the agitation continued, and monster meet-
ings were assembled, which could only be got rid of by mili-
tary law. Now, he entreated them to observe minutely this
history of concession. He did net mean to say that it was
right to concede on all these points, but he did say, that they
ought not to concede on this occasion, when they were bound
by compact to avoid doing so—bound by compact to preserve
and maintain the united Church of England and Ireland.—
( Hear.) He did not put this question of the preservation of
the Church of England upon such high grounds as those
which he could have wished to have put its, but he might remind
their Lordships that under this establishenent they enjoyed the
advantage of seeing the people entertain as strong a sense
of religion, and as great a respect fr.r religion, as existed in
any country in the world. They 'had, besides, the advan-
tage of enjoying universal toleration; every system of reli-
gion was tolerated in this country; and, above all, they had
the advantage of enjoying religious peace.—(Cheers.) These
were three of the great Christian advantages which they de-
rived from the existence of the Established Church, and he
entreated their Lordships not to run the risk of losing any
of them by adopting any measure of that description.—( Hear,
hear.) It was true, that, although they had religious peace,
there were still great political diVerences of opinion upon the
subject of the different religioine sects which existed in the
country, but this was the cunses luence of their constitutional
existence. For the people of this country—every individual of
this country, had the privilege of considering and discussing
the question of political power..-- (Hear, hear. ) Consequently
their minister or others might: lead them, and each sect was
therefore anxious to increaser its poleieal power; and the
result was that great siva'ry existed amongst the
sects. ( Hear, hear.) But would concessions of any
kind put an end to this ?rivalry for political power?
No, it would not; concede -what they might the rivalry
would still remain; while, -if they conceded what the
Catholic Church demanded, he irvas afraid they would no longer
have religious peace, or facilities for settling such matters as
the marriage question in that. House, as they had done some
time ago. The slime questio n o ould not be settled elsewhere.
I. could not be settled in Germany, France, or Spain, and he
,a; sure that if they sac ctioned a Catholic establishment there
would be an end to that religious peace and toleration without
which this country could not exist for a single hour.—( Hear. )
Under these circumstances, esesidering that they were bound

Lions should be exclusively established there. It was said that
tha property belonged to the Church of E igland. He
wi,bed to know what was the contiguity of the term " Church
of England ?" Was it an ancient term ? He admitted, in-
deed, that the property belonged to the Church of Christ, but
he denied that it belonged by original right either to the Church
of England or to the Roman Catholic Church. It indeed be-
longed by Act of Parliament to the Church of England,
and here he came to the vrarst feature in the con-
nexion between the two countries. Has their legislation
been so universally right towards Ireland that it
should be right in that instance also? For his own part, he
would not consent that any portion of the church property
should be diverted from its legitimate purposes, but he did
think.it a matter of indifference whether that property should
be applied exclusively to the one sect or to the other; on the
contrary he would look at the real foundation of justice, and he
would say that they ought rather to apply it to the wants of
the many, than to make it applicable only to the purposes of
the few—of those wealthy classes of the community who main-
tained their chaplains in their own houses. That they might
dally with this subject he had no doubt, but when his Noble
and Learned Friend spoke of putting down agitation, perhaps
he (Earl Fitr,villiam) might be allowed to ask, if anything had
been done for Ireland that had not been extracted
from England by agitation? If they had acted perfectly
just towards Ireland and all her Members, then indeed there
might be something in his Noble and Learned Friend's views
on this subject—something in his expressions of putting down
agitation. But his Noble and Learned Friend knew well that
Ireland had never got anything except by ivitation, and there-
fore his Noble and Learned Friend's dictum to put down agi-
tation, was saying neither more nor less than, put down the
means of getting anything for Ireland. What measure had
they got now ? One to prevent men from being out in the dis-
turbed districts after sunset or before sunrise. On these
grounds he would snpport the motion brought forward by his
Noble Friend. lie thought that it • eminently deserved the
attention of the country, for they were intimately connected
with the well-being of Ireland. The aristocracy of that coun-
try were iu an anomalous position, as anomalous perhaps as any
other thing in Ireland. The aristocracy in England had grown
up frem the people; but the aristocracy in Ireland was super-
imposed upon the people, and if ever there was an oligarchy
existing in any country, it existed in Ireland in her Irish House
of Peers, and still more in her House of Common,.

Lord BROUGH ANI explained. -
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE was the more induced to
speak upon this matter, because the Noble Duke had said that
the existence of the Established Church was ono of the
grievances of Ireland. The Noble Duke, he was sure, spoke
without any distinct recollection of the words in his petition;
but ho would take upon himself to assure the Noble Duke that
he was wrong in so stating, for he ( Lord Clanriclrde) had
never signed a petition stating that the Church of England and
Ireland was a grievance to the people of Ireland. Much might
be done to remedy the evils complained of, by regulat-
ing the temporalities of that Church, and reforming the
abuses that existed.—( Hear.) But to one principle he
would never consent, namely, to take from the revenues of that
Church, and appropriate them to the support of the Roman
Catholic clergy. Noble Lords en the other side had, in his
opinion, mixed up two matters which ought to have been kept
widely distinct, namely, paying the Roman Catholie clergy
from the funds of the Government, and preserving inviolate
the revenues of the English Church. He considered, however,
that a surplus fund might be formed for the purposes of pro.
viding a joint education of the people. If they looked at Ireland
in its political aspect, they would find the Queen's Govern-
ment denuded of all authority, and the representa-
tive of Majesty occupying a position somewhat
similar to that of a superintendent of police.
IVhen he said, also, he knew that Government had no hold on
the country, they had not attempted to restore the influence of
the legitimate authority, he said that the Queen's Ministry
were alone to blame for this state of things, Ile would ask,
was not the country in a different state when they received it
into their hands? He would prove from the charges of judges
made in 1842, that the country was in a state of tranquillity.

Every one of these charges confirmed that fact po;itively.
There was also a Bill brought forward by a Noble Lord, and
which he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had been accused of
opposing. The principle of the Bill was, that the
tenant should have compensation for any improvement
made on his farm, provided that he did not remain
long enough on the farm to make a profit of it.
It was a just law—jest in itself and consistent with every
right of property and sound principle of law. He said that
the people of Ireland were in some degree alienated from Par-
liament, and had no confidence in it, amd that a great deal
more laid at the door of the Government; for the method of
administering the law must materially affect the confidence
of the people of Ireland in the Parliament. An objection
would be entertained to placing a man of violent party feel-
ing to preside over a court of criminal law, but there
would be no objection to placing such a man in a civil
court. Sir E. Sugden was a most distinguished Member
of the other House, and a most violent party man, and did
any man in Ireland blame the appointment of Sir E. Sugden
to a law court on the ground of his being a party man ?
The politics of an individual did necessarily affect his appoint-
ment. He had the assurance of experienced persons, that the
state of Ireland had never been fraught with so much danger

to the interests of England, or to the empire, as it was at that
moment. He had received those assurances from persons who
were old enough to remember and speak of the time previous
to the year 179 and he would believe what he heard, that at
no time of those disastrous periods was there so much danger
to be apprehended, Under these circumstance, and concur-
ring as he did with the views of his Noble Friend, he felt it his
duty to give this motion his support.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he was very anxious
not to omit a word which he saw in the paper, and which tended
to the
The interestsiarqu
of
ot
fh eEospITesMATH said he felt it necessary o
.
refer to some observations of the Noble Earl who had spoken
the last but two. The Noble Earl had said that the aristo-
cracy of this country had grown from the people, but that the
aristocracy of Ireland were afflicted upon the people. He
would ask, whether there was any great difference between
their ancestors, who came over in the earlier ages sword in
hand, and the manner in which the aristocracy had been
afflicted in Ireland? The Noble Marquis opposite had stated
country.
.
that the people of Ireland had no respect for the Imperial Le-
gislature of the country. He denied this to be true. An
a
on to alienate the
a going
gial Parliament, but
from was glad to say, had
notver succeeded,
t
as strongly attached as
e ffgietcattitiohoninss,
country.o hfe
the admitted,
p
Thanatodt from
agitation, long beenthe
hel gtu
and People the w
try
The Duke of RICHMOND said, after the speech of the
Noble Earl with respect to the Irish Church, it was quite the Government
an d the
im-
possible for him to support the Noble Earl's resolution. He
did not, however, wish it to be understood that he had in
the slightest degree any confidence in the Government, be-
cause he had not; and what was more he never should have
again.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he opposed the
motion, and attributed the distress of Ireland to absenteeism.
If Noble Lords who had estates in Ireland, instead of residing
at Brighton, or Paris, or other places on the continent,
would ()cage/telly Visit their property, and see justice done to
their tenants, they would tic troubled with very few complaints
from the Irish people.
The Earl ST. GERMANS said that at that late hour it
was quite impossible for him to follow the Noble Earl, for the .
Noble Earl had opened a wide field for discussion, and bad
spoken of agrarian outrages, the administration of justice, the
church, the landlord and tenant commission, and the important
measure of fixity of tenure, every one of which subjects would
require the greater part of an evening to consider. The Noble
Lord who followed the Noble Earl had animadverted with
some severity upon the conduct of the Government in the other
House of Parliament for not resisting Mr. Sharman
Crawford's Bill upon the subject of fixity of tenure. Now,
be had looked over that Bill, and he could
assure their Lordships that he found no mention whatever
of the subject oiefixity of tenure. The Noble Earl had told
the Home, that these agrarian outrages were connected en-
tirely with political grievances. Now, if that were so, the
same cause would produce the same effect elsewhere, and they
would have the same amount of agrarian outrages in the nor-
thern and midland counties, as they had in the. western..

He said, therefore, that the supposition of the Noble Earl
was wholly unfounded. Government were of opinion that the
relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland was not in a patio-

Pl SUN,
,LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING MARCEI 24, 184(3.

' factory state. Accordingly,
_in the course of the last session,
they introduced a Bill for improving these relations. There
was, however, not sufficient time to get it through the House,
and it was, therefore, vvithdrawri. Bait there was another Bill
in the course of preparation, and he trusted it would shortly be
laid before their Lordships It would respect the rights of pro-
perty, and at the same time improve the condition of the tenant.
With respect to the measure of Catholic Emancipation, he
differed from the Noble Duke, and the other parties who
brought forward that measure. At the time of the union with
Ireland, the Protestant religion was the religion of the country,
and by the Act of Union they were bound to preserve it in-
violate. And as regarded the opinions of Mr. Grattan and 11r.
Plunkett, they always maintained a reservation in their
speeches. The evidence given by the Catholic prel•strs and
other advocates of the Catholic emancipation, was also
of a similar' nature. They did net wish to affect the tem-
poralities of the Protestant Church. They entertained no such
desire. Their prelates did not wish to sit in their Lordships'
House. They wished to keep their Church apart from the State.
They wished to be a religious body only, and such he
felt would be the general opinion of the people of this country.
He considered there hail been great exaggeration with refe-
rence to the revenues of the Irish Church ; the whole amount
of the revenue did not exceed 300/. per annum fur each incum-
bent. The Nob'e Lord then referred to the measures which
had been adopted by the Government for the benefit of Ire-
land—to the grants for education—to the great increase in the
number of schools and scholars—the former being 273, the latter
3,700. The Government also proposed the establishment of
model schools in each county in Ireland. The grant to May-
nooth had been productive of great good ; and the new col-
leges, established to furnish a sound and liberal education to
the middle classes, would also be productive of great benefit.
After a few words from Earl GREY, and
Earl St. GERMANS had spoken in reply,
Their Lordships divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The Calico Prints Bill went through Committee.
The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a second time, and also
the South Sea Company Bill.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and their
Lordships adjourned at Half-past Twelve.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 23.
AMALGAMATION OF RAILWAYS.

Mr. ENTIVISLE concurred in the remarks that fell
from the Hon. Member who supported the appointment
of the Committee. He b?lieved that it would be found, upon
investigation by the Committee, that the amalgamations pro-
posed tiy existing companies were, in 'rimy instances, and
most instances of a defensive character. The amalgamations
took place in order that the companies might the better defend
themselves against rival schemes, which were only started to
terrify the existing companies into a compromise. He be-
lieved that the Committee would be of great benefit to the
country. He therefore heartily seconded the motion.
Sir G. CLERK said this question was one of paramount im-
portance; but he confessed that he did not exactly gather
from the speech of his lion. Friend what was the precise ob-

jeet to which the Committee was to direct its iniestigation.
If that Committee was to lay thwn several rules under which
certain railways should amalgamate, and uncb,r what circum-
stances amalgamation should not be permitted, it appeared to
him that they would have little else to do but to give Parlia-
mentary sanction to the principles which were laid down in
the twenty-first report of the Beard of Trade last year. He
thought that if that were the object of the Com-
mittee, it was an exceedingly desirable one.—(Hear. )
The question was, in what manner could these general rules be
made applicable in individual cases ? He hoped that whatever
tribunal these cases might be brought before, that they would
look with extreme jealousy upon all those proposals of amalga-
mation. He had no doubt that many advantages could be ob-
tained by the public by a uniformity of management. These
benefits might, however, be effective, by means of arrange-
ments in the different companies ; these arrangements would
not possess that permanent nature which a Parliamentary
sanction would give them ; they might Le altered and modified
by the company. The Board of Trade last year had pointed
out some objections, which it would have been quite as well for
the interest of the public had they been acted upon. In con-
elusion, be considered that the Committee appointed by the Hon.
Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison) should be instructed to
inquire how far these general rules might be made applicable
to individual cases.

Mr. BARING considered that the question as to the manner
in which the House was to deal with future railway legislation
was not a question to be discussed at that
time. He thought that was a future consideration.
He would recommend that a Committee of five should be
formed, to whom they would give a power, in cases of unopposed
Bills, to send for any witnesses they might choose. He was
very much afraid that from the Committee for which the Hon.
Member had moved they would get no report, except a very
hurried one. His Hon. Friend had said very pertly that the
report of the Board of Trade had not been sufficiently attended
to by him, but that very report stated " That nothing could be
more difficult than to lay down any general principle for cases
of amalgamation ;" and if they were not to lay down a rule,
they would ever have the same uncertainty. Their only course,
therefore, was to refuse to appoint the Committee, and throw
it unon the Government to bring forward some measure on
their owe responsibility which would meet the difficulties of the
case.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it would appear from what
the Hon. Gentleman had said, that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had very much neglected the subject of railway legislation.
Mr. BARING—Last year.

Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Hon. Member should recol-
lect that the House must take a share of the blame with her
Majesty's Government—( Hear, hear)—because they had in a
great measure acted contrary to the advice of those who had
been appointed to consider the question of railway amalgama-
tion. They had not received very favourably the report which
the Board of Trade made last year. That report laid down
the principle upon which (speaking gent rally) amalgamation
should be permitted ; and it then proceeded to apply those
principles to every case of amalgamation which was brought
before Parliament during the last session. It was distinctly
admitted in that report, that it was very difficult to lay down
universally the principle on which an amalgamation should
proceed.—( Hear, hear.) And it was admitted, that there
might be cases in which amalgamation might be permitted
with the greatest advantage to the public interests—( Hear,
hear)—because, wherever there was a number of distinct
and independent lines, forming a great channel of com-
munication between distant parts, and the proprietors of
those lines desired to amalgamate, it would certainly be to the
interest of the public that the desired amalgamation should be
permitted. On the other hand, the Board of Trade declared
it to be their conviction, that an amalgamation between power-
ful companies, whose lines of railway lay in the same district,
would deprive the public of many advantages which railway
communication was calculated to afford.—( Hear, hear.)
Although the House did not receive that report of the Board
of Trade last year, he still thought that the recommendations
in that report were wise and comprehensive, particularly as
far as amalgamation were concerned ; and he only asked
the House to bear a share of the responsibility which had been
thrown upon the Government. The House must recollect
that they had jealously overruled the decisions of the Board of
Trade. However, they were now convinced by experience
that amalgamation in certain cases might be justifiable, and
conducive to the public ,interest, and he believed, that with
some modifications, it would be well to admit the proposal of
his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to an im-
portant class of railway Bills, namely, those which had their
termini in the city of London, or within the metropolitan dis-
tricts, they proposed to reserve them for the consideration of a
Special Commission, to be appointed by the Crown ; and of
course the progress of those Bills would be suspended for the
present. Now, might they not adopt this course with respect
to amalgamation, substituting a Committee for the Commission,
and refer the amalgamation Bills, which were at present before
them, to the best Co i.mittee they could appoint, who should
consider the question of amalgamation as bearing upon those
Bills before them, and leave it for the general Committee to
consider at its leisure the principles which ought in
future to guide them, when dealing with amalgamation
Bills? They would thus have a Committee on the
general subject of railway legislation, a Commission to consider
railways which had their termini within the metropolitan dis-
tricts, and a Committee upon the amalgamation Bills, which
were now pressing, who might give their opinions to the
House as to what other tribunals these amalgamations fhonld
he referred in future, and as to the general principles applic-
able to railway amalgamations, so far as the present session
was concerned.—( !fear. )
Mr. FOX AIAULE regretted that the House did not last
year carry out the admirable report of the Board of Trade on
this subject, but he hoped the Committee, if they appointed
one, would be directed to take this report into their particular
consideration.—( Hear.) In reference to the atnalgation Bills,
if it wag proposed to refer them to a Committee, which
should merely report an them with reference to the principle
of amalgamation, it was so far well; but if the Committees
should be empowered to go into the merits of the Bills, it
would only be getting up a system of rivalry between the lines
under consideration and rival lines. His own opinion was
that, if the Committee proposed by his Hon. Friend should be
appointed, there should be some general measures laid down,
somewhat, he would suggest, similar to the rules adopted by
the Bord of Trade, and which rules should be adhered to by
the House. That was the only way, in his opinion, to do
justice to the Bills; but whatever course would be adopted he
( Mr. Maule) was prepared to support the proposition of his
Hon. Friend opposite.
Lord EBRINGTON said it appeared to him that the act
of amalgamation was a voluntary act. The subject of amalga-
mation was so important, and pressed so generally on the com-
munity, that the Committee moved for could not possibiy de-
cide on the question. The question, it appeared to him, de-
pended on this—whether they would adopt the priuciple of
competition, or take security on behalf of the public against
monopoly—thus sanctioning monopoly, but putting it under
proper regulations ? He was certain the result of the Commit-
tee, keeping such object in view, would be most beneficial.
Now, how were they to deal with railway legislation in gene-
ral? The Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) la-
mented that more attention had not been paid to the very able
reports of the Board of Trate within the last year. Now, he
should remind that Right Hon. Gentleman that he (Lord
Ebrington), as also many Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of
the House, that expressed their approbation of the ability
with which these very reports had been drawn up.—( Hear,
hear). He considered they were to blame in not attending
more to the suggestions of the Board of Trade. Not only the
House but her Majesty's Government had overlooked the labo-
rious exertions and able investigations of that board. He
thought that in this respect the Government had not paid
sufficient deference to the decisions of their own friends.
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Member was labouring underhe
a mistake respecting the duty of the Government. . The
Government,
n oright
oas i
interfere
teGovernment,rfere with thien
be sorry to adopt a principle to effectthe
the Board of Trade. It
adopting the recommendations of
involved
privateh i s (Sir
B Ri
that
Bills;
aP;t e
sode l' s
they) h opinion,
pal
dn
would obn y,
rt of the reports of the Board of Trade. Beyond this
support
interfere,.
Lord could not reasonably ~
mw was
to,nilny whenite
ca
capacity
irteya great
s principle
such,
wwesa s
feeed
to thateem et hfeerGw Govern-
ment,
de r ni h-
Lord EBRINGTON said, in speaking of the Government,
he only alluded to what the Right Hon. Baronet had stated in
the discussion that took place early in the session.
Mr. 11. HINDE confessed, for one, that he had looked to see
the Government support the reports of the Board of Trade,
as those reports had generally been made with great judgment
and discretion. He thought greater attention should have
been paid to the recommendations of the Board of Trade. If
the present Committee was agreed to, and parties had to Ise
submitted to its ordeal, and then had to pass through a
Select Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of
their Bills, the delay and expense would be very great.
If some means could be devised by which the investigation of
one Committee would be sufficient instead of two—a great ad-
vantage would be obtained. Powers ought to be given to the
Committee to inquire into all the matters for which two Com-
mittees, according to the present mode of conducting the busi-
ness of the House, were now required.
Sir GEORGE GREY agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) that the Governmnent ought not
to interfere with private Bills. After the discussion which had
taken place, he confessed he thought that the appointment of a
Committee, before the Committee on the Bill, was unneces-
sary. If a preliminary Committee were to sit, it would only
perform the functions of the Board of Trade of last year. He
hoped that the inquiries of the Committee would be limited to
some definite and particular object.
1
Mr. PAKINGTON, as a Member of the Classification
Committee, would state that the Hon. Member for South
Lancashire, had submitted this motion at the suggestion of the