The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-19 00:00:00

there. To the latter part, however, he objected, for fear
of misconstruction, as he conceived the present Bill ought
to he ripplicahle in all cases of forcible resistance to the
collection of tithe.—(Hear, hear.)"
Messrs. Letroy, Finch, and Shaw, took
fright at this disposition to place the titheowner
on the same footing as the landowner, contend-
big that it was dangerous to indulge the Irish,
as they would be sure to interpret the not prohi-
biting the doing anything as a license to do it.
Mr. Finch naively observed, that " it would
almost seem from the discussion on this and
former evenings, that to enforce the legal claim
for tithes was inconsistent both with equity and
law." It is somewhat late in the day to make
such an observation after the declaration of Mr.
Stanley respecting the extinction of tithes.
From the day that that word was uttered, tithes
received their doom. Mr. Stanley proposed
a sort of compromise. After complimenting
the Hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Lambert),
who, he was sure, had no other object in view
than that of promoting the peace of his country,
he said, he wished that that Hon. Gentleman
had postponed the introduction of the amend-
ment till they came to the clause relating to the
courtsmartial, to which it more properly be-
longed. As, however, they had proceeded thus
far in the discussion, it would be convenient
that they should now come to some under-
standing :
" He had drawn out some words which he proposed to
introduce after the 17th clause, which related to the
powers to be given to courtsmarti-,1. The words, if
not found sufficient, might be altered before they
arrived at that stage ; but, as he had at present drawn it,
he should propose this clause—, Provided nothing herein
contained shall authorize such courtsm irtial to try any
person charged under any of the afore-aid Acts with any
confederacy or comhin unless accompanied with
violence or threats.'—(Cheers.) As to the first part of
the amendment, there con d he no objeciiou to it; but he
did not see how it could afford greater -ecurity than the
ph-dge of the Governm'nt, that no district should be pro-
claimed merely because tithes were sot paid."
This concession was calculated to deprive all
further discussion on the point of its interest.
Mr. Lambert said he would be satisfied if all
offences were exempted from the jurisdiction of
courtsmartial except such as were accompanied
ith ‘iolence. Mr. Sheil, however, still con-
tended, notwithstanding the declaration of Lord
Althorp and Mr. Stanley, that the 11th secticn
of 27 Geo. 111 , created a species of offence,
which could not be. excluded by Mr. Stanley's
amendment. A division took place on an al-
tered amendment, when the numbers were, 284
to 81 against the amendment. Having reached
the seventh clause, a motion was made that tire
Committee report progress. This was resisted ;
and, after excluding strangers for a division,
none took place. The Committee reached the
eighth clause, when a halt was made. On the
whole, the proceedings of last night will ma-
terially diminish, :f we are not mistaken, the ob-
jections to the Bill in Ireland.—Morn Chron.
The House of Commons was some hours in
Committee last night upon the Irish Digurb-
ntices Suppression B:11, which made, as usual,
wry little progress towards its completion.- The
O'Connell Irish and Movement English parties,
or, as we may more properly include both under
one common description, the Anti-Church
party fought a vigorous battle in order to get a
proviso introduced into the Bill establishing a
distinction between tithe and every other de-
scription of property, and by the enactment that
the proclaimed counties and districts of Ireland
shall be exempt from the enforcement of the
fomer by means of this Bill. A. proposition
so absurd and revolting as that which went to
invalidate one particular descripti3a of legal pro-
petty, by insidiously separating it from legal
property of every other desciintion, presented an
occasion requiring, it may probably be thought,
from Ministers the interposition of a direct ne-
gative, and affording them a graceful and conve-
nient opportunity of showing, by this frank and
manly resistance, that they have no feelings
or principles in common with those who
manifest their hostility to the general rights
of property by attacking separate por-
tions of property in detail. If, however,
this attempt presented Ministers with a favour-
able opportunity of rebuking and renouncing
the party of Levellers, the result manifests hut
too plainly that Ministers were deficient either
in the inclination or the capacity to turn the in-
cident to so beneficial an account. Instead of
denouncing the inquity of the proposition as it
should have been denounced, we find his Ma-
jest;''s Ministers striving in vain to gratify and
propitiate its authors, by substituting for it
another proviso calculated materially to impair
the efficiency of the measure as a means of afford-
ing protec ion to property in general. The pro-
viso, as amended by Mr. Stanley, and adopted
after the strenuous opposition of the enemies
of the Church, who, to the number of eighty-
one,
sought to obtain by this side wind a deci-
sion of the House against tithe, is couched in
the following ambiguous and enfeebling phrase :
—" Provided always that nothing herein con-
tained shall be taken to authorize courtsmartial
to try persons tor any confederacy or com-
bination unaccompanied by violence or out-
rage." This proviso might seem to admit of the
interpretation that the Lord Lieutenant is to exer-
cise a power tinder the. Bill of proclaiming dis-
tricts in which violence and outrage do not ac-
tually exist, but are merely apprehended as a
probable consequence of confederacies and com-
binations of which the existence may have be-
come sufficiently notorious. In this sense the
proviso would be an enlargement of the powers
of the Bill, amid therefore this construction is
inadniissable. What, then, is the true inter-
pretation of the clause? It can be no other than
this, that in a &strict in which confederacies,
or combinations and violence, or outrage, ate
found to be co-existent, and to have sprung up
simultaneously, anti in which, therefore, their
mutual connection may most safely be interred, the
Lord Lieutenant may apply the mode of repression
instituted by the Bill—the prompt and efficacious
restraint—only to the less guilty and more igno-
rant offenders—to the deluded instruments and
victims of agitatioo—while the more deliberate,
malignant, powerful, and atrocious criminals who
contrive and inculcate the crimes that desolate
society are to he left in undisturbed possession
of every resource for their protection against
justice which chicanery, evasion, perjury, and
terror, are now found so abundantly to supply,
unless (for it would be unjust to omit the ex-
eeptioo) in such cases, and such cases our wise
legislators pretend to think not entirely impos-
sible, as present a visible connection, a connec-
tion manifest to all the woild, before even the
judicial inves igation is begin), between the c)u-
iederacy or combination and the violence or
outrage. This is the proviso by which our wise
and able Ministers detest the opponents of their
measure fur the restoration of peace and security
to Ireland ; this is the reformed method of curb-
ing agitation ; this is the consummation of Whitt
energy. and wisdom, to refuse to the enetniei of
law amid order, of Church and State, an advan-
tage which they seek, by substituting for it other