The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-02 00:00:00

country. His first extract shoal be from Robertsolll9
third book. He says " that in December, 1561, a con-
armtion of estates was held chiefly on account of ecclesias-
tical affairs. After much contention, the following plan
was approved of by a majority of voices, and acquiesced in
even by the Popish clergy themselves. An exact account of
ecclesiastical benefices through the kingdom was appointed
to he taken. The present incumbents, to whatever party
they adhered, were allowed to keep possession, twc-thirds of
their whole revenue were reserved for their own use, the
remainder was annexed to the Crown; and out of that
the Queen undertook to assign a sufficient maintenance
for the Protestant clerey."—(Hear.) It was of great
importance to consider the doctrines of the great Refor,
niers of the time, the fathers of the Scotch church. In
Spotswood's history of that church, their tenets would be
found. An ecclesiastical counsel appointed for the pur-
pose, reported to the Parliament a form of doctrine and
of discipline. The words in Spotswood he should ex-
tract:—" 'lhe fifth head, concerning the previson of mi-
nisters, and distribution of the rents tind possessions justly
appertaining to the church ;" after providing for the
clergyman and his widow, the disciples of John Knox go
on thus :—" There rest two sorts of people, who must be
provided for out of the patrimony of the church—to wit,
the poor and the teacher of youth. The poor must be
provided for in every parish—(Loud cries of " Hear")—
, for it is a shameful thing that they should be universally
contemned and despised. The poor widows, the father-
less, the impotent, maimed persons, the aged, and every
one that may not work, or such persons as are
fallen by occasion into decay, ought to be pro-
vided for." In page 164, of Spotswood, the fol-
lowing is stated to be the doctrine of the church, as
expressed in a second rescript :—" Two sor's of men,
that is, the preachers of the word and the poor, besides
schools, must be sustained from the rents of the church,
and because not only ministers, but also the poor and
schools must he sustained upon tithes, we think it more
expedient that deacons and common treasurers of the
church he appointed to receive the whole rents appertain-
ing thereto than the ministers themselves." It is deserving
of remark, that they rest their arguments on the canon
of the church giving the quarta pars to the poor.—
(Hear.) Such were the principles laid down at the Re.
formation in Scotland ; and what eloquent lessens does
the history of that country present to st ttesmen, if they
would open their hearts to the philosophy which teaches
by example. From 1666 to 1689 what events took
place ! The efforts made by the Government to inflict
episcopacy on the people, who repudia'ed the imposition,
produced di taster, bloodshed, insurrection, multifarious
crime. The covenant is sworn at Lanark—the b :ale of
Petland•hils is fought—the Scotch are defeated-10 are
hanged on the same gibbet, 35 are hanged at their
own doors. Tortures follow—Macall is tormented, and
dies in a paroxysm of heroism and devotion. The
cruelties of Lauderdale succeed the Highlanders are
called from their savage hills, and quartered on the
western counties Sharpe is murdered in open day,
and pierced in the arms of his daughter, who shrieks
in vain for mercy the battle of Bothwell-bridge is
fought—a reign of terror commences—courtsmartial,
high courts of novel judicature, are established
blood flowing in torrents a country covered with
soldiers and banditti misery unspeakable fatnine,
pestilence, and anguish are beheld on every side—at last a
great event befals ; the revolution takes place : and on the
22d of June, 1689, the following Act of Parliament is
passed :—" Act Abolishing Episcopacy.—Whereas the
estates of this kingdom declared that prelacy is and bath
been a great and insupportable grievance to this nation,
and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the
people—(Cheers)—and therefore ought to be abolished,
our Savereit4n Lord and Lad) do hereby abolish episco-
pacy ; and the King and Queen's Majesty do declare, that
they will settle by law that church government in this
kingdom which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the
people..'—(Hear, hear.) He had gone through a great
al of citation, and should limit himself to two references
more. They should pass across the Atlantic. In Canada,
a case of most peculiar and powerful illustration was pre-
sented. By treaty, on the cession of that province, the
Roman Catholic church was declared to be the established
one. The revenues of the church were made payable to
the Catholic clergy. That treaty was confirmed by the
14th of George 111. We I, what was done? The Pro-
testants were exempted from the payment of tithes on
those estates which they purchased from Roman Catholics.
The mere sale was sufficient to discharge the property
from all ecclesiastical impost if it passed to the hands of
a Protestant. This was not accounted spoliation—this
was considered quite legitimate and just. The feelings
of Protestants were not to be outraged by a payment
to a Roman Catholic establishment. There was no
plunder here. If this, then, was wise and just on
the banks of the St. Laurence, how did the principle
change on the banks of..the Shannon? Did it depend on
the latitude, or was it supposed that the Catholic millions
of Ireland were less sensitive to wrong, and less alive to
hun:iliation than the Protestants who were located in the
Canadian forests ?—( Hear.) But having thus sought for
examples through the world, it might be asked whether
he should find none in lii own countty? The precedent of
1735 was universally known. Ttie Irish Parliament
pissed a resolution against the tithe of agistment, and that
resolution was turned into an Act of Parliament at the
time of the Coital in 1800. Th it Act bad since
been violated, and the tithe composition deprived the
lri.h gentry of a privilege which they had made matter of
stipulation.—(Sir R. Peel—No no ) He conceived that
the tithe of agistment was virtually imposed by the Com-
position Act, because all land was now brought within
the Act, and pasturage was formerly exempt. I3ut the
great point was this, that the Legislature had in Ireland
directly interfered with the Church prop rty, and stripped
the clergy at once of a large share of their profits. Those
accumulated facts est .blished beyond all doubt the con-
stant interference in almost every county with ecclesiasti-
cal possessions, and it only remained that the Legislature
should, in the present circumstances of the country, act
boldly and frankly on the principle which must obviously
toff .rd the basis of their enactments. A compromise
among themselves would avail nothing.

Mr. HALCOMB wished to make a few observatione.
The proposed measure was intended to remove two al-
legod • grievances-1. The payment of first fruits-2. the
payment of vestry cess. To this it was to he answered
that the first fruits only amounted to 321/. it year on an
average of the last 31 years, and that the vestry cess applica-
ble to church purposes wasnot more than 17,6001. per an-
num, liblintreh the total sum thus raised was 60,0001. per
annum. The vestry cso was entirely paid out of the
land, whether it were held by Protestant or Catholic; and
if the House were prepared to abolish it, was it prepares
to adopt a resolution which said that the land shou:d he
relieved from the burden, in or der that it may be imposed
upon the poorer clergy? To follow such a course would
establish a precedent, not only injurious to the church of
Ireland, hut most dangerous to the church of England,
and would exercise a power over church property now
for the first time asserted. The repeal of the Union would
succeed as a necessary consequence, effected by that danee-
rous system of ag tation hitherto so constantly pursued.
The Hon. Member contended, after much consideration
and patient inquiry, that church property was exempted
from the power of the House, as far as related to direct
taxation, and that the King could not consent to any suck
Bill of spoliation without a breach of his coronation oath,
by which he solemnly undertook to preserve the bishops
and clergy all their rights and possessions.
Mr.; WARRE was surprised at the opinions be had
heard to-night respecting the violation of the King's co-
ronation oath, if he should consent to this measure. It
seemed to him that there was no pretence for using any
such argument. If he wanted authority to justify him in
his opinion, he might find it in the sentiments expressed
by the Protestant Bishop of Llandaff, who, in writing to a
friend in 1805, said, when mentioning this subject, "the
coronation oath is a confirmation of the promises made by
the King to the people. The obligation is broken when
it is disregarded, though both the Patliament and the
people claim its performance; it is relaxed when the people
declare, through their representatives in Parliament, that
they do not require the performance of it." With respect
to the church, he trusted that he should not he thought a
lax churchman, if he expressed his concurrence with
Locke,' in saying that a church was a certain number of
people who agreed together in a certain opinion. Else-
where Mr. Locke had called it " a convention of men."
It seemed to him that this was the proper time for intro-
ducing a measure of church reform into Ireland. He
should, therefore, support this Bill.

. _
Mr. GILLON said the church establishment was a
human instituion, and as such must require change.
Church establishments had been began with Constantine;
they had b en marked in their progress with the existence
of tithe-proctors, and the cour,e of these persons had, in
all countries, occasioned the tears of the wi.:ow and the
orphan, and might now he traced in the blood of Ireland,
which was yet reeking with the sliughter of her citizens.
It was unjust to tax a whole country to support doctrines
which its population disavowed ; and it was against all
reason to suppose that seven millions and a half of Irish-
men should willingly continue to pay tithes for the sup-
port of .a church to which in sentiment they were opposed.
The attempt to make them continue this payment was ab-
surd, as well as unjust, and must fail. To enforce it, a
standing army was necessary. There could be no reduc-
tion of the burdens of this country—no reduction of the
establishments, so long as they were determined to collect

the tithes of Ireland. He wished for a reduction of the
establishments—it was what the people expected ; and, as
one of the most certain -anemia of obtaining that end, he
moved, as an amendment to the question now before the
House, a resolution to the effect, that, after the death of
the present incumbents, the revenues of the church of
Ireland should be thrown into the general mass of the
public property.
Mr. MACAULAY observed that there were two kinds
of opposition to this measure. First, those who thought
that the measure went too far, and next, those who were
of opinion that it did not go fir enough. When the mea-
sure was first proposed, the Hon. Member for Clare (?)
said that it was satisfactory as far as it went, but he was
sorry that it did not go far enough ; but be admitted, at
the same time, that perhaps it would not have beenjudi-
cious to carry it further, as a more extended change might
have been successfully resisted. Now that was the answer
to the objections of those who thought that the measure
did not go far enough. He was glad that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Tipperary had withdrawn the motion
of which he had given notice for to-night, and he wished
that it was possible to prevail with some other Hon.
Members to follow that example. Whatever might Ire his
opinion of the abstract questions mooted by some Hon.
Gentlemen, his wish was to carry this measure, and he
feared that, by rendering it stronger than it was at pr. seta,
they would be but increasing the difficulties now thrown
in the way of its progress. With that feeling, he should
have no difficulty whatever in moving the previous ques.
tion upon the amendment just proposed. Some persons
were of opinion that the Bill went too far, and not only
that it went too far, but that the King could not give his
assent to it without violating his coronation oath. The
same argument bad been used against the passing of the
B:11 for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and
against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill ; but he was
happy to sty, in both instances, without effect. Nor, in
fact, did it deserve to have any effect. What was the oath?
—that the King would maintain for the church " all such
rights as d o or by law shall appertain to the Church." But
what was the other part of the King's oath ?--, That he
would govern his people according to the statutes agreed to in
Parliament." That could not mean such statutes only as
were then passed; and if so, teen it kit the matter open
to the King's power of agreeing to legislative measures
that might pass both Houses of Parliament. That oath
was not intended to guard against legislative enactments
properly made in Parliament, but against measures like
those adopted in the time of James 11., to guard against
the King unjustly exercising his prerogative to the de-
struction of the interests of the church. Otherwise every
new Act of Parliament, altering the way in which the
people were goverted, would he an act of perjury. The
doctrine—the worship—the government, and the dis-
cipline of the clitirch were to be protected. This Bill
att ,eked none of .thein. They all remained the same as
formerly. It was true that the number of the sees was to
be altered, but surely no one would say that the sees were
a part of the church government. But if they were, then
there were precedents to show that that was not esteemed a
matter included in the oath. The sees of Lichfield and
Coventry had been unite t. That union hid never been
deemed to be a violation of the King's oath. The parishes
of London, alter the great fire, had been reduced in nurn'er
to 51, and in the city of London an Act had been passed rr r
aranting to the clerey a stated sum of money in lieu of
tithes. Many local Acts of that description were constantly
paesed, and yet no one thought that that had been a dis-
uniting of the church. But then it was said that the right of
property was attacked by this measure. If so, then in-
deed the controversy was important. He could not con •
ceive that there was any necessity that could justify them
in infringing the right of property. That right was the
great source of law, of civilization, and of morality. We
owed it to the security of property that we were not
naked savages, like our remote ancestors—to it we owed
all the advantages we enjoyed, and all the liberty we
boasted of possessing. All wise men knew that the insti-
tution of property had produced anomalies and evils, but
then they knew that for the sake of the advantages con-
nected with that institution, those anomates ought wil-
lingly and cliesrfully to he borne. The anomalies in the
church of Ireland were not greater than sonic others, nor
even in some respects so great. There was nothing more
convenient—nothing that could be easier—than putting
the livings of the church under the general head of pro-
perty. But let them; well consider the abuse which
the institution of property itself might be made liable to.
He did not by any means deny that livings were of the
nature of property ; but incumbents, it must be recol-
lected, were public functionaries, and were bound by
certain obligations. They did not,i at the time of enter-
ing on their livings, assume that which was their
own by right, and fur their exclusive advantage, but
what was also designed for the good of religion. At a
recent date, an Act bad been passed, under the auspices
of one of the first men of his day—the head of
the church party in this country—the late Mr. Perceval,
which ordained that all nonresident clergy should keep
curates, the minimum of salary being fixed on the same
principles as the minimum now stated. It had been
stated, that the interference authorized by this Bill was
enough to create a civil war; and yet this part of it was
precisely the same as that introduced by Spencer Perceval.
The fact was, that this was a kind of mixed property.—
being more thin salary, and less than estate. In his
opinion, there never could be a more sweeping confiscation
thin the abolition of the half-pay of retired officers—a
confiscation which he would ever most strenuously resist ;
yet it was well known that it was subjected to regulations,
always of a mild and modified character he admi.ted, but
s till it was subject. And though with nobler aims and
higher objects, he contended that these individuals were
also subject to the measures of the Legislature, which were
not framed to take any thing trona them—not to reduce
them to distress, but merely for the purpose of extinguish-
ing that which could not wiss:y be extinguished in any
other manner, the (Ohm now lying on the establishment.
The only part of the Bill which they ventured so strongly
to attack was teat which affected the livings of existing
incumbents, but he should be surprised if any one should
attack the proposed diminution of Bishops on the ground
of any violation of prilerty. Take the see of Waterford.
Was that to be held up as a soldiery? Who was
robbed ? Was the late Bi-hop ? He was safe. Was the
future? Where would he his right to weat he bad
not got—or where was the rational min that would give
one suvereign for it? What the robbery then was, or on
whom committed, he was unable to tell.—(Cheers.) In
this measure he denied there was anything like sacrilege.
Surely it would not be said that the identity of the church
was destroyed be the re iuction of ten Bishops from the
establishment ? Teat was a sophism unworthy of regard.
Or that the church remained so lone as its emoluments,
when all its doctrines were changed? They would not
say with him of That they preferred the gold to
the temple, which sanctified the gold." Tee Hon. and
Learned Member for Oxford might wish him to go into
the subject of Founders' Wills, and recapitulate those
names of which the Universities might well he proud—
men wino would have burned off their hands rather than
teat the endowments which they left for the extension of the
Catholic religion should be turned to purposes of so widely
different a nature. But he should not do so. This
measure be warmly supported, because he thought it c ll-
culated to administer to the peace of Ireland—because it
was the beginning and not the end of a series—(Lotel
cheers)—of judicious measures in the church. It had
been.contended that it was not sufficiently favourable to
the Protestant interest, and mode no allowance :or the ex-
pansion of that faith. Ireland was but half the size of Eng-
land, and yet she had a church equally efficient. If that
church expanded—if it extended its.lf as it had done in Eng-
land, still the machinery was amply sufficient for it.
He confessed he did not entertain such cheering hopes of
this expansive force as others indulged in ; fur how was
it that it had slumbered so long?—(Cheers.) That
church had been established for centuries—supported by
wealth—protected by poorer ; penal I twa and disa••ilities
of every kind anti for every circumstance surrounded it,
and yet not one-fourth were Protestants, nor more than
one-half of that fourth churchnien.--(Cheers.) He knew
nothing in history more remarkable—nothing which pre-
sented a stronger contract than the astonishing strides
which Protestantism had made in the 16th century, anu
the sluggishness which had since characterized it.—
(Cheers.) Surely this furnished matter for solemn re-
attion on the part of those to whom the interests oh the
Protestant religion were committed. He believed that
truth would prevail over error ; that she was still on tire
side of Protestantism ; but there was a question whether it
trail not been encumbered by their help.—(Cheers.) He
did not believe that the secret of the strength of tee Irish
church wag to be found in wealth, or they would not find
a Presbyterian in Ulster, or a Catholic in Connaught. It
toaitiln etoc9n'uit
public feeling—it was time to remove
all real grievances—to restore the church to its true state
—to its primitive purity—and so consolidate and extend
the real interests of the Protestant establishment.

Mr. H. BuLwEit and S r R Lanus rose together.
The former gendeman gave way, and
Sir ROBERT INGLIS proceeded to say that from the
Revolution to the Union the Protestant church was the
only link, between this country and Ireland. The question,
however, at present was, not whether they were to support
the cause of the Protestant church in Ireland, but whether
there should be an Ecclesiastical Commission appointed
under the proposed resolutions. To agree to this would
he in a great measure to deprive the Crown of its superin-
tendence over the church of Ireland ; and to declare that

that superintendence should henceforth be exercised
through the medium of persons who were not Counsellors
of the. King. Was it fitting that one of the highest func-
tions of the Crown should be thus delegated ? Although
professedly an Ecclesiastical Commission, a majority of the
members would he laymen, members of the Protestant
church. One of the powers to be possessed by this Com-
mission was that of suspending the worship of the
church wherever they might think it proper to do so.
That was a power not at present possessed by the Crown.
There were other powers to be granted to this Commission
which ought not to be taken out of the hands of the Arch-
bishops and other dignitaries of the church.
Mr. FINCH said that the speech of the Hon. Member
for Leeds convinced him that his Majesty's Ministers were
not qualified to undertake the reform of the Irish church.
The friends of the church of Ireland were not opposed to
an arrangement of the revenues of that church. If Par-
liament thought the revenues of the Bishops too large, let
them be diminished ; but let not the number of bishoprics
be cut down. If the principle of abstaining from a
spoliation of the church property were not rigidly adhered
to, a revolutionary spirit would grow up which would
sweep all before it.
Lord ALTHORP observed, that when the Hon. Baronet
(the Member for Oxford) remonstrated against devolving
on the proposcd commissioners the powers at present
vested in the Crown, he immediately afterwards proved
that that was not the case, by stating that one of the pri-
vi'eges which it was proposed to give the commissioners—
that of suspending the worship of the church wherever
they thought proper—was a privilege not belonging to the
Crown. In respect of patronage, the new commissioners
would not be authorized to supersede the power of the
Crown. The great object of the commission was, the
better disposition of the church revenue.
Sir R. PEEL said, that if every Hon. Member had
confined himself to the first resolution, he might also
h tve contented himself to follow the example of the Noble
Lord in making only a short speech. The first resolu-
tion was only one of form, to the effect, that if any Biil
should pass in the present session of Parliament. which
might require the aid of a Commission, in that case a
Commission should be appointed, and a salary attached to
the office. By assenting to this resolution lie conceded
nothing, and ii he should see no necessity for attaching
a s dory to the office, and at present he confessed that
he could see nn necessity for a salary thereto, he should
feel that he bad still reserved to himself the power of
negativing that salary.—(Hear, hear.) If they should
have a Commission, he much doubted the propriety of
making a distinction between the salaried and unsa-
laried Members, beeluse the latter would be liable
to be called away to their Parliamentary and other
duties, and the whole duties therefore would be vested in
those lay commissioners who could be constantly on the
spot, and w'm holding their commission at the pleasure of
Government, with a large salary attached, could not be
considered as quite independent. He should, therefore, by
agreeing to the first resolution, make no compromise, but
should reserve his right to oppose hereafter either the
commission, or the salary, as he might see fitting. He
thought it would be better to consider at once the main
subject rather than allow this resolution to pass as a
matter of form, and then begin a new debate. If that
course were to be adopted, the debate of the last five hours
and a half would he completely lost time. He should,
therefore, state the point as it was raised by the second
resolution. This resolution went to abolish at once church
cess, and when once that resolution was agreed to, from
that inoment the cess was at once abolished. Would it
not be much wiser so to frame the resolution that it
should not cease until a substitute should have been provided?
The same result might happen as in the case when the
idea of the extinction of tithes was so unfortunately held
out. They were by this resolution deciding that hence-
forth church cto-s should cease. The substitute to he pro-
vided was by means of an imposition to be levied sepa-
rately upon the clergy of Ireland. It would have been
convenient if the Noble Lord had made a distinction be-
tween vestry and church cess. He had calculated the as-
sessment at 60,0001 or 70,0001., and he had stated that
the sum to be raised as a substitute must be 60,0001. or
70,0001. He should, however, saddle the church with
only that portion which had been hitherto raised for
church purposes. There were two vestries in Ireland—
one to provide far the necessaries relating to divine wor-
ship, the other for other purposes.
Just at this moment the Right Hon. Baronet was in-
terrupted in his speech by a stranger, genteelly attired in
black, who had found his way into the body of the House,
and proceeding up to the table said, " I beg your pardon,
but I die of poison, by Lord Grey's orders."
Mr. BERNAL—Mr. Sergeant, remove that person.
Tne stranger, appealing to the House, continued--" I
am a poor, unfortunate Irishman. My name is Dillon.
For seeking for justice I am poisoned by the orders of Lord
Grey."

lie was then removed, in custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, in continuation, said that as Mi-
nisters had felt the necessity of an extensive Church
reform, surely it would have been right to ascertain what
portion of this 70,0001. was collected for Church pur-
poses. If they did not know this amount, ought not the
House in the first instance to grant an inquiry, before
proceeding to legislate? Was it right to go, even through
the form of these resolutions without some preliminary
consideration? How was the sum, to be raised from the
clergy, to be disposed of? He knew they were not going
to give any thing to the poor by these resolutions—
(Loud cheers)—and the immediate occupiers of the soil
cauld derive no benefit from them.—(Hear, hear.)
The speech of the Hon. Member for Leeds had no reference
whatever to these resolutions. The only point urged by the
Hon. Member for Leeds rested upon expediency, for he
contended that Government had as much right to touch
this property as to repeal any tax. The Hon. Gentleman
said that every other state had interfered with church pro-
perty, and then triumph mntly asked, why should not we
do the same? But the House could not fail to remark the
authoriti,s cited by the Hon. Gentleman. The first was
that considerate legislator and profound ecclesiastical lawyer
Peter the Great—(Laughter)--and the next was Joseph 11.
Now with resp-ct to Peter the Great, his system was well
known, and as to Joseph 11. he thought it would not be
disputed that his reforms were not well canceived. Yet
these were to be the precedents on which the House was
to act. But now to return to the second resolution. Hon.
Members who took his view of the question thought that
there ought to be a preliminary resoaition declaratory of
the amount of the tax, but his Mejes,y's Ministers proposed
nothing of the kind. The effect of the second resolution
was to relieve the land from charges to which it was now
subject, and to lay those charges on the property of the
clergy, who by law were not liable to bear the burden.--
(Cheers.) But still further by the greatest possible injus-
tice this tax was made to apply to existing interests—
kßepeared cheers.) Fur his own part, he was ready to
agree to the proposition for abolishing the firstfruits, if it
were accompanied with this special qualification, that ex-
isting interests should be secured. That was the only
point to which he meant to apply himself. He would put
it to the House to consider the situation of a person holding
a benefice, taken on the implied credit that it was not to
be subject to the charge ? Here, for instance, they might
see a man who had contributed his quota to the firstfruits,
and he would ask the House whether it was consistent
either with equity or justice, that such a man should have
his interests affected by a measure of this description ?
How many cleugytnen were there in Ireland, who, cats-
sessed large nominal incomes, yet received but a mere
trifle for the support of themselves and their families !
He himself knew a case, where a clergyman was entitled
to receive from 1,3001. to 1,4001. a year from his
benefice, but got now not more than 3001. a year--
(Hear) -- and the whole of that small sum would
be swept away by this tax. The only condition upon
which he had originally agreed to the general ptoposition
brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers was that ex-
isting interests should not be disturbed. However, if
Ministers deviated from the original grounds on which
they called for his support he could not possibly con-
cur in any such course. He had agreed with them in
t linking that sonar arrangement was necessary to relieve
the occupying tenant from the vestry cess, and that that
cess should be considered as levied' for ecclesiastical
purposes, but be wished that the amount of the
tax should be specified, and all the circumstances
relating to it accurately defined. The reason why
he wished the vestry cess abandoned was, because
he desired that all collisions la,tween the occu-
pying tenant and the clergyman should be avoided.
Ile was disposed to go to a certain length in the hope
that corresponding concessions would be made by the
Noble Lord and his colleagues, but in this he was greatly
disappointed. The Right lion. Baronet then referred to
tee repo t of the Tithe Committee, in which it was
stated that it might be a matter of consideration, looking
to the inconvenience of paying the first year's income, as
to whether a substitute might not be adopted by an an-
nual tax on all benefices hereafter fuelling vacant. He in-
sisted that from thie passnge in the report, it was quite
evident that the measure was to have a prospective effect,
and not touch existing interests. The Hon. Member for
Leeds had slightly adverted to some few topics connected
with this question, as it he feared to approach them too
closely.

Et qu
Desperat tractata niteseere posse relinquit."
He (Sir R. Peel) maintained that though we bad a re-