The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1934.

a certain compromise on the part of the Clergy. It was pro-
posed to them by that Bill that they should have a security
given to them for their property, which, under any circum7
stances, could not be shaken by a sacrifice of 20 per cent. But
why, on earth, the landlords of Ireland were to have an addi-
tional 20 per cent. he was utterly at a loss to conceive. If any
men were more deeply interested than others in the tranquil
arrangement of the subject, those men were the landlords of
Ireland ; and why they should receive 20 per cent. for that
which was to be so beneficial to them he knew not. He could
not believe that their efforts to carry the arrangement into
effect would have been withheld but for this 20 per cent.,
which came essentially from the church. It was the clause in
which three-fifths hid been substituted for four-fifths that
gave a new and injurious character to the measure ; for,
from that change flowed the necessity of the reference to
the Perpetuity Fund and the Consolidated Fund. The
clauses respecting the redemption formed an essential part
of the original Bill. No question had been more
thoroughly sifted by Parliamentary Committees during
the last three or four years. The recommendations of
those Committees with respect to tithes, were of different
descriptions, but they all pointed at redemption as the ul-
timate object.—( Hear,) No measure that had ever been in-
troduced into Parliament was considered with more care than
the Bill brought into the House of Commons at the commence-
men' of the Session, and of that Bill redemption of tithes was
one of the main principles. His Noble and Learned Friend
had talked of the liberality of giving the Church of Ireland
the proposed twenty per cent. ; but the attempt to get, it back
destroyed all the grace of th act, and gave to that which
affected to be a gift its true character of a debt. With respect
to the fund from which it was intended that the money should
eventually come, he would not go so far as some Noble Lords,
and call the invasion of that fund sacrilege, because as that
fund owed its existence to an Act of Parliament, Parliament
could of course do what it chose with it. But it must not be
forgotten that in the Church Temporalities Bill of last year
this fund was specially appropriated to very useful purposes.
No one said that the Churches should not be repaired—no one
said that the small livings ought not to be augmented. The
Clergy of Ireland, therefore, were entitled to consider that
that fund was permanently applied to the purposes to which it
had been applied by a solemn act of the Legislature. Yet,
for the sake of giving the landlords of Ireland what was not
due to them, his Majesty's Government proposed to depart not
only from the Bill of the present Session, but from the Bill of
the last Session. The Bill, too, was liable to great objection in
point of form. If he thought he could make such alteration as he
desired to see in committee, he should be most reluctant to throw
the Bill out on the second reading. But as it was told them
that the result of such alterations would be the natural death
of the Bill elsewhere, and consequently they must either pass
it as it was or reject it—he feared they had ho alternative but
to reject it ; but the responsibility must lie at the door of those
who demanded either all or nothing. It had been asked what
would be the condition of the Irish clergy if this Bill did not
pass and nothing were done for them ? It was hardly possible
to conceive a more persecuted body of men than the Irish
clergy ; nor was it improbable, if this Bill passed, that their
condition would be rendered still worse,and that it might come
up to the eloquent description of his Noble and Learned Friend
on the Woolsack. But he believed that, notwithstanding the
privations they suffered and the dangers to which they were
exposed, that House would only be performing their wishes,
as well as acting for their ultimate benefit, by preserving their
property from violation and spoliation. As to the perpetuity
fund, if that were to be applied to the repayment of the con-
solidated fund, it would be absorbed in a few years. He knew
that some persons expected that the Irish Church Commission
would discover a mine of wealth. It would, he believed, be a
vain expectation; but all that he foresaw was, that ultimately
that church would have to make up the deficiency out of its
own revenues.—( Hear.) If, instead of 3-sths, 4-sths were
substituted, there would then be no necessity for the clause
relating to the consolidated and perpetuity funds. The clergy
would still have the tithe collected for them by the landlords,
when the peasantry would gain all the relief they would under
the present Bill. But, unfortunately, as he could anticipate
the probability of no such alteration, he must unwillingly vote
against the second reading.
The Bishop of LONDON said the course which he had
taken during the last session of Parliament, in voting in favour
of the Church Temporalities Bill, might probably induce some
persons to imagine that it was his intention to support the pre-
sent measure. He did therefore feel it necessary to say a few
words in explanation of the course which, much to his regret,
he felt it his duty to take, on the present occasion, in voting
against the second reading of this Bill. He voted for the mea-
sure of last year, in common, he believed, with those of their
Lordships, who supleorted it on the assumption, that whatever
sum was accumulated towards the formation of a perpetuity
fund, should only be applied for ecclesiastical purposes.—
( Hear.) One of the principles of the present Bill was, that
201. per cent. on the amount of income of the Irish clergy
should be taken out of that fund for the purpose of putting
into the pockets of the landlord. —( Hear.) As far as regarded
the 201. per cent. that was deducted from the incomes of
the clergy themselves, considered as a premium paid for the
security of the remainder, he should not, if the present mea-
sure went not further, much object to it. Nor he believed
would the clergy raise any great opposition to that sacrifice.
But as to the other 20 per cent., called a bonus, to be put
into the pockets of the landlords, it comprised a principle to
which he could not consent. Another objection which he
had to the Bill was, that it broke up existing compositions.
In order to secure the clergy in Ireland such portion of in-
come as was permitted to remain to them, it was necessary
that the deductions to be made should be clearly defined.
The Bill said that the great body of clergy were to forfeit 20
per cent. of their incomes, but by the operation of the clauses
relating to composition, the clergy would have to forfeit not
merely 20 per cent. on their incomes, but 20 per cent, on a
reduced composition.—( Hear.) He had read some of these
clauses very attentively, and though he was far from imputing
such an intention to their authors, yet they did on the face of
them contain an encouragement to dissatisfied persons,
to break up compositions on the faith of which the cler-
gyman had for some years past calculated his income ;
and thus subject him not only to certain loss, but during
and after the period of revisal, to all the evils and mi-
sery attendant on parochial agitation.--( Hear, hear, hear. )
These two .great principles of the Bill were so vicious that he
could not give his consent to the present measure.--( Rear.)
The change which had been made in this Bill was to be
ascribed in some measure to an Hon. and Learned Member of
another House, who certainly had on no occasion exhibited
himself in the light of a friend of the Church of England.
He certainly could not regard this fact in the same light as
the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. He could
not but regard with great suspicion any measure which pro-
ceeded from that party—( Hear)—and he thought he did so in
the present instance with good reason ; for thbugh, on the first
blush it did appear to be an advantage to transfer the payment
of tithe from the landholder to the landowner, and though he
might on the first blush anticipate from that some mitigation
in predial agitation, yet he thought a very different view of
this case was adopted by the Hon. and Learned Member in
question ; for when Mr. Stanley brought in a measure for
making the tithe payable by the landowner instead of the
tenant, the Right Hon. Gentleman said it was a fearful
risk to throw the people from the kind indulgence of
the clergyman on the severity of the landlords.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) There could be no doubt that the tithe
payers would be forced to pay up their tithes to the land-
lords with greater strictness and more punctuality than
they had hitherto paid them to the clergyman, and he
much feared that it was the hope of inducing yet further
agitation that led the Hon. and Learned Member to give this
Bill so ready an assent.—( Hear.) He should be most un-
willing to do anything to embarass his Majesty's Government
in the settlement of this most delicate and important ques-
tion. He was perfectly alive to the extravagant difficulties in
which the great body of the Irish clergy would be plunged if
this Bill were not carried ; and if the Irish clergy had shown
themselves to be unanimous in its favour, he should have felt
it his duty to overcome • his objections, rather than expose
them to the danger of starvation. But he did not believe
that any such feeling prevailed.—(Hear, hear.) All the in-
quiries he had made had satisfied him that the great body of
Irish clergy rejected that Bill. In addition to the testimony
of a Most Reverend Prelate who had spoken, he could add
the testimony of another Most Reverend Prelate not now in
England, equally known for his zeal, piety, humanity, and
for his devotion to the cause of the Clergy and the Church.
He need hardly say that he alluded to the Primate of all Ire-
land. That Most Reverend Prelate wrote that it was impos-
sible to consult the clergy of four extensive dioceses in sufficient
time to guide the friends of the Establishment as to their
proceeding in Parliament, but that he had submitted the case
to a large body of the clergy in their own diocese, and they
agreed with him in opinion, that if the Bill, as amended, should
be passed absolutely and without power of redemption, vesting
the property of the Church in the Government, as trustees, it
would be all over with the church. They could not help the
spoliation of the church by arbitrary power, but they must at
least abstain from partaking in the deed, and preserve inviolate
the trust reposed for their successors. He did not hesitate to
say that such was the opinion of a large body of the clergy,
and that, if there were time to send a petition, then would be
no difficulty in proving that to the satisfaction of the House.
He was quite aware that the refusal of this Bill would throw
the clergy back upon the tithe composition ; but that they
would infinitely prefer to this dangerous measure, which would
partially rob them, and ultimately deprive their successors of all
remedy." Such was the statement of the opinion of the Irish
clergy. He (the Bishop of London) saw nothing in this Bill,
but an immediate and partial innovation of the Church of Ire-
land, threatening ultimately its final extinction. He therefore
felt himself called on to vote against the second reading.
The Earl of RODEN objected strongly to the present
measure. He knew well the sentiments of the Irish clergy,
especially the working clergy, and also of the Irish gentry,
and he knew them to be most strongly opposed to the pre-
sent measure. The Irish clergy were ready to sacrifice
their incomes rather than sacrifice the principles of
their religion. This Bill was a crafty attempt to destroy
not only the property of the Protestant clergy, but even
the Protestant faith in Ireland. He protested against this
truckling to the great agitator of Ireland—this attempt, as it
were, to buy him over to keep Ireland quiet. The Noble Vis-
count, the Secretary for the Home Department, was supposed
to entertain views similar to those of Mr. O'Connell in many
respects ; but he warned him against attempting to govern Ire-
land through that Individual, who was the greatest enemy to
Protestants, and the Protestant religion in Ireland. If he did
so, he would disgust the Protestants, who alone maintained
the union with England, and might drive them to seek better
terms for themselves from the dominant party in their own
country, than the Government here was inclined to give
them.—( Hear, hear. )
Viscount D UN C ANN 0 N denied that there was any truckling
to Mr. O'Connell ; all that he said, and he repeated it, was—
Was it reasonable to throw out a
wise and just amendment,

merely because Mr. O'Connell had suggested it? As to his
government of Ireland, the Noble Earl opposite might have
reserved his lecture.--( Hear, hear.) If he deviated from his
duty, or compromised the honour of his country, it was open
to the Noble Earl to move an address to the Crown ; but be
had done nothing since he had been in office, to justify the
Noble Earl in using the expressions in which he had thought fit
to indulge.--( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of RICHMOND was surprised at the statement
of his Noble Friend that these clauses were suggested not by
Mr. O'Connell but by the landlords of Ireland. Did not his
Noble Friend know long before they were struck out that Mr.
O'Connell had the greatest objection to the redemption
clauses. Really, if the landlords of Ireland wished to be libe-
ral he thought they had much better be so at their own expense
than at that of the Irish clergy.—( Hear.) He believed, with
several honourable exceptions, the Irish peasantry did not find
too much liberality from their landlords. He felt it his duty
to support the second reading of this bill. If it were rejected,
tithes would be most difficult of collection in Ireland.—( Hear. )
Let the House consider what would the state of the Protest-
ant clergy if they rejected it now. Let them consider, too,
what would be the state of feeling which they would excite in
another place towards those unfortunate individuals. Let the
House remember the misery into which it would plunge them.
They would not be able to raise one shilling without the appli-
cation of military force.__( Hear.) The Irish people would
say that the House of Commons had, by a large majority, de-
clared that tithes should be extinguished; and he sincerely
believed that, if the Bill were not passed this stage, the Irish
clergy would have encouraged the House to that which would
prove their positive ruin.—( Hear, hear.) Whereas, if they
voted for the second reading, they could alter it in committee,
and it required alteration ; and if it were not perfect it could
then be thrown out. The House of Commons and the
people of England had a right to expect at their hands that
the Bill should be read a second time. If they rejected this
Bill, did they believe that so favourable a one would be pro-
posed next session? On these grounds, and with the view he
had expressed, he should vote for the second reading.
The Marquis of CL ANR IC ARDE protested against the
unjust attack made on the Irish landlords. He was sorry to
sec that old stalking-horse brought forward. It was, as Grat-
tan had said; they tried to give the landlords a bad character,
in order to leave the peasants without redress. This measure
would prove of infinite relief to the tenant, and would pacify
Ireland. He implored their Lordships to pause and consider
the direful consequences that might result from its summary
rejection.
The Earl of C ARBE RR Y said a few words, which were
perfectly inaudible.
The Earl of DARNLE Y spoke with his back to the gal-
lery, and was inaudible. He was understood to express his
intention of voting for the second reading,in the expectation
that the Bill would be modified in Committee.
Lord G 0 SFORD approved of the measure, as one greatly
calculated to tranquillize Ireland.
Lord MELBOURNE rose,amidst loud cries of " divide."
He could not permit the debate to close without pressing upon
their Lordships the propriety of availing themselves of this
opportunity of averting the evil consequences which would be
likely to ensue from the rejection of this measure. It had
been said on the other side, that the consequences of the re-
jection should 411 upon the heads of those who brought the
measure forward ; but he answered, that those who rejected,
not those who proposed, must abide the consequences. Any
objections in detail which lay against the measure might have
been urged in the Committee. It had been objected to those
who proposed the Bill, that they had neglected to vindicate
the law, and therefore arose that state of things which required
the proposed legislation. He as much as any Noble Lord
was anxious to vindicate the law. He was as much opposed
as any one could be to violence and outrage, and as fully re-
solved to suppress them; but the proposed measure was cal-
culated to do more than suppress; its object was to prevent
violence.—( Cheers.) He confessed that, for the Bill as it
formerly stood, he was filled with apprehensions: The Noble
Duke said they ought to vindicate the law, and that it was owing
to them and their not vindicating it that the outrage existed.
This statement he ( Lord Melbourne) distinctly denied ; and if
the statement had been made by any other than the Noble Duke,
he would pronounce it to be one of a most uncandid and unfair
nature.---( Hear, hear 1 cheers and laughter.) If the Noble
Duke had been in his situation—and he wished to God he
had been—the Noble Duke would have taken a different
view of the circumstances. Under similar circumstances in
1829, the Noble Duke did take a different view of matters
which he had looked at in another light before.—( Cheers.)
In explanation of the change in his opinion the Noble Duke
stated his own military experience of the horrors of civil war,
and in apprehension of these horrors adopted and succeeded
in carrying a measure which his whole life before had been
spent in opposing.—( Cheers.) With regard to the vehement
invective in which a Noble Earl had thought fit to indulge, he
(Lord Melbourne) would not find fault with it. He was only
astonished to hear described, as resulting from the interest of
the moment, that which must have cost a month of study..__
( A laugh.) It was strange how a Noble Lord could so ra-
pidly traverse all Ireland, led by no other guide than the inte-
rest of the moment.---( Laughter.) He would not follow the
Noble Lord through all his observations, for he confessed he
did not possess an imagination which could be so rapidly yet
so momentarily led through so excursive a course ; but though
he would not follow, he was prepared to deny almost all the
Noble Earl's facts and the entire of his inferences.—( Hear,
hear, cheers and laughter.) He had pledged himself to
be brief, and he would not trespass longer on their Lord-
ships' time than merely to call their attention to the fate
of the predictions which had been hazarded on former oc-
casions. It must be in their recollection that it had been
distinctly stated when the Bill of last session (the Church Loan
Bill) was under consideration—it had been stated that none
of the clergy would avail themselves of that measure. Seeing
how little these former predictions were borne out by events,
he would be permitted to doubt the correctness of the conclu-
sions come to by the opponents of the present measure. He
would conclude by pressing upon them the necessity of consi-
dering the present situation of the clergy of Ireland, in the,
hardship of which the Noble Baron and the other Noble Lords
who took the same side of the question with him all concurred.
Let them consider this, and perhaps it would induce them not
to miss an opportunity which may never occur again.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
Contents—Present 5l
Proxies 7l-122
Non-contents--Present B5
Proxies 104-189
Majority against the second reading —67
The House then agreed, at the request of the Commons to
hold a conference with the Commons on the subject of the
Poor-Laws, in the Painted Chamber, on Wednesday, at half-
past five o'clock ; and also a conference at a quarter to five, on
the same day and same place, on the subject of the Justices of
Peace Bill.

The House then adjourned at Two o'clock till to-morrow
day) at half-past Ten.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 11.
The SPEAKER entered the House at ten minutes past five,
and proceeded to count the House, when there being a suffi,
cient number of Members present, the Right Hon. Gentleman
took the Chair.
Mr. KIRKPATRICK presented accounts from the trus-
tees of Ramsgate harbour, which were laid on the table.
GIN PALACES.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from the
churchwardens and parishioners of St. Margaret's, West-
minster, complaining of the abomination of gin palaces, which
were frequently emptied of their inmates at 11 o'clock on Sun-
day morning, and many families were prevented from attending
divine service from this cause. The Hon. Member was pro-
ceeding with a detail of the evils resulting from drunkenness,
when
Mr. LITTLETON rose to order. It was quite contrary
to the rules of the House for Hon. Members to make length..
ened statements on the presentation of petitions at that hour.
In answer to a question from Mr. H. GRATTAN, relative to
cholera hospitals (as we understood the Hon. Member), Mr.
LITTLETON said he could not give the Hon. Member any pre-
cise information on the subject.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR complained, that in a Bill which had
been lately passed through that House the Turnpike Trust
Bill, he had been assured by the Right Hon. the Secretary
for Ireland that a certain road would be exempted from its ope-
rations. The Bill had passed during his absence in Ireland,
and he found that this road had been included, notwithstand-
ing the promise of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LIT TL ETON said it was perfectly true that he had
promised the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that the trust to
which be alluded would be exempted, but the majority of the
House thought otherwise.--( Hear, hear.) He thought it was
rather irregular for Hon. Members to call upon him for an ex-
planation of what had taken place during their absence.
POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of Lord A L THORP, the order of the day
for the further consideration of the Lords' Amendments to
this Bill was read.
Lord AL THORP wished to occupy the attention of the
House for a short time, while he stated to them what
were the amendments made in the Bill during its progress
through the other House. The amendments were of consi-
derable number, and some of them were of consider-
able importance; but he would freely say that looking
at the Bill altogether, he .did not think it at all the
worse for the amendments that had been made.--( Hear,
hear, hear.) He would now state what these amendments
were. The first was one of very little importance, relative
to the union of votes. The next was upon the important sub-
ject of relief. The alteration made was, that two justices
may order out-door relief in unions, to persons who shall, by
one of such justices, be certified to be incapable of work.
The next amendment was one of very great importance, namely,
the clause prohibiting any allowance to be given to persons em-
ployed by individuals. This clause was omitted in the Lords, but
the alteration was one more of seeming than of net importance.
There were other alterations in the Bill. The House of Lords
had altered the period at which children were to be considered
as capable of providing for themselves, from 12 to 16 years of
age, the term that was originally proposed by the Bill, but
which was altered in the Committee in that House.
With respect to settlement, settlement by apprenticeship,
which was abolished in this House, was retained in the
other House. Another important alteration was made in the
bastardy clauses. Several clauses had been added in the other
House, the effect of which would be to throw in some cases the
maintenance of bastard children upon the putative father, instead
of the mother. There was another amendment which was likely to
produce considerable discussion in this House, and which he
very much regretted, namely, the omission of the clause
which allowed the Dissenting Minister to enter the
workhouse, to attend to the spiritual wants of his
dissenting brethren. The legal right was taken away, but he
did not think that in practice the right of the dissenting
Minister would be interfered with, and if it should, this

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
A message from the Lords announced their Lordships'
agreement to the Exchequer Bills' Bill, the House of Com-
mons Officers' Bill, and several other Bills.
Mr. L ANG DALE would vote for taking the amendments
into consideration, without pledging himself to vote for them.
Mr. RICHARDS had hitherto supported this Bill,because
of his confidence in the Government ; but, after what had
been said by a Noble Lord in another place, as to the repeal
of the 43d of Elizabeth, he thought a breach of faith had been
committed by his Majesty's Ministers. He saw a distrust in
their wisdom, and sure he was that the people generally would
be disappointed. He protested against the sentiments uttered
by a Noble and Learned Lord in another place, for they were
intended to destroy, not only the rights of property, but the
general rights of the people. On these grounds he would offer
every opposition to this Bill.
Lord ALTHORP said this Bill was brought in with a view
to do good to all classes, and in so doing to protect the rights
of property amongst others,
Mr. BENETT had always opposed this Bill upon prin-
ciple ; but while large majorities of this House supported it,
he had not vanity enough to think that he was right, and
therefore he did not press his objection to a division. He was
now in favour of postponing the Bill till next Session, as by
that time the people would be made better acquainted with its
provisions.—( Question, question.)
Mr. R. PALMER was only anxious to say a few words in
justification of the vote he now meant to give—that vote be-
ing for a postponement of the Bill till the next session. He
had conversed with many persons on this subject. Some ap-
proved of it as an alteration of the present bad system of the
poor laws; but the great majority of them were hostile to it as
an invasion of the rights of property as well as the rights of
the poor. In fact, it was generally looked upon with appre-
hension and distrust. Under such circumstances he was for
delaying its further consideration till the next session.
Mr. HODGES congratulated the House that they had the
present opportunity of defeating this Bill.
Mr. HARDY said that the middle course to be pursued
was to let this Bill stand over till the next session, not by re-
jecting the amendments altogether, but by acceding to a re-
commendation to that effect by the Noble Lord. He had
consulted these who were perfectly well acquainted with the
working of the poor laws, especially in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, and the universal observation was, " We don't un-
derstand the provisions of this Bill—we don't know the ten-
dency of it." He would support the amendment.
Lord ALTHORP did not mean to enter into any discus-
sion on this question—it was not a regulardiscussion, because
it ought to be confined to the amendments. Gentlemen
seemed to suppose this Bill could be postponed till next ses-
sion, when in reality he (Lord Althorp) had no power to act.
Unless Gentlemen had altered their opinion most completely
since the Bill had passed this House, when they were of
opinion that this measure would be of advantage to the public
in general, he hoped they would not lose the opportunity of
passing it, because if it were postponed to another year he
would be a bold man who would again undertake to carry it.
He had done his best in bringing forward this measure. The
Hon. Member for Oldham had spoken of one person being
the putative father of the Bill. He (Lord Althorp) claimed
to have as much concern in this Bill as any other person. It
did appear to him to be a measure (as he had frequently de-
scribed it during the discussions in this House) as beneficial
as any that had ever passed. The Hon. Member had said
that the amendment made by the House of Lords had not
effected any great alteration in the Bill. In that he (Lord
Althorp) entirely concurred. He should have regretted ex-
tremely if that had not been the fact. When Gentlemen
talked of the hurry with which this Bill had passed the
Houses, let them recollect the length of time that it had
been before them ; that during all that time there was full
opportunity of considering all the clauses in the Bill. If
Gentlemen had not already made up their minds as to whether
this Bill was a fit one or not, they surely had no time for further
consideration. He certainly was surprised at the statements
made by the Hon. Member for Berkshire that the measure was
generally disapproved of. The information which he (Lord
Althorp) had received showed that it was generally approved
of. He knew that it had been severely criticised and attacked.
but what had already taken place had shown that those attacks
did not speak the sentiments of the people. If they had truly
represented the opinions of the country generally, they would
have had a greater effect than they had had. He therefore
believed that it was generally approved of. He could not see
the distinction between at once rejecting the measure and
moving that it be read a third time that day six months, which
was the usual method of rejection. His principal object in