The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-01 00:00:00

CUSTOM-HOUSE.

Mr. GROTE wished to know from the right hon. Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, when he intended to proceed with
the Customs Bill ?
_ _

Mr. P. THOMSON should proceed with the measure on
Wednesday next, if hon. gentlemen who notices stood for
that day would allow, the bill alluded to to ,have precedence.
He hoped they would, since the discussion• upon it would not
take up more than a couple of hours of the time of the house.
The delay that had taken place, relative tolhe introducing of
the Customs Bill arose from, the circumstance, that he was
waiting for certain resolutions to be passed by that house.
PRIZE-FIGHTING.
Mr. O'CONNELL had a question to put to the noble lord
the Under Secretary for the Home Department, as to whether
any steps had been taken, or were about to be taken, to pre-
vent the frightful loss of human life that was constantly taking
place ht consequence of prize-fighting. However, as he did
not see the noble lord in his place, h should defer his ques-
tion until to-morrow.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD wished to ask the noble lord (Al-
thorp) whether it was his intention to persevere in giving
notice that the third reading of the Poor Laws' Amendment
Bill should have precedence of motions on to-morrow (this
daY)?
The SPEAKER reminded the hon. gentleman that he
was premature in this question, since they had not as yet come
to the subject.
Lord ALTHORP intended to persevere in his notice.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD begged the noble lord to postpone
his notice, since he (Mr. Attwood) had a motion which stood
for to-morrow, of which he had given notice four months ago.
It would be very hard—
The SPEAKER said that any argument against the noble
lord's notice of a motion could not be made.
TITHES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. LITTLETON, in moving the Order of the Day that
the house resolve itself into committee on this bill, said that
before he moved that the Speaker do leave the chair he
thought it but fair to put the house in possession of rather an
important alteration made after due consideration in the mea-
sure before the house. Throughout all their deliberations for
the last six months Government had been especially attentive
to this measure, for they saw that some measure was absolutely
necessary in order to save tithes from total annihilation in Jre_
land. It was expedient that certain interest should v
tended to—he alluded to the interests of the landlords---i-
.je at_
make them more readily adopt the change that was t'
j: ,i
130 ade in
the measure. The Government was aware that tl.Ol landlordsm were opposed on the subject of a rent charge unlessorder to
'
redeem themselves from the burdens that ~.ney were enabled to
. would be imposed upon
them by this rent charge. Now G°7.evaltrient wished to relieve
them from such burdens, and that -,ras the first object, therefore, they had to consider. Govern
recommend to Parliament o,,,,:dent bad consequently resolved to
nrevisions by which this was to be
done, and he would give,
provision§ wer Is, co the house a brief outline of what those
was proposed in the first place to provide an
inducer:Lent theedowners of first estates of inheritance to bear vo-
lunta'Ay the rent charge. And in order to hold out this induce-
me•At 'it was intended that where the landlords, on or before the Ist
13::( P.;ovember, 1836, wished to incur this charge, they would be at
Eoerty to do so, and after that the land tax was to cease, and
they would be only subject to the rent charge. In order to as-
certain the amount of the rent charge that amount would be deter-
mined according to the relative number of years' purchase ap-
plicable to the land from which the rent charge arose. Then the
land tax, multiplied by four-fifths of the number of years' purchase,
would constitute the amount of the rent charge on such estate. The
interest was to be calculated at three and a half per cent. The
composition was to be subject to a reduction of twenty per cent. It
was proposed in the first instance to make the Consolidated Fund
chargeable with the amount of difference that would arise to the
commissioners of land revenues from future payments to the land-
owners and from deductions to the titheowners. A question might
be asked as to how this amount was to be made up to the Consoli-
dated Fund ? Gentlemen might object to touching this fund, but
it was necessary to make a sacrifice in order to ensure the peace of
Ireland, and tliat could not be done unless some satisfactory ar-
rangement was, entered into on the subject of tithes. Government
had resolved to apply the amount of the sale of perpetuities that
might be found in the hands of ecclesiastical commissioners to mak-
ing up any loss that might accrue to the Consolidated Fund from
this arrangement. He would state to the house what would be the
probable amount of the funds in the hands of the ecclesiastical com-
missioners. He had to state, in the first place, that there were two
funds for increasing the value of small livings. The first was a
small amount which was invested in the hands of private trustees,
and which was almost exclusively the result of Robinson's bequest.
This fund was only about 5,000/. a-year. This amount would be
increased by the revenues now paid to certain prebends, but
which woad, . if the Church Temporalities Bill now before the
house received the sanction of Parliament, - be devoted to in-
setasing the, value of, mall:livings. (Hear, hear.) The amount
from this source would be 11,500 t Thii, together with the
sum he had just mentioned, would make 16,500/. (Hear,
bear.) The principal fund in the hands of the cogarcilszioners

tr -

tne Church Temporalities Act n as charged the
ment of arrcara, dab. tb Proiestant clergy, for the charges
repairitt 1,256 parish churches, and also .the expenses of• the
commissioners and solicitors appointed under this bill. The whole
charge for these purposes was estimated to amount to 66,0001. per
annum. The amount of the fund likely to accrue from various
sources, and to be placed in the hands of the ecipmiasionert,,
as follows :—The amount of the reventleS Of the eleven supressed
sees, including also the retellile of the suppressed Archbishopric,
was 51,325/. In addition to this there was 10,0601. to be taken
from the revenue of the see of Derry. -The tax on all benefices
above the annual value of 3001. (deducting the land tax) would
give 22,000/. ; from the repayments for building glebehouses
(which source of income would cease in 1847), 6,068/. The
whole source of income would then be 91,0331., from which the
various charges under the Church Temporalities Act, amounting
to 66,0001., were to be deducted, which would leave a balance of
25,0001. per annum to be disposed of, either for the better support
of the church of Ireland, or for such other purposes as the commit-
tee might resolve. The whole amount which he calculated would
be derived from the sale of perpetuities could not be Jess than
1,200,000/. He begged the house to bear in mind that the re-
venue likely to accrue from the sale of the fees on bishops' lands
had never been adjusted to the church ; therefore no possible evil
could arise from devoting it to other purposes. He considered that
this fund would be a security to the church, as it would
induce individuals to take upon themselves the payment of the rent
charges. He had no doubt that the changes he had proposed
would be satisfactory to all classes. He had no doubt that such
would after a. short time be the feeling of all classes in Ireland,
and he had no doubt that such would be the feeling in this country
when time had been allowed for calm deliberation. The govern-
ment, after the most mature deliberation, had come to the conclu-
sion he had stated on this subject, and they recommended theadop-
tion of the plan he had stated. He would defer any further ohm.,
vations for the present. He had confined himself to a bare state-
ment of the subject. He would only further remark, that, whether
the landlord incurred the rent charge voluntarily or compulsorily,
it was not intended to suffer him to charge more on the tenant than
he himself paid.
Mr. SHAW felt extreme difficulty in understanding what would
be the changes in the bill, from the statement of the right hon.
gentleman.
Mr. O'CONNELL put it to the right hon. gentleman whether,
by pursuing the line of conduct adopted by the right hon. gentle:.
man, he was making the public acquainted with the bill, or whether
he, was treating the house fairly, in pressing them to go into com-
mittee on a totally different measure from that which was read
a first and second time. The custom formerly was, to have the
bills read at length, that members might be made fully ac-
quainted with the principles and details. Printing, however,
had since been substituted, with the same object. What, how,
ever, had been the case with the present bill ? It was intro-
duced some months ago, and that bill was totally different
from the measure they were called upon to consider in com-
mittee. Ten or twelve different clauses had been introduced not
in the original bill, and that night a statement had been made by
which it appeared farther and most important alterations were to
be made. They proposed to introduce new matter which he con-
jectured he understood, but he was not sure that this was the case;
but he was perfectly satisfied that it was impossible that nine-tenths
of the house could understand. He would therefore suggest to his
Majesty's 'government the propriety of printing the alterations they
proposed to make before proceeding further, so that the house might
understand the nature of the.alterations. If they proceeded tO "the
discussion on the mere statement of the right hon. gentleman he
would only state that it could not be satisfactory, as it was impos-
sible for any man to bear in mind a statement which he had not the
opportunity of referring to. He hoped that there would be no
objection to postpone the further consideration of the, subject, for a
short time.
Mr. LITTLETON thought that it was quite unnecessary to
delay the subject, as no question would arise with respect to the
alterations till they got to the 122 d clause..
Mr. O'CONNELL said that there were questions growing out
of the alterations involving the principle of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
The substance of the alterations changed the principle of the bill.
There was no other part 'of the empire that the government would
attempt to treat in the manner Ireland had been dealt with in re-
ference to that bill. Hii countrymen were divided amongst them-
selves, or no government would dare to adopt the contemptuous
mode of proceeding pursued towards Ireland. They had pro-
posed very important alterations in this bill, and the right
honourable gentleman called upon the house to proceed with
them before- time was allowed to consider them. • The go-
vernment had not determined till that day what kind of
bill they would have to oppress his country. They had not till that
day determined as to the details of the bill which was to be broUght
forward against the liberties of Ireland, and it was at 'that mo-
ment they came forward with these alterations as a bonus to the
landlords to aid them. They thought they should be able to screen
themselves behind the interests of the landlords. He had never
heard anything with more surprise than he did the proposed altera-
tions in the plan of government. He wished to know whether
they were prepared to declare war against the people of Ireland--
war in the most unmitigated manner ? He wished to know whe-
ther a British parliament was prepared to support the government,.
in enforcing a measure of this kind—whether this country was to
be involved in a species of civil war with Ireland ? Let the house
recollect what took place on the second reading of the bill. He
proposed a plan by which less would be taken from the church than
was proposed by the right hon. gentleman. He (Mr. O'Connell)
proposed ultimately to get rid of the burthen of tithes altogether,
while he preserved to the church four-fifths more than the right,
hon. gentleman proposed to preserve. They proposed by this bill
to promote the peace of Ireland, but instead of peace they would
inevitably involvt themselves in a civil war if they persisted in it.
lie proposed his plan against the feelings of the great majority of
the people of Ireland. Their object was to get rid of tithes alto-
gether. He would never agree to make a present to the landlords
of Ireland of the amount paid for tithes. (Hear, hear, hear.)
He wished to see the full value secured to the country,
and if his plan had been adopted four-fifths of the present
value of tithes would be preserved for the Established Church for
as long a time as it 'might appear necessary to devote it to that
object. Everybody knew that it was not so much to the amount
as to the principle of paying tithes that the people of Ire-
land objected. (Hear, hear. After, then, he had reduced
the amount of tithes he h intended to propose that the
moral burden should be removed. What were the opinions of his
Majesty's Government on this question? The noble lord (Al-
thorp), the other evening,. admitted that tithes were most objec-
tionable. The right hon. Secretary-at-War, also a member of the
Cabinet, spoke out loudly against tithes. The right hon. member
for Cambridge, who made a speech on this subject, seemed to have
determined to act on the aphorism well known in a neighbouring
country, namely, " That words were given to man to conceal his
thoughts," for he had most admirably succeeded in concealing his
opinions. The noble lord the member for Devonshire, also a mem-
ber of the Cabinet., spoke out. There was not a greater variety of
notes in the music shop over the way than there were opinions en-
tertained by his Majesty's Ministers on this question. From the
bass note of the right hon. Secretary-at-War they went down to
the minor key of the right hon. member for Cambridge. The
truth was that no two members of the Government entertained
similar opinions on this subject. He (Mr. O'Connell) had in the
first place proposed an amendment, the effect of which would be to
get rid of the ultimate charge on the land, and when he was de-
feated on that point he wished to pledge the Government to Esuch
an appropriation as would give satisfaction. Nobody knew what
the bill was at present after the alterations that were proposed.
Some hon. gentlemen had told him that they had supported_the
bill because there were clauses in it Which were COI, the security of
the established church; but Government had come forward and
struck those clauses out of the bill: (Hear' hear.) 13y the present
bill the sword of the King was to be raised to enforce the collection
of tithes. • They had trampled on every law in governing Ireland,
and they now declared for the first time that the King was 'the -
owner of all tithes. If they were determined to enforce the pay-
ment of tithes they would have to enlist in their service the infan-
try and artillery, and the navy, including Lord Anglesea's four gun-
brigs. He implored the house to endeavour to understand the
nature of the bill before they passed what would be equivalent to
declaring war on the people of Ireland. The 'right hon. gentle-
man had already spent 38,000/. in endeavouring to recover 60,0001.
for arrear of tithes. What had induced him to abstain from pro-
ceeding with his attempt? He had given it up because five pa-
rishes in the county of Cork turned out in open day when the sol-
diers attempted to collect the tithes. The people turned out, and
their cattle and their flocks were sent away, and such was the im-
posing effect of the multitude collected that it was thought prudent
for the British army, which had never shrunk before au enemy, to
retreat to a town and to take shelter in houses. Were gentlemen
who were anxious to support the Established Church ready to sup-
port ministers in whom they had no confidence, and who by their
votes they had more than once kept in their places this session?
What would those hon. gentlemen say to the clause 147 ofthebillof last year being adopted in this bill ? He asked hon. gentlemen
.whether they could comprehend the objects of his Majesty s
govern-
ment? All that he then required was that they should have a plan
either on one side or the other, which should at least have the merit
of being intelligible. (Hear, hear.) According to the report of
the Tithe Commissioners the amount of the tithes in the hands of
the. clergy and lay impropriators was 600,0001. Supposing that
they struck off 15 per cent., 'it would reduce the amount „.to
450,0001. Was the per
aware that the Consolidated Fund was
to be charged with the payment of this money? Was the house
aware that on the Ist of January in each year the Irish clergyman
was enttled to send in .his claim to the commissioners, who
gave. him a bill bearing interest? This bill was payable at' the
130.:Lik of Ireland at the end of a twelvemonth, and was an point of
fact equivalent to a bank-note. By this plan tithes in-Ireland were
made a species of stock, andthe British Teasury was to be burdened
with the payment of 450,000/. per annum for five years. The clergy
and lay impropriators were to be paid this whether one shiling was
collected or not. By the course they were pursuing they were nomi-
nally endeavouring to secure tranquillity, but in,point of fact they
were sowing the tempest. Would 500,0001. or 1,000,000/. pay for
the troops that it would be necessary to employ in the collection of
tithes ? He was sure that he did not exaggerate when he said that at
least 2,000,000/. a-year would be necessary to eoforce this bill.
Would it not be better than at 'once to pay the 450,000 t. for the
Irish Church than be at the expense of 2,000,0001. for collecting
it ? He assured them they would have war tram one end of the
country to the other. if they endeavoured to carry this. bill into
effect. He had been censured in the Irish papers for hesitating in.
the matter, and not at once coming forward, and calling for the
total abolition of tithes. The popular party were angry with him
for consenting to any thing like a compromise. If they persisted
in this plan those who were so anxious to preserve vested-rights
would find that they had not the power of doing. so. Tithes- had
bsaeme n
e principle.opposed i lreland, nßeforen
the
ed rent would be o
of
tithes pp
wo saesd upon
refused,
priorsel -
to 1831, there Was a constant market price fur tithes as well as for
land. Land brought twenty-two years' purchase, while tithes were
sold at twelve, and yet what was now proposed to be done? Why,
to raise the price of tithes from twelve to sixteen years' purchase,
or, in other words to add •one-fourth to their value. Such was
the proposition which the right hon. gentleman now brought for-
ward; but although he might imagine what he said to be a mere
playhouseas
itdeserved.
B
theat pre p(1 emor. o cnf Ireland
ewouldn should hear ohfkite t ano d
knowtreat
it
what good the Reformed Parliament—the Reformed Ministry—had
done for Ireland ? Could any man say, and speak with truth, that
the situation-of Ireland was better now that she was governed by a
Whig Administration than it had been during the period she was
huenednerinthoeffiseweayfooofra
yTeoarrys,Ahliantisthrad they y?
Te
could entitle them to the confidence of the Irish people, or
them
yhedopirieeseant s
ingle government
aet
whichh ai
nd
consequence of wt.ich the people of inland could look
as benefactors ? Undoubtedly they had been very
-in the
to estore
application of coercion ; but not one step had they Thra.n r -,le of
peace and tranquillity to that unfortunate country. The petit..
Ireland were now more divided, dissatisfied. and distracted than at any
former period; and even the administration of justice was more
irteoesNpvt. etchtaetdstudheh was the condition
during
oreinogotthre period the Tories were in office than it was
y w
to
under the
which the
controlof reformed
present sent
Ministerso Govern
merit. Inno-f,
the Crown had reduced Ireland. The people of Ireland demanded
eagotatn e cry
uheon out for for
power a legi
oilfattihiree osttatteh
was .m
justice ; but when they found that
all 'their appeals to that house
.for measures .of amelioration were disregarded, .tectuld :they not
eiro,wn?ployd Thee tt saisrifi
nionwaesenal
that rat' sacred and dear to the people of Ireland,-when. the same

means were resorted to to stifle their voice, whether constitutional
right's were contended foe or unjust spoliation resisted. All he re-
quired now: was that they should put off this committee until- the
next session ; that they should pause before they proceeded to deal
with a measure so entirely new to them. Perhaps, however, he
would he told that, if they consented to delay; the present state of
things mist continue until next year. That certainly would be
the case ; but did they not think that it would be much preferable
to take another million out of the Treasury or the Consolidated
Fund, for the purpose of settling for the arrears of tithes, for
buying peace until Parliament should assemble again, than to have
an army employed in their collection, and for the preservation of
public tranquillity ? But was not a repeal of the Union indis-
pensable for Jreland when a measure of this description was
brought in without any consultation with the Irish members ?
They called for a reduction, an abolition of tithes, and this
bill was handed to them. But could they forget the different
scheme brought forward for the settlement of this question, and the
manner in which those schemes had from time to time been varied
and altered ? The position which the right hon. gentleman had,
however, taken was one of hostility to the people of Ireland. It
was, however, his (Mr. O'Connell's) deep conviction of the danger
to the state ; it was his deep conviction of the danger to the ra-
tional progress of the tithe system itself; (Cries of " Hear,
hear, hear"); it was his deep conviction that the government were
playing the game of their enemies by thus abandoning the advice of
their friends ; it was his deep conviction that this measure would
only aggravate the evils of Ireland, where prosecutions had been
iniltiplied, where the Attorney-General had been kept twice as
busy as ever a law officer of the crown had been kept under any
Tory administration, and where more human blood had been shed
chiming the last three years than at any former period ; it was, he
repeated, his deeiconviction that this bill, if adopted, would only
add to,those scenes of blood to which he alluded that induced him
to entreat them, to pause on the threshold, and not commit them-
selYes by passing a measure which had not been duly considered,
and which was fraught with such fearful consequences to the peo-
ple of Ireland, who, instead of being governed in this way, should
be treated with something like benevolence and kindness. (Hear,
hear.) It was his fixed determination to oppose this bill in all and
every of its stages. He now begged leave move• that the bill be
committed this day six months.
Mr. T. ATT\VOOD seconded the amendment. •

The question having been put,
Lord CLEMENTS said the hon. and learned member for Dub-
lin told them that more blood had been spilled within the last three
years in Ireland than during any former period. (" Hear," from
Mr. O'Connell.) But could that be the fact ? For his part, he
must beg leave to say, that he doubted it very much ; that he
thought the hon. and learned gentleman had coloured his picture
rather too highly when he represented more blood to have been
spilled in Ireland of late years than in former times. (Hear, hear. )
But if it were so—if the hon. and learned gentleman were correct
in what he asserted, what inference is to be drawn from it but that
it told against the hon. and learned gentleman himself, and refuted
the arguments which he himself had used ? (Hear, hear.) He
(Lord Clements) was convinced that no one who knew the state of
Ireland would say that the bloodshed had been so great since the
passing of the Coercion Bill as it was even during the year preced-
ing ; and that being the case, he thought he had a right to deny
the allegation whith the hon. and learned gentleman had advanced.
But although he could not agree with the hon. and learned gentle-
man on this point, he did upon some others. He did not think that
the measure would pacify Ireland, or restore tranquillity to that
country ; neither did he believe that it would satisfy the Irish
people. (Hear, hear.) He must, however, confess, that he did
not clearly understand the proposition, although he supposed the
object of it was to hold out a promise to settle the tithe question ;
but, he must say, he doubted very much whether it could have any
such effect. He wished that the Government would be allowed to
go into committee on the new clauses, in order that they might be
brought more fully under the consideration of the house.
Mr. O'CONNELL explained.
Mr. LITTLETON said that the hon. and learned gentleman
had suffered his temper to overrule his reason, and therefore he
(Mr. Littleton) could not regard the arguments which he used as
the result of his sober and dispassionate judgment. The scheme of
the hon. and learned gentleman was similar to that brought for-
ward by the hon. gentleman the member for Limerick : and he
(Mr. Littleton) should adopt his advice, so far as that advice met
his approbation. The hon. and learned gentleman complained that
the clauses now submitted had not been printed before they were
brought forward. But whose fault was that? It was not his (Mr.
Littleton's) fault, because he, more than a fortnight ago, desired to
go into committee pro forma, in order that those clauses might be
printed ; but the hon. and learned gentleman the member for the
University of Dublin objected to his taking . that course, saying if
he did so he would at once raise the discussion on the principle of
the measure. The same hon. and learned gentleman had placed a
motion on the paper on the subject, and, seeing delay inevitable, he
(Mr. L. ) deemed it more prudent that the measure should go through
a committee at once than that he should run any risk by sub-
mitting the new clauses pro forma. No one could suppose that it
was not, the desire of the government to submit every clause and
proviso of the measure to the house ; and if the clauses alluded to
had not been printed he could only say that the delay was attributable
to the circumstances he had stated, and not to him. He was not
to blame; and if he had his wish he could assure the house those
clauses should have been printed a fortnight ago. Another com-
plaint of the hon. and learned member for Dublin was that the go-
vernment had not consulted the Irish members upon this measure ;
but here the hon. and learned gentleman was again mistaken. He
(Mr. Littleton) had, in point of fact, consulted every Irish mem-
ber in whom he could confide, and he might add, that of late his
whole time had been occupied, almost to the exclusion of other bu-
siness, with interviews and correspondence upon the subject. His
noble friend (Lord Althorp), whose doors were always open, had
received two or three deputations respecting this bill ; and not only
were its several clauses gone through and discussed with the utmost
care, but no one appeal was made that was not received with can-
dour, attention, and respect. The same regard had been paid to
every communication that had been received upon the subject ;
and he would venture to assert, without the fear of contra-
diction, that no measure had ever been brought forward by
his Majesty's Ministers on which the representations of others
were more attended to than in the present instance. (Hear. )
He would altogether omit to notice the splenetic observations
which the honourable and learned gentleman had made with
respect to the Government. They were, in fact, not deserving of
notice. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman, however, had
given them the credit that was due to them for doing away with
ten bishoprics, for the abolition of vestry cess, and he also gave
them credit for the money they granted last year for the payment
of the owners of tithes, as well as for adopting his own suggestion
of including lay impropriators, as well as ecclesiastical persons in the
distribution of that grant ; and yet he said the Government did no-
thing for Ireland. But were these no boons, and did this not show
that the Government were anxious to promote the interests of that
country ? The Government had done all in their power to settle
this question, and if the fortunes of Ireland had not been rendered
desperate they would not have resorted to this course if they con-
ceived there was any other means by which peace and tranquillity
could be restored. The hon. and learned gentleman also com-
plained that this measure would not be any benefit to the occupy-
ing tenantry of Ireland ; but surely when he said this he must have
forgotten that in the collection of the land tax no less than 15 per
cent. was to be remitted to them, provided any paid up voluntarily
all the arrears within a given time. Was this then no boon?—
(Hear, hear ; and No, no.")
Mr. SHAW 'did not understand the right hon. gentleman very
clearly on this point, and hoped that he would be at the trouble of
giving some further explanation of the matter. •
Mr. LITTLETON stated when the subject was first brought
forward that those parties who paid up their arrears voluntarily
within a given period would be entitled from the Government to a
remission or allowance of 15 per cent. ; and that being the case,
he would ask whether this was no relief to the occupying tenantry
of Ireland? He had said that those who paid up their arrears be-
fore the expiration of the five years would be entitled to a deduc-
tion of from 15 to 20 per cent. ; and he thought the house must
admit that it would be impossibe to carry concession farther than
this without injuring the incomes of those who had already suffered
so grievously from the baneful system of agitation which had been
got up in that distracted country—an agitation that was as discre-
ditable to those in whom it originated as it was prejudicial to the
security of property. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned mem-
ber for Dublin confined himself so little to the statement which he

(Mr. Littleton) had made, that it was unnecessary for him further
to comment upon his speech ; but if the house would go into
committee he would undertake to vindicate not only the policy of
the measure which he proposed, but the principle upon which every
one of the details of that measure was founded. (Hear. )
Mr. STANLEY should have thought it a matter of utter im-
possibility that any plan relating to the 'Church of Ireland could
have been brought forward which he and the hon. and learned
member for Dublin would be induced to look at in the same way.
After the declarations made by his noble friend (Lord Althorp) he
(Mr. S.) entertained doubts as to what the intentions of his Ma-
jesty's government were, and if they resisted the present motion
for postponing the consideration of the Bill in Committee until the
house had an opportunity of finding the new principle on which it
was founded out, he certainly should feel it his duty to vote against
the government, and with the hon: and learned member for Dub-
lin. (Hear, hear.) He stated the doubt which he felt because he
knew the responsibility which he was likely to incur by the vote
which he meant to give—what the house in common with him
would incur if' they were to persevere with this measure in the
present critical state of tithe property, and when his Majesty's go-
vernment might be obliged to take upon them the responsibility of
vindicating the laws as the only means of preserving the general
property in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend stated,
however, in answer to this, that it was not his fault that the clauses
had not been printed. He said he had been ready to go into a
committee pro forma; but, if that were so, why now object to
the certainly very reasonable proposition of the hon. and learned
member for Dublin? It would appear that it was intended to grant
'certain bonuses out of the Consolidated Fund to the landlords, and
what he complained of was that the house knew nothing of this
new plan. The bill which his right- hon. friend had now proposed
was entirely different from that which as far as the clauses from
A to 0 were concerned had been introduced. So different indeed
had the alterations that had been made in it rendered it that
those who voted for the first bill could not support the present
.measure. But his right. hon. friend and himself took oppo-
site views on this. subject. He wished, however, that they
should come at once to the real question at issue between them.
His tight hon. friend proposed one course and he another. The
course that he proposed was that they should vindicate the law, and
not give way to the clamour raised by interested parties. (Hear.)
The state of Ireland was such last year, and the difficulties that in-
terposed in the collection of tithes in that country were so great,
that he had himself found it necessary to come down to that house
to ask them, for a grant of a million of money to put an end to the
distress and distraction that prevailed among the owners of tithes
until the subject could be brought before Parliament. But what
were the leading principles of the bill which was subsequently
brought in? It was found that no mode would be satisfactory un-
less it put an end to tithes, not by extinction, but by reduction.
Reduction was, therefore,' the main and principal object which that
bill had in view, and to that end did all its machinery tend. In-
deed that was the principle which alone justified the strong measures
which were adopted in it with regard to property. For the pur-
pose of encouraging the reduction of the annual payment of tithe
by its conversion into land and by other meansthe government un-
dertook to secure this species of property, and this declaration they
made over and over again. It was therefore, he contended, the
duty of the government, whatever other speculations they indulged
in, to secure in the first instance the payment of those sums which
persons were entitled to receive ; and that principle was not only
laid down, but considered so important, that those who supported
the clause stated at the time that they consented to the land tax
being collected by the state on the ground that the payments would
be made out of the consolidated fund by the government, and
that the country would take the whole risk of the matter
- itself. (Hear.) The tithe was, however, to be col-
`n '-e same person, though under a new name, and the ob-
lected of 1, ' to prevent those collisions which had previously
ject of this wa., miserable cottiers and the clergy. By the
taken place between hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.. Goul-
act introduced by the rip.- 11 was established, the tenant be-
burn) in_lB24, this same prinetp.-.
the composition from the
ing empowered to.deduet the.amount 0..., aenticak" prineiple was
refit, and in his (Mr. Stanley's) act this
carried still further. There was a &eat advantl64) in having the
*
`rent unmixed with tithe or other ineurnbrance, so 4 the land

could be let from' the, landlord to the tenant at its fair valuation ;
and feeling this, he had Stildleuslv avoided disturbing any bargain
of that nature which had existed. But whitt did :.his bill do ? At
the end of five years the tithe would -be converted into a rent-
charge, to be paid, not by the occupying tenant, but by the land-
lord ; and this, he contended, was a strong interference with the
tights of property. • It was an introduction of a subordinate princi-
ple of extortion which he must call upon the Irish landlords not to
accede to. (Hear, hear.) The whole burden would be ultimately
thrown upsin them, and they would have no power after the five
years had elapsed of reducing that burden. In -this alteration of
the bill there was a manifest departure, not only from what had
been determined upon but from principle. Such a departure from
principle could not be rectified in committee, for it would be ab-
surd to say that they could reject the principle, aml yet retain the
clauses. The right hon. gentlelnan now, however, put forward
a proposition with a view to reconcile the landlords of Ireland. To
induce them to take upon themselves the payment of the rent-
charge before the expiration of the five years, he held out cer-
tain advantages to them ; he offered them a sort of premium,
varying from 20 to 40 per cent. Undoubtedly this was a boon,
for the landlord would have no reason to complain if he were
to receive such an abatement; but he (Mr. Stanley) could not help
thinking that the people of England and the whole of Ireland would
have grounds for complaint when they found that the deficiencies
occasioned by this deduction must be made up by the one or the
other of them. (Hear, hear.) This deficiency was, in the first
instance, to come out of the Consolidated Fund; but he thought
such a proposition would not be over satisfactory to the house.
The hon. gentleman adverted to what occurred with respect to the
147th clause of the former Tithe Bill, and said that the doctrine
now attempted to be established had already been repudiated as an
unjust interference with church property. That property was not
now,' it -would appear, to be, applied to the exigencies of the state,
but to grant a boon of 40 per cent. to the landlords, and that was a
principle which never would be sanctioned. He asked, upon
grounds very different indeed from those of the hon. and learned
member for Dublin, but he concurred with him in asking for decent
time in which the house might see the bill, and if they should then
determine to adopt it with the alterations and omissions proposed
by his right hon. friend, let it at least be after due deliberation.
He spoke with great doubt as to the course he should feel it his
duty to take if the committee were pressed, and he trusted that his
right hon. friend would not push him to a decision upon the clauses.
He certainly felt the greatest difficulty in voting for the hon. and
learned member's proposition to postpone the bill to that day six
months, because that would be to negative the bill altogether.
(Hear, hear.) But in voting against going into committee upon the
bill now, he protested against that vote being taken as a vote against
the bill which he held in his hand, or against the bill before the
house as it might be after the clauses were considered and dealt
with in commitee. Before the measure were rejected, as proposed
by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he called upon the
houseto consider, and he called upon the Government to consider,
that upon them must ultimately rest the responsibility of protecting
by law the property of the country.
Lord ALTHORP said that his right hon. friend had'argued not
so much in favour of the proposition for rejecting the bill, as of the
postponement of the committee until after the clauses should have
been brought fairly under the consideration of the house. What
he (Lord Althorp) said to that was, that as the part of the bill in
whiCh the clauses were to be introduced was so very late in the
bill as that there was no prospect of their getting to them to-night
thff'would be printed, and in the hands of members long before
th'elietuse would be called to make any decision upon them. He
would go farther and say, that if the house wished to have the
clauses printed before going into committee upon the bill at all
there .was nothing unfair in that, and certainly nothing to
which he felt himself at liberty to object. (Hear, hear, hear. )
His right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) had freely stated—indeed he
could expect nothing else from him but perfect fairness—what the
original principle of this bill was, and with what objects it was
adopted. He had truly said that its object was a complete commu-
tation of tithe for land, so that nothing in the shape of tithe should
any longer exist. But his right hon. friend must recollect, that
since that the principle of the rent charge had been admitted, and
that, though the conversion of tithe would be complete, the rent
charge would remain. But his right hon. friend said, by leaving
out the redemption clauses, the rent charge would be made to press
heavier upon the occupiers of land. He admitted this to a certain
extent, and it was upon hearing such representations that his right
hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had brought forward
his new suggestions to mitigate the pressure. It was said that the
measure as it now stood was a great boon to the landlord. Un-
doubtedly it was so, but not exclusively to the landlord would it
operate as a boon. It was admitted when the'first bill was intro-
duced that tithes varied in value in different parts of the country,
and that was the reason why the rent charge was to be variable. If
eliargain was fairly made between the commissioners-of land reve-
'dues and persons wishing to convert tithes into a rent charge, it
aeould not operate as a boon to the landlord only, but also to the
,e'eeupier. He was satisfied that nothing they were now doing with
tie measure would go to put unfairly into the pockets of the land-
lords what they would not now gain as the bill had stood. His
right:hon. friend next came to the difference which would be cre-
ated by the substitution of the rent charge with regard to the pay-
ments to the clergy. He was sure those payments would not
amount to any thing like what the hots. and learned member
for Dublin had stated, and he thought they would not amount
to the sum named by his right honourable friend, which was
one hundred thousand pounds. (Hear, hear.) He thought it
not at all likely to be any thing like that sum. His right hon.
friend had said that they were now going back to the principles of
the 147th clause. In so far as applying the perpetuity fund to this
purpose, he admitted that they did so, but the clergy would derive
benefit from it. According to the bill of last year, the fund was to
be applied to State purposes ; here it was applied to increase the
security of church property, because if it induced the landlords to
take the charge upon them that would greatly strengthen the secu-
rity upon which the clergy held their claims. In a country situated
BS Ireland was, if by any such mode of employing the fund they
could connect the landlords more with their estates, they should be
taking the best means of effecting the peace of the country; and, if so,
he was sure they could not devise a better mode of applying it. He
was sure his right hon. friend could not mean, by any vote he might
give on the present motion to vote for the actual rejection of the
bill. He had said, and said truly, that it was the duty of the Go-
vernment to protect property ; but if the house deprived them of
the means, by refusing to entertain the propositions they had
to make, it would be hard indeed to expect them to do it, If the
bill were now ordered to be printed in the form it was ultimately
intended to stand, and if they went into committee with the under-
standing thai they did so for that purpose, with a view to taking the
business another time, he should not object to that course ; but if
they were now to take the question of postponement as deciding
upon the principle of the bill, then there was no other course for
the house that he saw but going through with the measure.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL was not surprised at the opposition of the
right hon. gentleman the late Secretary for the Colonies to this
Bill, but he certainly.was surprised at the opposition of the hon.
and learned member for Dublin. The state of this question in
Ireland was such that he did not feel justified in refusing to go into
Committee, and endeavour .to make the measure such as might be
passed with advantage. If such alterations were not made in the
bill in Committee as he thought necessary, then he should vote for
its rejection.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the only difficulty or difference ap-
peared to arise from gentlemen opposite not understanding each
other. (Hear, hear.) If they had proposed going into Committee
only for the purpose of putting the whole bill before the house he
should have made no objection. All he desired was that their pro-
ceedings in Committee should be restricted to the introduction of
the new matter. '
Mr. LITTLETON had.no objection to going into committee on
the bill pro forma, and ordering the printing of the whole bill as it
would then stand.
SHAWobserved that the proposition of the hon. and leareed
member for Dublin was quite reasonable and fair, but the very
reverse was the character of that made by the right hon. gentleman
the Irish Chief -Secretary, namely, that the house should go into
committee, and agree to the printing of the bill with the clauses of
redemption and appropriation left out. Was it fair, he would ask,
in the right hon., gentlenian to call upon those gentlemen to consent
to such a course- who were induced to vote for the second reading
of the bill only because those clauses were in it? (Hear, hear.)
The difficulty in which the house found itself all arose from this,
that the government did not know their own minds, or rather one
member of it did not know the mind of the other upon the question.
He contended that the bill would be no longer the same with the
omissions now proposed, as the clergy would no longer derive the
advantages from it which induced many members to consent to it.
As it stood before it relieved them entirely from the collection of
any annual charge in any shape for at least five years. Now that
they had given up that, the measure stood upon as totally different
principle. The house knew very well what had been the cause of
these alterations. It was the question upon which those
great divisions and changes had recently occurred which had
occupied so much of the attention of the country. It was
too much to say that that change which had, led to such
serious consequences elsewhere should be introduced, and ob-
tain the sanction of that House by a proceeding pro forma.
Surely the right hon. gentleman would not be so uncandid as to
press any proposition which must have that effect. He agreed with
the noble lord that goirernment had incurred great responsibility by
taking up this question, but they must not now expect to shift it
upon the house or upon any other parties. He was convinced that
before the unfortunate declaration of the noble lord tithe could
have been collected without difficulty. The hon. and learned mem-
ber then described 'the manner in which the government had
evaded the question from year to year, and called upon the house
not to suffer them now by a new shift to postpone it for another.
Mr. LITTLETON certainly did not wish by any proceeding
taken merely pro forma to take any advantage Of the house, or to
pledge it in any way. At the same time it was his wish that the
house should know as such as possible exactly what the measure
Was as it stood, and he thought he could suggest a course which
would accomplish both objects. He would pledge himself to have
the whole measure printed and in the hands of members by Friday,
upon the understanding that they should then go into committee.
After a few words from Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. M. O'Fer-
rell, Mt. O'Conriell's motion was withdrawn.
Various orders of the day were postponed, and some measures
advanced severally a stage without discussion amidst confusion,
which prevented our hearing the titles of the bills.
ROADS ACT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. LITTLETONs moved the committal of the Roads Act
(Ireland) Amendment Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the bill as vexatious, and calcu-
lated to lead to collision between the peasantry and the police.
Mr. LITTLETON said that great inconvenience and disturb-
ance was created by the negligence -with which cars and stray
cattle were left about in the 'roads, and that the object of the bill
was to produce order and regularity on the roads.
Colonel PERCIVAL approved of the bill as calculated to do
much good.
Mr. O'REILLY thought that the house had other and more
important matters requiring their attention with regard to Ireland
than exposing the peasantry to vexatious informations against their
stray pigs. Such petty legislation was only calculated to bring the
government into odium with the people.
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
25
Against it
• Majority —47
Upon the re-admission of strangers the house were in committee
on the bill, and
Mr. O'CONNELL-moved the omission of the clause relating to
cows and pigs.
Mr. LITTLETON' did not wish to press the clause if their was a
strong feeling against it.
Colonel PERCIVAL said that for the security of the lives of his
Majesty's subjects the public carts should be numbered and have
names of the owners painted on them. He knew more than fifty
carts, without guide or owner, left on the high roads ; the fellows
who should guide them were drunk, and any gentleman passing by
in a gig or carriage would be in imminent danger from the negli-
gence of those persons.
Lord ALTHORP said a few words which were inaudible.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought it monstrous that the owners of
carts, if they had not their names painted on their carts, should be
liable to be dragged by a common policeman or informer before a
magistrate, and subjected to a penalty.
Clauses 2 and 3 were then agreed to. On clause 4 being put,
Mr. LITTLETON said that in Ireland according to the exist-

ing law cattle found straying on the high roads were to be bp-
pounded. When the police in discharge of their bounden duty in;
terfered to remove the cattle to the pound the people resisted, al":
constant scenes of bloodshed were the consequence. The Lora
Lieutenant seeing this issued an order that the police should no
more interfere. It was then proposed to put an end to the pool
ing of cattle, and in lieu of the present penalty to inflict a sill
fine (as we understood). If the fine were large the object WO
be defeated, as,the people would resist. The hon. member th_ell
proposed the omission of certain words in the clause to meet tne
above object.
Mr. O'REILLY did not like this legislation that operateckel-
elusively against the poor
Mr. LITTLETON said, as the cattle should of necessity be,
pounded at present,' there was no other way of getting over tbP'
evil than by adopting the present bill.
After a few words from Mr. O'Dwyer, Ari.. Roche,
O'Reilly and Colonel Percival, which did not reach us,
Mr.. O'CONNELL said, as a proof of the shifts the Pe?'
cottiers were reduced to, that, within the last six months, 500 fate'
lies were turned out to live or die by the ditches. The hon. mere!
ber observed that the magistracy were the cause of much of the 6'
lamities of the p6ople. -
Sir R. BATESON said, as the hon. member for Dublin vo-
lunteered such sweeping accusations against the magistrates of Ire;
land, he called on him and defied him to name the parties. Ile
(Sir R. Bateson) would contradict him in the strongest terms the
English language would admit. (Hear. )
Mr. O'CONNEL-L stated what he heard.
Mr. RUTHVEN said magistrates were in the habit of issuing
blank summonses to be filled up by their underlings at their
pleasure, and according to circumstances.
The_house then divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes
Majority
On our re-admission to the gallery Mr. O'REILLY was inveigh*
ing against the magistracy of Ireland, who he said, used to levy
fines for the sake of their favourites. (Strong marks of dissent.)
Major MACNAMARA said that in his county (Clare) no stab
practice existed, and he would testify for the humanity of the lanw
lords of that county.
Mr. O'REILLY said that was the severe conduct of those enle"
gised landlords that notoriously drove the peasantry of that county
into the late insurrection.
Major MACNAMARA calleri on the hon. member to name in;
stances of such severity, for thus only could he justify his unfounded
accusation.
Colonel PERCIVAL called on the hon. member to mention in"
stances of malpractices of the magistracy, and would also call on the
member for Dublin to state the place where the tenants were
turned out.
The several clauses, as amended, were agreed to ; and the lint!!
resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow (tai"
day.)
COMMON FIELDS EXCHANGE BILL. ,
The house then resolved itself into a committee on this bill, the
several clauses of which were agreed to, and the report ordered to
be received to-morrow (this day).

LONDON PORT DUES BILL.
This bill was then committed, the several clauses agreed to, and
the report ordered for to-morrow (this day).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT BILL.

The house resolved into committee on this bill.
Mr. H. HUGHES moved the insertion of a clause to provide
that " all and singular the enactments and powers (by 4 Ueorge
IV., c. 48) for enabling courts to abstain from pronouncing se%
tence of death in certain capital felonies shall be deemed to exten
and shall extend, to the proposed court."
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, *vie/
did not object to the clause, it was agreed to, and added to the bin.
The several clauses of the bill were then agreed to, and the house_
resumed, when the report was ordered to be received to-morrow
(this day),
POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL. "the
order rase to move, according to notice, that "n 1
order of the day for the third reading of the Poor Laws' Amendulti
Bill have precedence of Notices on Tuesday" (this day). If he f
thought that the business of the house would have been-disposed,:a
so early this evening, he should probably have proposed the tin
reading to have taken place that night, as he really did think that It
would not be right to postpone a measure of such importance ter"
ther than was absolutely necessary. He believed that this applieti
tion was not an unusual one in parliamentary practice, and he boP7A
therefore that hon. members who had notices for to-morrow wen'
give way on the present occasion.
Mr. ATTWOOD oppbsed the motion:
Mr. POTTER complained of the speed with which the proleat
measure was urged forward.
Mr. GROTE hoped the noble lord would persist in his motto",'
Mr. HODGES gave notice that if the noble lord-did persist n'
his motion he should to-morrow evening, on the order of the delf
for the third reading of the bill being read, move by way of
amendment that the bill be read a third time that day six months'
—( Hear. )
After a short conversation, in which Mr. Attwood,
Hughes, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. Bennet.joined, the motion-vres
agreed to. -
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

In answer to a question by anJ-low. MEMBER, •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should certainly rilo"
the second reading of this bill to-morrow (this day).

GENERAL TORRIJOS.

Lord PALMERSTON was not aware whether the hon. men'
ber for Drogheda was in the hous or not, but he wished to info
him, in answer to a question which he put to him a few nights se
that on looking over some papers at the Foreign-ogee he found w"
letter written by General Moreno to General Torrijos to which th 6
hon. member for Drogheda hail referred. He was not aware 6t
the time the question was asked him that such a letter was in en
istence, but, having found it, he had now to state that a copy
it should be laid upon the table of the house with the other &Mr
ments which had been moved for. (Hear. )
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the hone
adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.