The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1835.

Examiner's Office to perfect his securities. Mr. O'Connell
objected to one of the securities on that occasion, and the Agent
states in his petition that this objection came upon him
by surprize, and no wonder, because there was not a
more solvent gentleman in the City of Dublin
than he was. The consequence was, that the agent was not
prepared to meet the objection, and at his desire, the Exa-
miner gave further time to enable him to satisfy them as to
the reality of this particular security. The notice was then
posted for the following Wednesday, and on 'Wednesday Mr.
Baker appeared before the Examiner, and it was then he po-
sitively states that Mr. O'Connell, for the first time, objected
to him that fraud was practised. Mr. Baker, in reply to
that charge, states positively that he never said he would
abandon the petition alluded to, but in the jocular terms
already mentioned. The petitioners further state the fact,
that Mr. O'Connell himself, on the Monday following, ap-
plied to the Examiner for a certificate to the effect that
Mr. Baker had not posted his notice in time, and in con-
firmation of that, he refers to Mr. Rose, a clerk of this House.
That gentleman will corroborate the statement that Mr.
O'Connell, on the Monday following, applied to him for a
certificate in order to find fault with the notice'which he (Mr.
O'Connell) said was not posted in time to examine the
securities. The petition further states, that on Monday, when
this form was used against him, and the postponement in con-
sequence had taken place, he informed Mr. O'Connell that he
would proceed, on the Wednesday following, to perfect the
security objected to. Under these circumstances, he said, it
was that he first heard the accusation of fraud. He positively
asserts he never stated to any one, that it was his intention to
abandon the petition referred to, unless he failed to perfect
the securities in the other petitions, his object being to avoid
the expense and inconvenience of prosecuting many peti-
tions. (Hear, hear, hear.) The petitioner complained of
the charges made against him, and prays the House to enquire
into the statement.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) On
the part of Mr. Baker, he (Mr. S.) challenged enquiry.
In conclusion, however, he begged to add, that the
statements of the petition were verified by affidavit, and he
referred to another Gentlemen, (to Mr. Rose) as to the truth
of what he stated. Mr. S. entreated the House, in justice to
the character of Mr. Baker, to suspend its judgment until the
decision of the Committee on this question was made known.
The affidavit of the petition was then laid on the table.
Mr. O'CONNELL—If this affidavit were in a shape in
which I could prosecute it for perjury I would do so at once.
There were four persons present on the occasion alluded to.
One of them was a young gentleman, a client, of the name of
Maton, who came in, on business, to the office when
the conversation commenced.—(Hear.) The agent for
the petitioners came in, and stated his willingness to abandon
the petition in question, but he did not state any thing that
made any distinct impression on his mind on the subject. But
as he was going away, Mr. Maton having gone, he came
back, and in the presence of four witnesses, emphati-
cally gave notice to him, and his colleague, Mr. Ruth-
ven, that he reight disembarrass or disengage—the only
doubt, then, on the subject, is as to which word he
used--our minds altogether of the petition in question,
for they certainly would not proceed upon it. There
were four persons present when this was said, and those four
were ready to prove in any Court of Justice the truth of what
he now stated. The third petition 'had been signed by five
persons, and there were only four names to the other two peti-
tions—the fifth of those persons had not been served with notice,
as he did not notice that the third was only signed by three per-
sons. He (Mr. O'C.) sent notice to Dublin only as to the four.
The object of the petitioners was to make a point before the
committee, in order that I may not have a Commission, because
I have not served the parties with notice. I desire inquiry,
and that inquiry under the sanction of an oath.—( Hear.)
Let the Hon. and Learned Recorder, when he leaves this
room, lay a wager if he puts this question in the stage of a de-
claration on the file, and leave it to the verdict of twelve men.
—(Laughter.) There is one circumstance which the Hon.
and Learned Recorder has mentioned, and only one which I
have reason to contradict, and that is this false statement.—
Hear, hear, hear.) He said that on Monday evening
I went to the Examiner, and inquired whether he had posted
on the preceding Saturday the list. When I found it repeated
that they would not proceed upon the two petitions—when I
found a notice in the hall upon the subject, having written to
Dublin that day to stop the witnesses, and having given up
going to any agent and holding a consultation, I came down
to the House, and when I found that notice posted up, I
said this must be some trick, and long before coming into
the House, I met my freind Sergeant Perrin, who advised me
not to bring the matter before the House. Sergeant Perrin
accompanied me to the Clerk of Recognizances, and I in-
quired how it happened that, after Mr. Baker had stated so
and so, he had posted up the notice. The Clerk said it was
not Mr. Baker who had done it, but that he himself, find-
ing the recognizance in the office, had done so. I did
not make any inquiry of Mr. Baker.--( Hear, hear. )
I went to ascertain how, after he had told me that the
notice should not be posted up, it had been posted. These
are the facts of the case ; and I repeat, that let me have my
witnesses in any Court of Justice, before any criminal tribu-
nal, I shall convince them of the truth of them. The facts
are recent, and cannot have escaped the recollection of the
witnesses.

Mr. RTJTHVEN would not trespass on the House, but he
was anxious to repeat the statements that had been made by
his Hon. and Learned Colleague.
Mr. SHAW rose-amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke."
He was willing to consent to any mode of inquiry that the
House might think proper.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to
accept the wager he had offered him.--( Hear.)
Mr. SHAW wished to have no arrangement with the Hon.
and Learned Member—any mode the Speaker might lay down
would answer his wishes. He wished to know from the Hon.
and, Learned Member, how a letter written on Monday could
stop witnesses coming on Thursday ?—(Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNEL L said that no witnesses would be required
on Thursday or Friday. No business would be done as these
lists would be exchanged on that day. The letter written on
Monday would arrive on Wednesday, and the witnesses would
be in town on Saturday.—( Great cheering.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite had asserted that what he yesterday
stated upon the authority of the Mirror of Parliament was not
the fact ?

Sir R. PEEL really believed that the extract from the
Mirror of Parliament, which the Hon, and learned Member
had read, was as nearly correct as possible. He was really
surprised that the Honourable Member would have
thought it worth his while to ask such a question.—( Hear.)
The Hon. ,Member had stated in the course of his speech last
night that he had no confidence in the present Govethment
bringing in any measures for the relief of the poor in Ireland,
because when the Noble Lord ( Althorp) ,had proposed
that a Commission should be sent to inquire into the
Poor Laws, that he ( Sir Robert Peel) was the man
who had proposed that the same Commission should be
sent to Foreign Countries. What he ( Sir R. Peel) had
stated was, that such was not the fact, nor was it the fact._
He had never made so absurd a proposition ;—lie had sug-
gested that after hearing very long, desultory, and ineffectual
debates on the Poor Laws, he well recollected having said,
that there was a constant contradiction of facts on both sides,
and he had suggested to (Lord Althorp) the policy of
sending a Commission to Ireland to institute an enquiry.
He ( Sir Robert Peel) had also stated that Committees had
failed, although the expense attending them was great, and
that it was impossible to obtain correct information—at the same
time he had said that while this Commission was making its in..
quiries, it would be advisable to make inquiries in foreign coun-
tries, as to the Poor Laws and their probable effects,
but this was to be done simultaneously through
the Foreign Office. • He had some reason to believe
that his suggestions had been acted upon—( Hear, hear)—
and that the Foreign Secretary of State did make these in-
quiries—( Renewed cries of " Hear, hear")--as to whether
a legal provision was made for the poor, and what had
been its effect ? He ( Sir Robert Peel) had therefore .
stated, and he thought with good reason that the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite had misunderstood him ; and, therefore, if that
was his ground for saying that no confidence should be placed
in the present Government, such a statement was incorrect.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR was perfectly satisfied with the ex-
planation.

Mr. HUME said he wished to make one observation, that
there was an application from almost every part of Ireland
relative to the state of the Poor Laws in that country.
Mr. SHAW then rose to ask that his petition might be dis-
posed of, and that he might be allowed to give notice of a mo-
tion for Tuesday next, to refer the subject to a select Com-
mittee, which was agreed to.
LEICESTER ELECTION PETITION.
After a lengthened discussion upon this petition, upon the
suggestion of Mr. GISBORNE, it was agreed that time should
be given to the parties to enter into recognizances, and that
leave be given to substitute another security.
IRISH TITHES.
Sir H. HARDING was loudly called upon from all parts
of the House. Before he would move that the House
should go into Ccmmittee on the subject of Irish Tithes,
he desired however, that so much of the
King's Speech should be read by the Clerk, as relates to the
subject of tithes in Ireland.
On the motion of the HON. BARONET the House resolved
itself into a Committee.
Sir H. HARDING E then proceeded to address the House,
observing, that in rising to address himself to the House
on this important question he felt more than usual
anxiety. ( Hear, hear, hear.) The question was one
of a most complicated character, and even if it were less
difficult, it would be necessary for him to beseech the in-
dulgence of the House.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But
when in addition to these embarrassments he remem-
bered that since the year 1831 this subject had been
very frequently canvassed in this House, and that out of
the House, popular prejudices had been excited in connec-
tion with it, he felt that he was placed in a very difficult
position indeed ; and he thought it would be presumptuous
in him, to profess to hope that this measure would
be carried without considerable opposition, and even some alte-
ration. It might be asked, why, then, bring it forward ?
He answered that the urgency of the case, and the magnitude
to which the evil had arrived, rendered it necessary for the Le-
gislature to interfere promptly, and arrest its progress. Such
was the. disorganized "state of Ireland, and the intimi-
dation which prevailed in that unhappy country,
that it was utterly impossible to collect the tithes.
It was well known that in Ireland, the man who obeyed the
laws was punished, while the most turbulent and rebellious es-
caped with impunity. Amongst the scattered population of tha:c
country, threats of violence were easily put into execution, P.Acl
more feared by the people than the enforcement of the laws.
Now, what was the case as regarded the freeholders ? i•Vhy,
for the last four years, it had been found impossible 'A) col-
lect tithes ; the persons, therefore, who were entitled to tithes,
called on the Government to vindicate the law ; ,acre reFits7

tance had been offered, those disgraceful scenes occurred which
every Christian and friend of humanity must deeply lament.
Such was the state of things in Ireland, and this state of
things could only be altered by measures taken for the purpose.
The Clergy of Ireland, although their only means of livelihood
depended upon it, had acted in the collection of tithes
with the utmost forbearance and moderation. Out of
upwards of 300 places where tithes could not be protsured, only
thirty applications had been made for the aid of the mi-
litary.—( Hear, hear, and cheering.) He would therefore
ask the House, whether it was fit and becoming, because
the clergy were humane and forbearing, that they shoulci
not have the means of securing their rights.—
(Hear, bear.) He was satisfied the Legislature would pass
a measure by which they would be better regulated ; but
while it did so—while it agreed with the Government
in applying a remedy—it would insist that such
a just and satisfactory arrangement would be made in fu-
ture, as would put an end to the present system. The defect
of this system was not attributable to the exorbitant exaction on
the part of the clergy. It was in evidence on all the Committees
for the last four years, that the average amount of tithe in Ireland
did not exceed Is. per acre. By the return from 900 benefices, on
200 the average of tithe was only 6d. per acre. The amount
was not the grievance—the grievance was, the religious feel-
ings against it.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) At
the same time, in many instances, this was a pretext rather
than a real grievance.—( Hear, hear, hear, from the Minis-
terial benches.) The real objections to the system arose
from the practice of subletting of land in Ireland,—many of
the small farms were so subdivided that it was impossible for
the Tithe owners to collect the Tithe, except from a pauper po-
pulation—the Clergy were obliged to collect half-a-crown, a
shilling, a penny, and were in some instances a farthing, from
a pauper population. If the Clergyman were to forego his
claim, he would be deprived of the largest portion of
his income. The act of the Noble Lord the Member for
Lancashire ( Lord Stanley) in 1832 effected the removal of many
disadvantages, by diminishing the number of tithe-payers, and
throwing the payment upon the middle men, between the
landlord and the occupying tenant. It appeared that,
out of 900 benefices from which returns came, the
number of tithe-payers had been reduced from 346,000/.. to
102,0001. This Act was of unqualified good—it substituted a
fixed rent in lieu of tithe. The Act of his Right Hon. Friend,
Mr. Goulburn, in 1823, was to effect a composition for tithes.
That Right Hon. Gentleman's plan was a gross valuation of
the tithes for 21 years, and an, average for seven years
taken from the next seven. The late Government al-
tered that plan in 1832, by making the composition, once
fixed, perpetual, and that had the advantage of relieving the
farmer, who, after 21 years, and having laid out a good
considerable sum of. money upon his land, was no further
liable to a claim from the clergyman—the charge having
then been made perpetual. That plan had a further
advantage. The power of going to seize upon the land
was taken from the clergyman or tithe-owner.—( Hear. )
He was by that Bill obliged to take his remedy
against the next landlord above the actual occupier ; but there
was in Ireland a great deal of difficulty in finding that personage
out. In England there was no difficulty, but in Ireland the
case was very different; and the difficulty had become so great
that, in his opinion, the Act of 1832 could not be carried
into operalion. But it was never intended that that
Act should be permanent, as was shewn by every speech from
the Noble Lord ( Stanley) upon the subject. His S avowed
object was to take the burden from the poor occupier, and
even his next landlord, and fix it upon the first owner.
The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, when he brought in his
Bill of last year recognized' the same principle. He had con-
tended that the only effectual manner in which the
Church property could be secured and rescued from
the dangerous position in which it was placed
was by imposing a rent charge, and investing it in the pur-
chase of land for Church purposes. It was upon this
principle the Bill was introduced, and the Bill for Eng-
land also recognised the principle of a rent charge,
It was much the best plan, because it did away with the
vexatious interference with the poorer classes of the tenantry.
It appeared that in the 900 benefices to which ine had
referred, the quantity of land belonging to the Protestant
proprietors was 1,500,000 acres, while the quantity which
was the property of Roman Catholics, was only 645,000
acres, being in the proportion of fifteen to one; and it also
appeared that the amount of composition which was paid by
Protestant proprietor in comparison to Roman Catholics was
191. to 1/. He said this, to show that the burthen fell, as it
ought to do, upon the Protestanst, and not the Catholics.
The tithes were payable on the land, and not by persons.—
The Bill of last year established a rent charge, and so did
that of August last, and so would the Bill he was now propos-
ing ; and the propriety of that principle was fully confirmed
by the communications he had received from all quarters.
The rent charge proposed last year was 81. ; it would be for
Parliament now to consider what amount of rent charge would
be an equitable one. The object of the Bill was to impose
75/. as a rent charge on the land in place of every 1001. now
chargeable under the Composition Act. Now the House
would recollect that by the Bill of last year, 80 per cent. was
given to the clergy. All this was not rent charge, for 20 per
cent. was chargeable to the Consolidated Fund ; thus, while
the Clergyman got 60 per cent., deducting 2; per cent. for
the expense and responsibility of collecting, which only really
left 771. 10s. per cent., the landlord was relieved to the amount
of 40 per cent. But though the clergyman may appear to be
in a worse 'position as to the amount of income he will in
reality be in a better as to the security and permanency of it,
for the certainty of the conversion of the rent charge into
money will give the present Bill an advantage over the last
more than adequate to the increased annual revenue. The
Right Honourable Baronet, in a low tone of voice, briefly
went into some calculations to show that from the average re-
demption of rent charge of seventy-five per cent., which
would be 1,5001, the landlord would be a gainer under the
present Bill as compared with the former, to the amount of
250/. By the measure introduced this year, there was a pre-
mium of twenty-five per cent. given, making the difference
between 100/. and 75/. ; while in the end on the redemption
the landlord would be the gainer ; so would the clergyman by
the security given to his income, and the protection given
to the established rights of the Church. If the landlord
should complain of the provisions of the Bill which imposed
t own
xw
nh eirnetteorfeosrte
wl eovuiledd
boen
fihni
as l tl
ye nbaenstt,
:ice to the advantage of, his tenant.
hlooenr dsh
promoted by relieving the burthen of his tenant. The land-
lord should be
bound
:u paymentntodl dtoth acotofnhdai
There was another point in the Bill which be wished to bring
under the attention of the House. While by the former Bill
the titheowner was to receive 771. 10s., which was to be gua-
ranteed to him by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests,
by the present Bill the clergyman would be indemnified to
the amount of 75/. This sum of 75/. would be only guaran-
teed from the rent charge to the present incumbents. No
such guarantee would be extended to their successors, for
their income should only be taken according to the price of
commodity and land at the time of redemption, and during
the interval between the cessation of the rent charge and the
investment of the capital in another purchase. Another pro-
vision of the Bill was that each incumbent was to receive the
amount of his rent charge from the head landlord. If it were
not paid be was to apply to the Board of Church Commis-
sioners, who would apply to the Crown to sue by process.
This was to prevent any difficulty to the clergyman in ob-
taining his just right.—( Hear.) Having referred to the land-
lords and the income of the clergy, he would now allude to
the distress of the clergy. The Government felt that
no measure would be perfect, or exempt from objection, which
would not bring about the abolition or the commutation of the
Composition Act and the extinction of tithes. The rent-charge
was to continue for three years ; and if not then redeemed by
the landlord would be liable to be sold. There would be few

arrears in consequence of the Million Act. 13y that Actvit
would be recollected that advances were made in 1831, 1832,
and 1833. There were no arrears for these years. There was,
therefore, the arrear of 1834 due ; and as to 1835, it was in-
tended that the present Act should apply a remedy. The ques-
then, was, how was the arrear of 1834 to be got by the Clergy ?
Would the House allow the military to be employed ? No, he
was sure it would not. The House would deprecate such a
thought.—( Hear.) Would it abandon the Clergy to their
fate, and not enable them to enforce the recovery of what was
their just right ? He was sure it would not adopt that course
either. Well, then, would the House allow the residue of the
million, which amounted to about 330,0001., to be expended in
their relief ?—( Hear.) Of the million, about 670,000/. was
already advanced to the Clergy, and if the remainder were
now advanced to meet the arrears of 1834, much of the dif-
ficulties that beset the question would be removed. If persons
situated as the Clergy were, were relieved from the public
purse, that might 'afford some temptation to resist the law.
In the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, when the peasantry found
that the public funds were applied to the relief' of the Clergy,
they considered tithes as already abolished, and therefore re-
fused to pay. It was then desirable that the Clergy should
not derive any permanent relief from the public funds. But,
considering the circumstances of the case, it was thought advi-
sable to relieve the Clergy in those years. If it was desirable
then it was so now, and the objections would apply in the one
case as well as the other.—( Hear, hear.) If the Clergy can-
not obtain their tithes, how can they repay the Government ?
he'l Clergy could not repay the sum advanced for the next
five years. There were difficulties connected with the nature

of that loan ; for instance, if a Clergyman who had
re-
ceived his tithes were appointed to a living, he would be
called on under the Act to repay the instalments received
by his predecessor, though he had not himself received
a shilling,_( Hear, hear.) He proposed then that the in-
stalments be remitted. That this was a necessary course the
House would see on examining the state of the Ecclesiastical
finances, and finding that they were in debt, and likely to
continue so. When the Vestry cess was abolished in Ireland,
a fund of 70,0001. a year for the repairs of Churches, and other
charges, was destroyed, and as the funds of the Commissioners
amounted only to 30,000/. it was necessary to make up the
deficiency of 40,0001. a year. This deficiency was likely to con-
tinue for twelve or fourteen years, regularly accumulating,
which in the course of time would amount to an immense

sum ; so that the Clergy could expect little relief from that
quarter. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were obliged
last year to borrow 100,0001. from Government. To meet this

loan they only obtained 60,0001. from those who had bought
up the fines on Bishops' leases, and wished to convert these
terminable into perpetual leases. He doubted whether the
Commissioners could realise a sufficient sum from the sale of
Bishops' lands and the purchase of rent fines to meet the
exigencies of the Clergy, for the sums already received did not
realise the expectations of the Commissions. There was then
no other alternative but to pay the arrears of 1834 out of the
residue of the million fund, and remit what was already ad-
vanced.—( Hear, hear.) He had abstained from mixing up
with the present subject, which was the extinction of tithes,
the question of the equalisation of the revenues of the Clergy,
for it had no immediate or necessary connection with it. In-
quiry had been set on foot as to the relative revenues of the
Clergy, and when the result of that inquiry was known then

the Governmeut would deal with the question of equalisation
in the same fearless and impartial spirit. The Clergy, too,
he would assert, from the communications which the Govern-
ment had with them, would afford Government every aid in
effecting that object. It could not be denied that tithes were
the fruitful source of litigation, animosity, and public insubordi-
nation in Ireland ; which affected not merely the property of the
Church, but the very existence of all property. It was the
duty then, as it was the wish of the Government to remedy
the evils which the tithe system, however just were the claims
of the Clergy, and however tolerant they were in enforcing
them, had entailed on society in that country. At the same
time
was its duty to protect property and place it on a se.
cure footing, to enable them to abolish tithes with safety
to the interests of the es: blishment.—( Hear, hear.) He felt
the present plan was defectrvt, and the whole subject sur-
rounded with difficulties ; and in °roe; that it should be ex-
amined in all its details, he hoped the House 'mg": d enable him
to pass the resolutions.—( Loud cheering.) The 'Mem-
ber then read the resolutions.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not rise to offer any objection to the
Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition to bring in a Bill on the
subject—( Cheers from the Ministerial benclies)—for any pro-
position that tended to produce contentment by any species of
arrangement was a great desideratum. It appeared that the
preset Bill was not dissimilar to the last brought in by the
late Government—( Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition)—
and which was so amended by the House of Commons as even
to satisfy the opponents of all tithe or State provision fur the
Clergy. That Bill was rejected by the Lords on the pre-
sumption that it was an invasion on the rights of the Church,
and an appropriation of church property to secular purposes.
Now the present Bill was in its essence equal to the last.
What, then, was gained by the rejection of the Bill
cf last Session by the Lord ?—( Hear, hear, hear, from the
Opposition.) Was it the peace of Ireland, or the settle-
ment and security of property there ? The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had alluded to the existing distress of the clergy, and
to the calamities and insubordination still attendant on the
collection of tithes. He said tithes were still resisted by the
people, and their collection created animosity and strife, and
such a system it was most desirable to see terminated. Now,
the object of the Bill of last year, and its tendency, too, would
be to introduce such an order of things in Ireland as every
friend to that country could desire ; but that peace which
could be promoted by the Bill was interrupted by its rejection
in the other House. Then,'as to the state of the Clergy, how
were they bettered? It seemed that they were still in as bad
a state as ever; and how did the present Bill propose to
amend their condition ? The last Bill gave the Clergy
77/. 10s., secured to them out of every 1001. of tithe, valued
on the property under the Composition Act. The Clergy
were still in a state of distress, and how did the present Bill
propose to relieve them ? Why, by giving them only MI.
Now, what gain was there in the change to the Clergy ?
What benefit could the public derive from it ?—( Hear, from
the Opposition.) Instead of placing the Clergy in a bet-
ter position, it placed them in rather a worse one ; and in
place of relieving the public from the payment of a pro-
vision to them it rendered that payment perpetual and cer-
tain. The million which was to be advanced for the re-

lief of the distressed clergy under the guarantee that it was t o
be refunded by the clergy, when their tithes were collected, it
was now proposed should be sacrificed and given up to the
clergy. Last year it was stated as an objection to the Bill
then proposed, that the Church income of the clergy was to be
diminished from 1001., which the tithe composition gave them,
to 601. And when it was answered that the difference up to
771. 10s. was to be made good from the Consolidated Fund,
it was objected that this would secularize Church property—
that it would make the clergy dependent on the State, and
destroy the principle of the inviolability of Church property
—a principle which was the great objection to the Bill.—
( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Now he (Lord
J. Russell) maintained that the present Bill went to establish
secularisation as well. The present Bill did not propose to
draw the income of the clergy on all occasions from the land
as the sole source from which the Church was to be main-

tained. Already the principle of interference with Church
property was laid down, and it was now too late to attempt to
establish a contrary doctrine. The House had already reduced
the number of bishoprics in Ireland, and appropriated their
revenues to such purposes as they deemed it wise and just
to direct it. From that fund it was now proposed to draw for
any deficiency in the income of the clergy, after a redemp-
tion had taken place. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that
the difference between the 75/., and what the redeemed rent
charge would purchase of other property should be made up
from the Perpetuity Fund. In the point of the mode of obtain-
ing the revenue, and of the sources from which it was to be
drawn, there was some difference between the present Bill
and that of last Session. But in principle the Right Hon.
Gentleman directed that Church property should be appro-
priated to secular purposes. He (Lord J. Russell) hoped
the House would come to some definite conclusion on this
all important question of secularisation. Until it was decided
there could be no satisfactory arrangement of the Church ques-
tion, until that was done there could be no hope of bringing in
any Bill for the effectual security of the peace of Ireland, for
the maintenance of the Irish Clergy, or the preservation of
their institutions.—( Hear.) He doubted much the propriety of
such a Bill as the present. It neither did one thing or the other.
It did not recognise the right of that House to transfer Church
property to secular purposes, though it went to do so as much
as the last Bill ; nor did it appear conducive to the end it aimed
at, the final settlement of the tithe question. He would not then
examine the Bill in all its parts, but reserve to himself
the opportunity of discussing them in its future progress.
Mr. SHAW said the Bill of last year proposed a reduction
of the amount of tithe of 401. in every 1001. ; whereas the
present Bill only proposed a reduction of 25/. per cent. The
reduction of forty per cent. he thought much too great a
bonus to the landlords—forty per cent. was a monstrous de-
duction to be made. It was at first proposed that forty per
cent. should be taken off the composition, on the condition of
the landlord becoming guarantee for the payment. To this
was added two and a half per cent. for collection. Then,
there was twenty per cent., which was to be paid out of the

Consolidated Kind to the clergy, leaving them 771. 10s.
The Noble Lord said that the clergy were better under the

Bill of last year than they were by-the present. He would
admit that the existing were by two and a half per cent.
But that was not the point to be considered—it was not whe-
ther the existing clergy would gain or lose a small annual
sum, but whether the rights of the Church were to be com-
promised ?—( Hear, hear, from the Treasury benches.)
Though the last Bill professed to give a boon to the clergy
it virtually gave it to the landlord, at the expense of the pro-
perty of the Church, and the right on which that property
rested.—( Hear.) Now the present Bill did not propose to
give the landlord any thing from the property of the clergy;
nor did it throw the clergy for any part of their support upon
the national funds, but rested that property on its proper
basis—the land. It settled the question of Church property
at once and for ever.—( Hear, from the Ministerial benches. )
There was no kind of property that changed hands that did
not produce some loss for the time ; nor any Gentleman selling
an estate and purchasing another, or removing from pos-
session of one property to another in a distant county, who
would not be subject to some loss and inconvenience. It was
the same with the Clergy on the redemption of the tithes, and
the investment of their capital in the acquisition of prc-
perty elsewhere. Their loss, then, was to be reimbursed from
_ _

the perpetuity fund. It was that loss, and that loss only that
was to be made up for the clergy. That was no spoliation of
Church property ; there was no sacrilege in that.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) He ( Mr. Shaw) admitted the Bill of last year
gave a larger income to the clergy than the present Bill. But
that was at the expense of the Church itself; that addition
could not be given as then proposed without vital injury to the
best interests of the Church itself and the stability of Church
property. Whence were the clergy to receive this increased
allowance? Why, from the Consolidated Fund; and let the
House observe the Consolidated Fund was to be reimbursed from
the Perpetuity Fund, which was an ecclesiastical fund ; so that
the clergymen were to relinquish their rightful claim to the
property of the land, and receive a sort of pension from the
State, which pension they would be compelled again to re-
pay from that property that belonged to the Church. But the
injustice would appear still stronger if the nature and amount
of the perpetuity Fund were considered. This reimbursement
would not merely engross the whole of the Perpetuity Fund ;
it would do more. The advance to the clergy from the Con-
solidated Fund would amount to more than three millions be-

yond what the Perpetuity Fund would be able to yield.—( No,
no.) At all events, considering the demands that the provi-

sions of the late Bill would enable the clergy to make upon
the Consolidated Fund, and the amount of the Perpetuity
Fund, he would aver that the reimbursement would take over
two millions more than the Perpetuity Fund could yield. The
Perpetuity Fund, then, which was reserved for strictly Church
objects, for the increase of small livings and the building and
repairs of churches, was to be swallowed up by thq claims of
the Consolidated Fund ; and this was called advancing the
interests of the Church. There was no kind of property
more assailable than Church property, from the relative po-
sition of the parties and the odium heaped upon it through
the designs and misrepresentations of designing men. If it were
not speedily settled there could be no security for any species of
property in Ireland. He had never,:with one exception, opposed
the measures of Church relief proposed during the Adminis-
tration of Lord Grey, and even upon that occasion—the
Church Temporality Bill he alluded to—his opposition was
directed to but one of its propositions—the reduction in the
number of Bishops.—( Ilear, hear.) To that portion of the
measure he had moved an amendment ; and to prove that it
was not so much the Church revenues as the Church disci-
pline he attended to when doing so he distinctly offered the
Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to make reductions in the incomes
of all the Bishops, which should be equivalent to the fund he
expected to obtain by his proposal to reduce their number.—
( Hear, hear.) Upon that amendment the House divided, and
it was upon that point alone that the Right Hon. Baronet the
Chancellor of the Exchequer could be said to have opposed
the Bill. To the principle of the proposition just developed
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he was decidedly favourable,
but at the same time he had some objections to its details. He
saw objection in the first place to the remission of the million
granted last year.—( Hear, hear.) That was a remission not
to the Church but to the land. The Church only wanted to
have its own property secured to it, and in order to attain that
object they were willing to make a reduction of 25 per cent.
on the nominal amount.

Lord HO WICK rose for the purpose of expressing his
earnest hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman would not call
upon the Committee to assent to the whole of the resolutions
which he had just placed in the hands of their Chairman,
which, judging of them as he could only do from the statemen
of their proposer, appeared to him to contain much that was
highly and decidedly objectionable.—( Loud cheers from the
Opposition benches.) What he would wish would be, that the
Committee should not be then called upon to affirm them ; but
that they should be printed, and a reasonable time given for
their consideration before a decision was asked upon any except
thoso points upon which no material difference of opinion was

---v
ely to arise. He (Lord Howick) was fully agreed with his
N cble Friend the Member for Devonshire upon the expediency
of adopting the principle of a rent charge instead of tithes,
.no• would he have the slightest objection to the introduction
of a Bill—the right to consider its details being of course
retained—for that purpose.—( Hear, hear.) In assenting,
however, to the second part of the resolution, he begged to
remind the House that it would be pledging itself upon two
points, to both of which he for his part decidedly objected. In
the first place, they would be pledging themselves to the re.
demption of tithe in land.—( Hear, hear.) Now to such a:
measure he was decidedly opposed, and he recollected to have
rejoiced most sincerely that that part of the plan of last Ses-
sion was abandoned. The objection which he felt to this part
of the resolution was, however, of a meaner and secondary con-
sequence to that which he entertained towards the proposition
for saddling permanently on the people of this country the pay-
ment of the million granted to the Irish Clergy. He was most
happy to hear from his Noble Friend, and he begged to say he
fully coincided in the statement which fell from him, to the
erLet that he considered after all that had passed, they would
not he (Ling their duty if they passed any measures with re-
ference to the subject of Irish tithes until the great questicn of
appropriation was Determined.—( Cheers.) He confessed he
was one of these who tel.f most anxious that the whole purpose
of the Government in relatio2 to the Irish Church should be
stated without delay. He saw a;.- the present moment that the
great source of the Irish Church lisevenue was in most immi-
nent danger of being lost altogether. He saw the Irish Se-
cretary coming forward with a declaration that the million of
money which Parliament had advanced to the Clergy was
lost to them, and he wanted to know what it was on this emer-
gency the Government proposed doing ?—(Hear, hear.)
That the million advanced to the Clergy was lost he well
knew, and lie knew also that unless they at once went to the
root of the grievance not only that million but any other sum
they might be pleased to grant would be lost, and therefore it
was he desired to know the intentions of the Ministry.—
( Hear.) His mind, lie hesitated not to say, was made up upon
the subject. The real grievance under which the Irish people
laboured originated in their being compelled to pay for a
Church Establishment for which they had no use, and until
that grievance was met all that Parliament could do would
prove ineffectual.—(Loud cheers.) For the Established
Church, when it answered the real purposes for which it was
intended, no man could entertain a higher veneration than he
did, but when it ceased so to do he thought the sooner it was
got rid of the better.—( Hear.) Now what were those real
purposes for which it was intended? Ile would not quote his
own opinions, but those of one of the highest ornaments the
Church could boast of. He need scarcely say he meant the
Bishop of London. That eminent divine, in a work he had
lately published, said that the question whether a Church Es-
tablishment should be maintained or not was best answered by
another question ; namely, did it, or did it not, tend to the
moral improvement of the people? Now, judging the question
by this test, he would maintain that the Church Establish-
ment was one that ought not to be continued.—(Cheers.)
He judged of the Irish people by himself; and he asked the
House what would be their feelings, if, sitting in a Parlia-
ment in Dublin, and supposing Ireland to be the larger of the
two countries, they were called upon to debate the propriety
of maintaining a large Roman Catholic Establishment.—
( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Howick) knew what their feelings
under such circumstances would be, and, judging of the feel-
ings of the Irish people by his own, he never would ask them
to do that to which, were it his own case, he would never con-
sent. Such being his opinion, nothing could induce him to
agree to the grant of one million, taken out of the pockets of
the English people for the purpose of paying the Irish clergy,
and he felt sure, that in that House he was not the only one
who would come to the same resolution.—( Cheers.) He had
merely risen to state that he wished the question, as to this
part of the resolution, should be postponed to a future occa-
sion.—(Loud cheers.)

Sir R. PE EL—I think, Sir, we can come to an arrange-
ment which will have the effect of preventing any difference
of opinion upon the question in its present stage, and as
the course suggested by the Noble Lord opposite, appears to
be the most correct we can pursue—namely, to withhold all
opposition to the resolutions, reserving the entire right of dis-
cussing the whole matter when the Bill embodying them
comes before the House—l would seriously recommend it to
the adoption of the Committee. The question which the Com-
mittee has in reality to decide, is whether we shall be permitted
to present to the House a Bill, embodying the principle upon
which the resolutions are founded, and accompanied with
those details without which it is perfectly unintelligible. The
present is but a preliminary proceeding, and as it is impossible
to introduce the details of the measure to the House through
the medium of dry abstract resolutions, and as the House cannot
attain that position from whence it can form an accurate judg-
ment of those details unless it permits this preliminary pro..
ceeding, I propose it should now do so on the understanding
that it is nowise pledged upon the subject, and may alter its
decision when the Bill comes under consideration. The House
is never considered pledged to a measure introduced in conse-
quence of resolutions, and that it is not so, I need only refer
to the case of the Irish tithe measure of last session. In that
case a resolution to the following words was proposed to a Com-
mittee of the whole House in the early part of the session :
" Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee that com-
positions fortithes in Ireland ought to be abolished, in consi-
deration of an annual land tax to be granted to his Majesty,
and payable to the persons who are liable to such composition
for tithes, and of equal amount." This resolution was proposed
as the foundation of a bill to be subsequently introduced and to
prove that it was not considered by the Committee as a pledge
of assent to the Bill I need only mention that it was carried by
a majority of 219 to 42, and that many of its supporters subse-
qpently opposed not only the details but the principle of the
measure. Now, why should we not adopt a similar course in
the present case? The Noble Lord opposite says he objects
to the redemption of tithe by the purchase of land. That, I
admit, may be a very valid objection, and I should be sorry to
ask the Noble Lord, or any other Member, to pledge him-
self to such a principle. But how, I ask, can we bring that
question before the House until we get the foundation for a
Bill? I mean these resolutions. (Some conversation across
the table here took place between the Right Hon. Baronet
and Lord Howick, which did not reach the Gallery.) lam
always decidedly averse to pressing resolutions, but I must
say I see no just reason why the House should withhold those
now proposed. If the Committee consider that, by assenting
to my Right Hon. Friend's proposition, they will fetter them-
selves in the slightest degree, I will not ask them to agree to
it ; but when I assure them that the Government will not con-
sider them pledged to assent to the Bill when it comes be-
fore the House, I do trust they will not impede our progress
by withholding their assent. With regard to the money
branch of the resolution, if the House is now indisposed to its
consideration, it can be made the subject of a future resolu-
tion ; but I am sure it will be for the convenience of the
House to have in their hands the whole measure which Go..
vernment propose introducing, before they attempt to come
to any decision whatever. ( Hear, hear.) Now, if the
House will permit me, I will say a few words respecting the
condition of this tithe question of Ireland, and I shall
do so because I think it is desirable its true situation should
be exposed to the House, before it is called upon for that
decision to which it must soon (and the sooner the better)
come. I much fear that the errors we have fallen into in our
past attempts at legislation have originated in ignorance of the
real bearings of the case, and, therefore, I am sure, the House
will excuse my anxiety to display them as faithfully as I can
on the present occasion.—( Hear.) Sir, if ever there was a
question difficult of adjustment, consistently with equitable
principles, it is the Irish tithe question. At the present
moment, in a great part of the south of Ireland, there is,
practically speaking, a complete suspension in the collection
of tithes. Attempts have been made of late, and the conse-
quence, as the Committee is but too well aware, has been
bloodshed and violence. Indeed, I may add, that it is alto-
gether owing to the patience and forbearance of the Irish
Clergy, who have preferred seeing their families enduring the
utmost privation rather than enforce their legal rights, that
anything like peace or tranquillity reigns within its bounds.
—( Hear, hear.) About two years ago Parliament agreed that
a sum of 60,0001. should be advanced for the relief of the
Clergy, and it liras provided that those who availed them-
selves of that grant should make over, as a security to Go-
vernment, their claim for the tithes then accruing. Upon their
becoming due repeated attempts were made to levy them,
but, although every exertion was used, and although the ap-
plication of military force, in aid of the civil power, was re-
sorted to, not one shilling was collected, and in the end, after
expending in attempts at recovering more than the amount of
the original grant, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged
to issue a notice, declaring that no further efforts would be
made to regain the tithes so due to the Government. Whe-
ther th,s was an advisable proceeding or not I will not now
stop to inquire, but of this I am convinced, that it was one of
the first steps to the subsequent very general refusal to their
levy. The first grant basin.- beer, exhausted, and the Clergy
still continuing unable to make good their demands, a sum of
one million was provided for the purpose of paying them the
arrears of tithes. Out of this fund 630,000/. was advanced,
upon the condition that it should be repaid at certain stipulated
periods. The time for levying the tithe s now arrived, and
as it is impossible to entertain the hope that they will be paid,
the question is what, in this state of things, shall we do ?
Time presses for our decision, and we must at once take some
practical course for the settlement of the question. If you re-
quire repayment of the advances from the Clergy, they must
collect their tithes, and to enable them to do that, you must
give them the authority of Government and a military force,
if requisite, in aid of the civil power.—( Cries of " Oh, oh 1"
from the Opposition benches.) No I Then will you give
them the civil power without the military force 7—( Cries
of " No, no !" from the Opposition.) No ! not even that ?
Then will you be guilty of this gross injustice—will
you say to the Clergy, " We attempted to recover 60,0001.,
amount of tithe, but, although we had the authority of Go-
vernment, and were backed by the military and civil powers,
we were obliged to abandon the effort ? You now owe us
630,0001., and although we will neither give you the aid of
our authority, nor ,any assistance, either civil or military, to
enforce your demand, we insist upon you at once levying
tithe to the amount of our claim."—(Cheers,) Will you be
guilty of this gross injustice to the Irish Clergy? Will you
require them, unaided, to do that which, with all your autho-
rity, and all your resources, you were yourselves unable to
do ?—( Cheers.) But, Sir, is the Government to stand quietly
and see the laws of the land trampled upon ?—( Hear.)
Are we to say to the Irish people, " We will permit the
daily—nay, the hourly—violation of the laws without attempt-
ing
to enforce them."—( Hear. )
few days, but the question to wh;
will be this—will you relieve th(
have on them, or will you enal
sum from the occupying tenant
with any justice impose those
on the land ?—( Hear, hear.)
who may have but lately come i
a rent charge shall be imposed

) You may postßone it for a
•hich you mustsultately come
Le Clergy froTl/444I9destL. u
Lble the lb' Trrer..,„ 1,1
jui
tti?t—he lit )i
T_ch ..11\
Can , hireteglish fatidlord
altsinto -'‘ -', his lind,
on
~. 49,4, met,,,tjutp,
e) c. " 0
qr ..., .0.
06If
),