The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-24 00:00:00

that association. Government had done nothing in giving up
the million, for she could not recover it without bloodshed.
The transactions at Rathcormac had arisen out of an attempt

to recover arrears.
Sir H. HARDINGE said, the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had stated that the conspiracy of the people of Ireland
against tithes had been so formidable, that according to his ac-
count, no tithes had been collected in that country, and yet he
had stated that the affair at Rathcormac had arisen from an at-
tempt to, collect only arrears of tithes, and the arrears claimed
by Mr. Ryder of the widow were only 4/. 16s. But at the
present moment, it was not the policy of Ministers to discuss
the details of the measure, for the discussion would necessarily
come on when the report was brought up. When the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman accused the clergy of the Protestant
Established Church of not daring to make a demand of tithes
solely on account of the irritation of the people, he would
read to that Hon. and Learned Gentleman a great many let-
ters from clergymen, which would prove that they had the
greatest repugnance to raise any tithes by means of the inter-
vention of an armed or military force, and that they would
rather endure all the sufferings of the severest poverty than
resort to such means.—( Hear, hear.) He would not enter into
any details upon the question that night, as every Hon. Gen-
tleman knew that the Army Estimates were the real business
before the House.
Mr. THYNSE and Sir R. PEEL severally said one or two
sentences across the table of the House, but which were inau-
dible in the gallery.
Mr. D I VETT would enter his most solemn protest against
abstracting from the pockets of the people of England a mil-
lion of money merely to forward the project of the Govern-
ment. The House in having advanced the million had done
it on an understanding that the money should be paid.
Mr. O'CONNOR explained.
Sir S. W H ALL EY. would not give the smallest possible
coin until it was ascertained what was the amount of the re-
venues of the Irish Chureh, and whether out of that revenue
_ _

the million could not be refunded.
Mr. SHEIL maintained that no Government could have the
smallest chance of tranquillizing Ireland unless the million
were given up. Three millions had been given, or at least
one million and a half been given, to build Churches in Eng-
land, and money had been voted to Scotland on the same
principle, whilst not less than 54,0001. of Irish quit rents had
been abstracted for the improvements of Charing-cross. The
sum of 1,000,000/. was not too large for the purchase of
tranquillity is Ireland, and if the House succeeded in the ex-
penditure, not only might the amount be made up by the re-
duction of the land forces by 10,000 men ; but by Ireland re-
turning more to the revenue under a state of improved pros-
perity. The Right Hon. Baronet, himself a soldier ( Sir H.
Hardinge) had said that in the collection of tithes he could
no longer have recourse to the bayonet, and that if tithes could
not be levied but by the bayonet, still that that instrument
could not be used. He would defy the Right Hon. Baronet
to maintain his policy without the use of the bayonet.
Sir R. PEEL thought the time would come to determine
the merits of the case when the question was regularly before

the House.
Mr. BARRON, on looking to the debate on this question
last year, found in the speech of the Hon. Member for Dublin
a fatal objection to the principle upon which this Bill was in-
troduced. On the 30th July, 1834, in that portion of the
speech which related to the landlords of Ireland, the Hon.
Member stated " until you have vindicated the law, by show.
ing that the collection can be made, is it just to force that col-
lection on the landlords of Ireland?" Had the Hon. Secre-
tary and the Hon. Baronet opposite vindicated the law ?
They had not vindicated the law ; they confessed that they
had failed ; and yet what was the foundation of the resolution
about to be brought up, but that they ought to place the collec-
tion of the tithes on the Irish landlord. Here was ar.jther
charge come upon us. On the same night the Recorder for the
City of Dublin made use of this phrase, " All I maintain is
that, unless the authority of the law is restored by the collection
of tithes, the necessity of which has been so strongly stated by
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the landlords will not, cannot in
justice be forced to take this payment on themselves until the
majesty of the law is vindicated." What change had come
over the opinions of the Honourable Gentleman with his
change of place? Ministers had rejected a measure
which wetolcl have satisfied the people of Ireland, and,
moreover, they allowed the people of England to pay one
million of money for that rejection • for it was on account
of that rejection that the people of England were called
upon to pay this money. If the Hon. Gentleman below
him had remained in power, the people of Ireland would wil-
lingly have paid the tithes in Ireland, because they would have
felt that they had a paternal Government, and they would have
been anxious to support that Government. Ministers, how-
ever, had adopted the child of their predecessors, and they
bad the hardihood to come down and ask the House to pass a
Bill which they had rejected, and which had caused such
bloodshed in Ireland. We never should have had such scenes
if the Bill had previously passed the House. From the heed-
less and factious opposition of Ministers, and their friends else-
where, those consequences had resulted. Such a base dere-
liction of duty—such factious conduct was felt as insult to the
understanding of the people of Ireland. Well might the late
Ministers say with regard to this Bill :
" Hos ego versiculos feci, tulit alter honores.
Sic vos non vobis niddcatis ayes.
Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oyes.
Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes.
Sic yes non vobis fertis arata bores."
He could only put this construction upon their conduct, that
they were actuated by a base love of office.
Mr. SHAW could assure the Hon. Gentleman that his
opinions had undergone no change whatever on the subject, and
the Hon. Member must pardon him if he expressed a strong
doubt that the Hon. Gentleman understood either of the Bills.
(Cheers and laughter.) The present Bill bore a resemblance
only to the first Bill of last year, and the objections which he
had urged against that Bill, he had repeated against the pre-
sent Bill, namely, that it would be a great hardship upon
the landowners. This was the sentiment conveyed in the
quotation which the Hon. Member had just read, and there
was nothing in his (Mr. Shaw's) conduct with reference to
the present Bill at all inconsistent with the spirit of that
quotation.
Sir H. HARDINGE—Sir, after the coarse invective in-
dulged in by the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barron),
attributing to the Members of his Majesty's Government a
sacrifice of principle from a base love of office, I cannot re.
main silent under such a charge, or refrain from designating
the accusation as a piece of vulgar impudence—( Immense
cheering from the Ministerial side of the House, and loud
cries of Spoke, Order, and Chair, vociferated from the
Opposition.)
Mr. BARRON—If the Right Honourable and Gallant
Officer alludes to what fell from me, I can only say that I treat
his observations with utter contempt, and that I repeat the
charge I made of a total dereliction of political principle on
the part of the present Government—( Cries of Chair, chair,
and Order, order.)
Lord J. RUS SELL—I think, Sir, it must be evident to
the House that the observations made by the Hon. Gentle-
man on this side (Mr. Barron), which have called forth the
animadversions of the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer, were
meant only in a political sense, and not at all personally. It
is at the same time necessary, to prevent the matter proceed-
ing further, that the House should at once interfere to put a
stop to it.
Sir H. HARDIN G E—l hope, Sir, I shall be found al-
ways ready to obey the feelings and judgment of this House ;
but when an Hon. Member says that his Majesty's Govern-
ment brought forward the present and other measures from a
base love of office, I should consider myself, as a member of
that Government, unworthy the commission I have the honour
to hold in his Majesty's service, if I did not pronounce that
accusation to be unfounded and untrue.—( Tremendous cheer-
ing.) I might have been justified in using a stronger word
than untrue ; but, as one of his Majesty's Ministers, I shall
confine myself to repelling the charge as it deserves.
Mr. BARRON rose, amidst loud cries of " Order," and
" Chair," from both sides, which for some time hindered his
proceeding to address the House. On the uproar subsiding,
he said—l can only repeat the words that I have already used
in speaking of the conduct of his Majesty's Government, and
to say that those words are perfectly true. I say, that in my
conscience I believe them to be perfectly true.—( Cheers from
the Opposition ; and cries of " Chair," and " Order," from
the Ministerial side.)
The SPEAKER said that to a full and perfect enjoyment
of the freedom of debate the strictest decorum and propriety
was necessary to be observed in all their proceedings, and that
freedom could never be in greater danger than when any ex-
pressions were used by any Hon. Member that were not in
strict accordance with the debate of the House. He was sure
that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barron) upon reflection must
regret the expressions that had fallen from him in the warmth
of debate, for the Hon. Gentleman must be aware that he
ought not to have used those expressions. If he had not
called the Hon. Gentleman to order when he used expressions
which he ought not to have used it was because he did not at
the moment think that they deserved to have that importance
attached to them which his interference might imply. The
offence of the Hon. Gentleman was not against any individual
but against that House generally, and he ought, therefore, to
retract at once the expressions he had used.
Mr. BARRON—In so far as I have, from any offence to
this House, I am ready to retract fully any expressions I may
have used. I did not cast any imputation upon any particular
individual member of the Government, and therefore I have no
apology to offer.
An Host. MEMBER made an observation which was inaudible.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bar-
ron) should at once retract the offensive expressions he had used.
Mr. BARRON—As I conceive, Sir, that the honour of
every Member of this House is best protected in your hands,
I do not hesitate to express my regret that any language which
you deem offensive should have fallen from me,—( Cheers.)
Sir H. H A RDINGE—If I am to understand fully that the
Hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the expressions he used, I
beg leave to express my sincere regret for any harsh expres-
sions that I may have used in reply to the Hon. Gentleman.
Colonel E VANS said that there was a meaning in what had
fallen from the Hon. Member (Mr. Barron) that was totally
unconnected with anything of a personal nature. He alluded
to the total dereliction of political principle on the part of his
Majesty's Government.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) No
one was less disposed to use offensive expressions on any oc-
casion in that House than he was; but as personal feelings
were now so much resorted to by the Members of the Govern-
ment, it was necessary that he should not shrink from an ex-
pression of his opinions of their conduct, lest it should be sup-
posed that he was yielding to a species of bravado.—(Cheers
from the Opposition.) The other night, when not one word
was said in the debate derogatory to the personal character of
Lord Londonderry—
Sir H. HARDING E rose to order, and submitted that the
Gallant Colonel was now referring to a debate that had no
connection whatever with the subject before the House.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said that it was quite out of order to

refer to any word wed in a former debate, and he should be
glad to hear how such a principle could be supported Consis-
tently with the first order of debate.
The SPEAKER said that the rule laid down for the order
of debate, was in strict conformity with what had fallen from
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn). It was not uncom-
mon to refer to former debates, but it was altogether out of
order to refer to particular words, more particularly if those
words happened to be of an offensive character.
Colonel EVANS was aware that he was somewhat irregu-
lar, but it must have been observed that he did not go out of
his way to be guilty of that irregularity. However, if the rule
was to be strictly observed by all he would drop the subject.
(Cries of Go on, from the Opposition.) But the Right Hon.
and Gallant Officer on a former night did refer to a previous
debate, and stated that if in that debate anything had been
said discreditable to the character of Lord Londonderry, he

should have felt himself bound to notice it.
Sir H. HARDINGE rose to explain, but the vociferous
cal!s of Order and Chair prevented his proceeding.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member (Colonel
Evans) was undoubtedly departing from the original question,
and he put it to the good sense and feeling of the Hon. Mem-
ber whether he would persevere in such a course ?
Colonel EVANS rose in the first instance to say, that
from several transactions that had taken place within a few
days, it behoved every Gentleman on that (the Oppo-
sition) side of the House not to shrink from the expression
of any sentiments they might entertain as to the political
character and conduct of his Majesty's Ministers.—( Cheers
from the Opposition.) Indeed he thought that his Majesty's
Ministers had much reason to be thankful to that side of the
House for the extreme forbearance and temperance with which
they had been treated.—( Shouts of laughter from the Minis-
terial side, and cries of Oh, oh.) • He would say that the po-
litical conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the
other Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, was a most flagitious
instance of a total dereliction of principle. What part of the
House, he would ask, was it from which the Right Hon. Baro-
net could look for confidence after his conduct for the last six
years? Was it from those behind him that he expected con-
fidence? Could he expect it from those who were still op-
posed to the claims of the Dissenters? Did not the Right
Hon. Baronet himself, on one occasion, withdraw from the
House, rather than sanction any measure favourable to the
Dissenters ? And yet the very next year he assisted to repeal
the Test and Corporation Acts—(Cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) Could the Right Hon. Baronet claim the confidence
of the section—the expediency men?
Sir H. HARDINGE—What I said on the former night
was that if I heard any one thing improper of the Marquis of
Londonderry I would vindicate him ; and I am sure the Howse
would feel no surprise that I should do so to him if it consider
the degree of relatipnship in which I stand towards that No-
bleman, and my long and intimate connection with him as a
soldier and a friend.—(Cheers.) So long as the Gallant Co-
lonel confines his observations within the order of debate and
the rules and usages of Parliamentary proceedings he may
make what accusations he pleases, but if he chooses to, impute
any base motives to his Majesty's Government then I wilt re-
sent any offensive expression of that nature which the Gallant
Colonel may u c. —( Cheers. )
Colonel E VANS, in explanation, said that whatever the
object of the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer was on the
former night, n hether to vindicate the Noble Lord or not, his
tone was certainly of a very hostile character. Once for all
he (Colonel Evans) protested against that system of threat
that seemed now so much practised. The Right lion. and
Gallant Officer had no occasion to prove his valour. If he had
he (Colonel Evans) should not have looked upon his present
mode of proceeding as the best way of proving it.
Mr. J. G RATTAN foresaw no end to this sort of discus-
sion unless the House came at once to a determination to pet,
a stop to it.
Sir H. HARDINGE again in explanation—l believe the
Gallant Colonel is the only Member of this House who
thought that I showed any intemperate disposition on the night
of the debate to which the Gallant Colonel has referred. I am
not one of those, I believe, who arc in the habit of using harsh
'anguage towards any Hon. Member, and the Gallant Colonel
cannot be surprised that I should resent such language when
used towards myself.
After a few words to order from Mr. METHUEN,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL must take leave to say that the
imputations cast upon his Majesty's Government were most
unfounded. The position in which the present Government
stood had exposed them to the harsh observations of the other
side of the House, but lie had hoped that the interpo-
sition of the Chair had put an entire end to such a
course of debate. He was sure there was no feeling on the
part of the Government hostile to the other side of the House,
but they owed it to their own characters to vindicate the opi-
nions they entertained. He knew that the feeling of a portion
of that House was against the Government, but he knew, at
the same time, the firm position they occupied in the opinion
of the people of the country.--( Cheers.)
After a few words from an HON. MEMBER, whose name we
could not learn,
Sir R. PEEL—For myself, in what fell from the Ho-
nourable and Gallant ()Ices (the Member for West-
minster) I understood him merely as asserting his right to
condemn the policy of Government, without intending
either personal allusions or personal offence. I still think,'
however, that if, in the heat of debate, expressions
should be used which might bear such interpretation, it
would—for the satisfaction as well of him who uses
them as of him to whom they are applied—it would be
_only consistent with the character and the dignity of the
House that an opportunity should be given of disclaiming the
offensive language.—( Cheers.) I fully admit the right which
every Member of this House has to condemn the conduct of
this or of any other Government, nor do I think that, from the
standing and character of the Gallant Member for West-
minster, it is his disposition or his wish, in the exercise of this
right, only to keep as close as possible to the wind in avoiding
offence. Knowing that the Hon. Member for Westminster
intended nothing personal I shall dwell no longer upon what
has occurred, but come to the point which is most important
to a public man—the vindication of his public conduct. I
assert, then, that the charges which thus might have been
brought against me as a public man have no shadow of ground.
--(Loud cheers.) Whether or no lam now discharging the
duties of office from an ambition of distinction, from a love of
power, or of the emoluments of office, I leave the House to
-decide whether office has such advantages as it is supposed to
have ; or whether there has been anything in my conduct that
justly subjects me to this imputation.—( Cheers.) Let me, in
the first place, refer to what has been said by the Hon. Member
for Waterford' (Mr. Barron.) I certainly did, as he states,
make allusion to the danger of our having recourse to
the public purse upon such an occasion, and for such a
purpose.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I never advised the
advance cf the million, and I recommended that before such
a step was had recourse to the law should be enforced. It
was my impression that the money being once voted it would
have the effect of preventing the law from being carried into
effect, and that there would be no chance of ever recovering
the money so advanced. Now, however, when the money has
been advanced, when this course has been pursued and found
to have failed, is it inconsistent in me to take such steps as I
think likely to prevent the recurrence of the scenes at Rath-
carmack ?—( Cheers.) I never advised the advance of the
million. I thought it unwise—l thought it would never be
repaid ; and when I find the attempt to recover it has been
unsuccessful, is it to be now made a ground of charge against
me that I choose rather to remit than to attempt recovery at
the point of the bayonet ?—( Cheers.) The Hon. and Gal-
lant Officer the Membet for Westminster says that our days
are numbered ; that so little satisfaction have our measures
given, the whole country is opposed to our continuance in
office ; that they are not content with our modicum of Reform.
How is this consistent with the charge of the Hon. and Gal-
lant Colonel that we have adopted all the principles of the late
Government ?—( Cheers.)
Colonel EVANS explained. I did not charge the Right
Hon. Baronot with adopting all the measures or principles of
the late Government. I alluded only to this measure, which
I do not think one of much importance. ' 'The Right Hon.
Baronet has been ever opposed to great fileasures of reform.
Sir R. PEEL,—If I have been always opposed to great
measures of Reform, and be still opposed to them, as I am
said to be, then where is my alleged desertion of public duty
and principle ?—( Loud cheers.) " You are still opposed to
great measures of Reform," said the Gallant Member ; "the
country has had your modicum of Reform, and they are not
content. You possess not the confidence of the people." This
may be a just observation. I may not be disposed to go so
far as some would desire ; but how is this consistent with tie
other charge, that my only object is to retain the emoluments
of office ?—( Cheers.) I will now come to the particular
measure under our consideration, and I will say that all the
charges brought against me in reference to it have been made
in utter ignorance of the course I have pursued. The Bill
to which reference has been so often made, was brought in
late in the last session of Parliament. It provided that the
payment of tithe should cease, that a land tax should be sub-
stituted, to continue for five years, and after the lapse of that
time, to be imposed in the shape of rent. This rent was to
be redeemable, and the redemption money to be converted
into land, to be given in lieu of tithes to those entitled to re-
ceive them. The amount to be imposed in lieu of tithe was
77 per cent. Now that Bill I supported. I concurred in
its provisions. I now propose a similar measure. It im-
posed not 77 per cent., but 75. It provides for redemp-
tion ; it provides also for the investment of land. Now
appeal to the House whether, in the vicissitudes to which
the life of a public man is necessarily liable, there ever was
afforded so little ground for the charge of inconsistency ?
—( Cheers.) It may objected to me that there is another
principle, that of appropriation, from wh•ich I dissent; but
that principle was not in the Bill to which refer, and I deny
that upon this head there is the least ground for the charge
of inconsistency. There are some Gentlemen who scans to
think that the Bill of last session was defeated by a arty
combination in the other House of Parliament.—(Loud
cheers.) The measure defeated then was not that ori-
ginally proposed. It was a modification of it, suggested by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin.
The modification proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Littleton) was opposed by the Government, and that of
the Member for Dublin was adopted. What was the language I
then used in reference to the proposed modification ? On the
30th of July I said that the most important part of the ques-
tion could not be finally set at rest by the proposed measure.
My difficulty was that three years must elapse before it could
take effect. If the great mass of the landlords of Ire land
could be reconciled, I thought it would be best to relieve the
occupying tenant, but that the success would depend upon the
proposal being received-with general goad-will. by the land-
lords of Ireland. I used similar language the other eight, I
did, upon the occasion referred to, use the words attributed
to me by the Member for Waterford. I said the law' must
be vindicated; that nothing, however, but redemption would
effect the object desired, and that I despaired, so late in the
session, of seeing it done with the satisfaction of the land