The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-24 00:00:00

NING, JANUARY 24, 1832.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, .I.4xuazr 23.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
about a Quarter before Five o'clock.

Mr. Crafer, from the Treasury, presented returns of the
Hop Duty; and a gentleman presented papers from the
Imperial Gas Company.
The Bill for Consolidating the Woods and Forests, and
that for the Payment of Outstanding Lottery Tickets., were
pas-ed thrnuch a Committee and reported.
E al GREY seeing the Noble Earl who had given notice
of a motion for Thursday in- his place, wished to ask him
what the nature of his motion was to be.
The Earl of ABERDEEN had not yet prepared his
motion, but he had no hesitation in saying that his object
would be to take the sense of the House upon the diplo-
matic affairs, relative to Belgium, either in the nature of
a resolution or an address to the King.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH had some observations to
offer on the convention with France respecting the slave
trade, but he thought it would be better to bring it
forward in the shape of a motion on a future occasion.--
as he understood there was no ottjection to the production
of the papers connected with our situation with the autho-
rities of Canton, he moved for a series of papers con-
nected with that subject.--Their Lordships then adjourned.

"7- 0-QUASE OF COMMONS, JAr•vear 23.
At Four o'clock the SPEAKER, took his seat; and for
some time afterwards the House was occupied in advancing
a number of private Bills.
Mr. Alde►man COPELAND moved that an humble
address he presented to his Majesty, praying that there
he laid before the House a variety of returns con-
nected with the borough of Coleraine, among which
were the following :—Returns of the number of free-
men (and their residences) elected and sworn in, and
those who claimed to he sworn in, but whose
claim was rejecters; of the number, residence, and oc•
cupations, of the various Alder Men and Common Coon-
cilinen, of the various estates, &e. attached to the cor-
poration, and specifying the leases and amount of rents;
and of the officers of the corporation, the amount of their
safari s, and the duties they had to perform.

Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion.
Sir JOHN BRIDGES was not aware of the object
which the Hon. Memb r had in view in moving for these
returns, but he was sure that the Hon. Member had ex-
ceeded the usual I.ne of his duty; it was, he conceived,
very unusual to call upon a corporation to give an ac-
count of their estates. He hoped the Hon. Member would
give some reason in moving for such returns.
M. 0 CONNELL contended that there could he no
difficulty in agreeing to the motion, which would afford much
information upon the discussion of the Irish Reform Bill.
As to the estates, they were only held i❑ trust for the
benefit of the public ; they were charities, the ab7..es of
which ought to he well watched by the House.
Mr. CRAMPTON said there could be no objection to
the greater part of the returns, but the House had
no right to require a production of the leases and accounts
of the estates. The estates in question were not given fin
charitable purposes, but were the exclusive property of the
corporation. If the House called for that information,
every other corporation might be called on to exhibit an
account of all their estates.

Mr. Alderman COPELAND instanced one large estate
of 1,500 or 2,000 acres, which he was informed was let
fur a very small sum. It was at the request of the inha-
bitants of Coleraine that he made the present motion.
Mr. PAGET contended that the corporation estates
were public property, and had no private character at-
tached to them; consequently there was no impropriety in
calling for the required information.
After a few further observations from Mr. Crampton,
Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Alderman Wood, and Sir John
Bridges, the gallery was cleared for a division, hut no di-
vision took place, Sir John Bridges declining to press his
opposition.—The motion was then agreed to.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT presented a petition from the
corporation of the city and county of Waterford in favour
of Reform, The petitioners considered themselves by
right, and not by favour, entitled to free representation in
Parliament, and they lamented that the other branch of the
Legislature had thought fit to throw out the Reform Bill.
The Hon. Member perfectly agreed with the prayer of the
petition, and trusted that the time was not far distant
when the petitioners would have all that they asked for.
Mr. O'CONNELL agreed entirely with the statement
made by the Hon. Baronet, and could assure the House
that such was the stare of feeling in Ireland, that the
people there would be sati-fied with nothing unless
justice was dealt out to all with an even hand. The
people of Ireland wished to be dealt with upon the
same principle as the people in England were.
They wanted the saute species of franchise given to
them as was given to the people of England—they
insisted upon having the same bisis of representation—
he considered the Irish Reform Bill which had just been
introduced as a complete mockery, and he had no hesita-
tion in saying that the people of Ireland would take the
same view of it. The general feeling of the people there was
that the Reform Bill as brought in for Ireland was
an insulting measure to that country.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) He did not want any thing for Ireland that
might be considered as a a writhe of the rights
of the people of England. All that be wished was, that
Ireland should stand upon its own basis, and he claimed it
as an act of justice due towards that country, that they
should have the same species of franchise as was given to
England.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT, in rising to move that the
petition be printed, observed that so convinced was
he of the nece.sity of Reform in England, that if he
thought Reform was as essentially necessary to Ireland, it
should have his wannest support, but he thought the Bill
of Reform for Ireland ought to stand upon its own basis,
and otutit to be discusseh upon that ground.
Mr. SHEIL said he was anxious, not to take away from
the real representation of England, but to take the right
of returning Members from the nomination boroughs of
this country, such as Petersfield and Midhurst, and giving
that representation to populous places in Ireland, which
at the present moment were totally unrepresented.

Mr. O'CONNELL did not wish to transfer the fran-
chise from any borough in En:o4nd to any place in Ire-
land ; he wished the case of Ireland to be tried upon its
own merits.

The LORD ADVOCATE gave notice of his in-
tention to-morrow to move for leave to bring in a Bill to
prevent obstructions in the business of the Court of
Sessions.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition unanimously
agreed to at a meeting of the inhatoitants of Leeds,
and signed in the course of two hours by up-
wards of six thou,and persons, praying the House to
enact some permanent provision for the poor of Ireland,
and not to saddle that country with any poor laws
until the Church propetty, which originally brlonged
to the poor, should be a plied for their relief. The Noble
Lord entirely concurred with the player of the petition,
and trusted that it would meet with the consideration of
the House.

Mr. STRICKL kND had on a former occasion
expressed his opinion on the benefit of poor laws to Ire-
land, but he thought to afford that benefit they ought to
be strictly refined and limited. He agreed with the
petitioners, that nothing could be done effectually
for Ireland till the question of tithes was settled, and he
thought the time was not far distant when something
must he done for the settlement of tithes and poor laws in
England.

Nr. JAMES GRATTAN considered there would not
be much difficulty in making an arrangement with respect
to tithes, but in making that arrangement he certainly
admitted that Church property must bear its proportion.
He trusted that the Committee which were now sitting
upon that subject would report that a portion of the tithes
of Ireland should he made available for the relief of the
poor of that country.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that it was his intention
of dividing the House heiore five o'clock to-morrow on the
motion of Lord Killeen, it it should be opposed.
Mr. HUME wished to call the attention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to the petition now be-
fore the House (the petition presented by Lord Morpeth).
The introduction of poor laws into Ireland would add much
to the disturbed state of that country. With regard to
Chuich property, be was quite satisfied that the measure
proposed by his Majesty's Ministers would not settle the
question. The question had been settled by the people of Ire-
land, they had retused to pay tithes. He asked his
Majesty's Government, as the first step of settling the tithe
question in Ireland, to institute an immediate enquiry how far

the property of the Church was improperly applied for the
uses intended. He thought the Church of Ireland and its
property ought to b, placed on a proper footing, and if he
had the management of it, it should be all brought
to the public Exchequer—(Laughter}—and those clergy-
men only should be paid who laboured for it._(Loud
cheers.) That, in his opinion, was the only means
of putting an end to all sinecures in the Church,
both on this and on the other side of the water.
In conclusion he thought the petition was one well de-
serving of the consideration of the Legislature, and he
trusted it would meet with that attention from the House
which it deserved.
Mr. WEYLAND considered that if tithes ought to he
abolished—they ought to he abolished by latv. He
thought it di•gric,ful, that when men stood up and
opposed the passing of the Bill, that shou d con•ent
ta it contrary to their own feeling..—(Cheers.) Measures
such as these were not objected to, and yet that objec-
tiou could not take effect, on account of the clamour. of a
mob.—(Cheers.) If, however, upon the inquiry which
had been instituted on the subject of tithes, it
should appear that they ought to he abolished—
that abolition should receive his support.—( Hear.)
He should not now have alluded to the subject, but lot
what bad fallen from the Honourable Member for Mid
dlesex. He considered it beneath the character of an
Englishman and the Legislature to hear such sentiments
without most unequivocally and decidedly giving them un-
qualified opposition.—(Hear.)
Mr. BLACKNEY considereaVialmaelf boond, from the
knowledge lie had of Ireland, to state that he took a very
Jiff r.nt view of the matter from what had been taken by
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He was a
resident in Ireland, and particularly affected by that
unjust system of tithes whiith at present existed in that
country, and lie entirely concurred with the Honourable
Member for Middlesex in regard to that important
subject. He came from that part of the country
which was disturbed by that moat vital question to the
peace of Ireland. He did not speak from any s,ctarian
freling, but he thought with the Honourable Member
for Middlesex, that there was indeed an end to
tithes in Ireland under the present system. He
spoke from a knowledge of what was going on in six or
seven counties, Kilkenny, Wexford, Tipperary, Carlow.
Queen's County, and Kildare. The people had begun to
protect themselves atainst procedure by legal process. Were
they to pay tithes under the present system, which was both
unbecoming the credit of the Church and the existence 01
religion? Although the people united themselves in
a body to resist the payment of tithes, they did not
consider that they broke the laws—(Cries of " Hear,
hear, hear")—and it was his firm belief that until
a change was made in the present system of tithes, unti•
indeed they were abolished in Ireland, that country would
have no peace.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN could not see the consis
tency of the Hon. Member's statement. In the six coun-
ties he Lad enumerated, the people were determined it
appeared not to pay tithes, anti yet they did not break the
law, which, however they somehow evaded. Such persons, he
considered, acting in large numbers, whilst they affected to
be obedient to the law, were the worst subjects of the King,
and the greatest enemies of their country. He did not say
the altered state of circumstances might not demand a
partial extension of the franchise, but he could not see
how it was wise, politic, or safe for Government to pro-
pose at this time so materially, as under the Reform Bill,
to extend the franchise and political power of a people
who were thus in array against the law and determined to
oppose it in every respect.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not believe that the Hon. and
Learned Member had paid much attention to the Irish
Reform Bill, when he said that it was calculated so
materially to extend the franchise in Ireland. At the
Union the franchise amounted to 300,000 voters, that
was brought down to 150,000, and the Reform Bill will
only add 300 more to the Irish constituency. As to the ques-
tion of non-payment of tithes, it was said the people violated
the law when they resisted legal process. There was no law
requiring man to pay tithes, because he could not be in.
dieted for non-payment The law said tithes should be
paid, or a distress should be levied. I'he- property di,
trained was carried for sale, hut no law existed to oblige
any one to purchase it, and the difference between England
and Ireland was this, that in England people were bound
to purchase the articles, but in Ireland they had them-
selves to refuse. They could not compel the payment of
tithes in Ireland, otherwise than by obliging men to pur-
chase the di•trained property, and any attempt to do so
would be utterly abortive.

Mr. WEY LAND, in explanation. did not mean to ad-
vocate the continuance of an improper law. If bad, it
was for the Legislature to alter it, but No long as it existed,
he could not but entertain the opinion that it must be
obeyed.
Mr. BLACKNEY explained.
. .

Mr. CALLAGHAN was certain the time was now come
when it was imperative that the House should entertain
and adopt some humane mode of relieving the poor of
Ireland. In the town whence he came there had been such
a❑ aecumulation of ruin as to have placed thousands and
thousands of his countrymen in a state of total destitution.
Such a state of things it was impossible could long exist, and
he implored Ministers to direct their immediate, earnest
attention to it. Whilst such a state of things did
exist, it was not to be expected that any thing could
be but at the mercy of mobs—mobs of the poor, who,
when urged on by distress, it was impossible to foretell
the excesses they might be guilty of. He was cer-
tainly glad to find that the people of the town of
Leeds, as well as many other persons in this country, bad
come forward to call attentio❑ to the starving and dying
state of the Irish poor, and he earnestly hoped that the
postponement of some provision for the poor would not
take place till the tithe question was settled.

Mr. SADLER said the llon. Member who had just
sat down had so accurately expressed his opinions on the
subject as to have rendered it almost unnecessary for him
to add any thing. He might, however, say a few
words respecting the meeting at Leeds, whence the peti-
tion just presented to the House had emanated, and
which had been called an immense meeting by the
Honourable Member for Middlesex. It was certainly
not an immense meeting. He (Mr. Sadler) happened
to be in Leeds at the time the meeting was called,
and though not consulted on the subject, only a few minutes
before it took place he was invited to attend it. From
conversations he had heard respecting it, he knew that in his
proposition which he intended to submit to the meeting,
he would be in a minority. The meeting was held in the
Court-house of Leeds, which is a very inconvenient place.
The house was packed by a Political Union long before
the time appointed for t! e meeting. He (Mr. S.) pro-
posed an adjournment to the open air, where he knew
that many would be ready to express their opinions, but
who could not get admittance into the Court-house. This
proposition w qi negatived, and the meeting went on. The
petition prayed that no poor laws might be introduced
into Ireland until all the Church property which had
belonged to the poor, was produced for their support. Had
the petition prayed for the introduction of pour laws,
or some measure for the immediate relief of the poor
without regard to the application of Church pro-
perty, or the settlement of any tithe question,
he had no doubt it would have been signed by four
times the number ; and he for one, certainly could
not approve of protracting the period of making a provi-
sion for the poor until the question respecting Church
Property had been disposed of.
Sir J. BRIDGES expressed his hope soon to see a
proper system of poor laws established in Ireland, that is,
that the poor laws of England corrected, would be intro-
duced there. As to Members being sent to this House to
obey the dictates of public meetings, be was sorry the Hon.
Member for Middlesex had made such an assertion. He
denied that they should postpone the question of poor
laws until the robbery of the Church had been accomplished.
Mr. HUNT said the meeting at Leeds was a packed
meeting, and packed by the notorious Mr. Baines. The
Noble Lord (Morpeth) was aware of the manner in which
the meeting had been got up. He congratulated the
Noble Lord on his new allies.
Lord MORPETH said it was not his intention to follow
Mr. Hunt into the arcana of Leeds politics. He had
said nothing either in support of or in opposition to the
petition ; he merely said that he hoped to see a provision
made by law for the Irish poor. As to the packing of
the meeting at Leeds by Mr. Baines, the House might
judge of that assertion by the fact that that gentleman was
backed by 6.000 persons.
Sir ROBERT PEEL would have heard with great
satisfaction had any of the members of the Government
got up to disclaim the doctrine of the Hon. Member for

° 'Middlesex. With respect to the present state and condi-
tion of Ireland, he thought his Majesty's Government WI!
bound to protest against the doctrines of the Hon. ?d m.
her f Middlesex The Him. Gentleman said that the
tithe question was settled in Irel aqd, withontAmoringe
into the discussion whether the State could- teielialoßiti4`
the property of the Church as a corporationi; whidh wt
quite a distinct question. It was undoubted that the in.
dividual clergymen now in existence had as goer.' a legal
right t • their tithes as any man had to his estate. The
lion. Gentleman said that, by a combination amongst the
people of Ireland to defeat the c'aims of the clergy to
tithes, the question was practically- disposed of. If time
Hon. Gentleman thought it impossible to collect the titi:es
fur the Church, could he collect them for the State?
Would not the saute combination defeat him, if he wished
to levy these tithes for the State? It was a melancholy
ieflection—he was not alluding to the question of the
charters of corporations, but to the claims of individual
clergy men—it was a melancholy reflection, if the It
landaeds s inctioned the despoiling of the Church—(Hear,
hear)—if the specific legal claim of time clergy could not
be inbreed the, by a combination. the legal clonal to
tithes could be defeated. The landlords mi,tht depend,
th at two years would not pass befhre a similar step would
be taken to defeat ti e payment of rent. Whv should it
not be done? The Learned Gentleman (the Member for
Kerry) said that there was no violation of the law—the
people had only refused to satisfy the claims of the clergy ;
but, if they succeeded in defeating these claims, what was
to prevent them forming the same combinatiens against
the payment of rent ? What remedy had the. landlord
more than the c'ergyman. except that of ejectment, wia ch
he would find it difficult to execute ? What proteetion
was there for the property of the landlord, Should it be
invaded be a sitnil at combination ?—(Hear, hear.) If the
landlords thought that they were likely to benefit by en-
couraging such combinations, never were men more mi.,
serably dece veil. Whatever settlement might he matte of
the tithe question, he hoped no parties•would be suffered
to profit by their own wrong..—(Hear, hear.) It the
Hon. Gentleman succeeded in appropriating ,he Church
property as he wished to the Stare, at least laud in the
possession of individuals ought not to be lienefit,el by
despoiling the clergy ; and let gentlemen remember, tha:'
if the tithes of the clergy fell into the halals of the State,
they would probably be levied with greater rigour, and to
a greater extent, than they were in the hands of the clere:y.
Tl•e Mon. and Learned Gentleman (the Member fur Kerr)
had talked of the employment of time military—was that
recommended by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman? He
had seen en. ugh of the employment of such mean., n •t to
wish it, but at the s one time it was their duty, both as
Members of the Legislature, and members of so vie-y, not,
10 lend any countenance to those who combined to evade
tie law or to defeat the legal claims of the clergy.—(H or.)
Lord ALTHORP was quite ready to ent-r his protest
te,ainst the doctrines of his Hun. Friend the Member for
Oiddlesex, but he did not think is necess try iin all OCC.I_
siuns to enter a pretest against all the doctrines he disap,
proved of. The Right Hun. Gentleman must know that
the Government disapproved of such doctrines, but it was
not convenient to provoke discussion on the presentation
of a petition.—(Hear.) lie repeated, however, that he
lid not approve of the doctrines of his lion. Friend. The
House must know, from the manner in which his Right
lion. Friend had introduced the question of Irish tithes to
their notice, whit were the opinions of the Goveintnent,
And knowing that, he felt it less necessary to enter his
protest against the opinions of his Hon. Ft iend. He would
then say, that he thought he highly disapproved of the
•orribination alluded to ; and whether this was within or
without the limits of the law, he was sure it it was suf-
fered, that it would endanger property in general.—(flear.)
Sir R. PEEL did not itnpu e to the Noble Lord the
slightest approbation of such proceedings, and he was glad
to hear the Noble Lord's declaration against them.
Lord MORPETH moved that the petition be referred
to the Committee on Irish Tithes.

Mr. SHEIL observed, that the petition related to a
matter of general interest, which had excited the people a
great deal. That they were still in a state of excitement
was evident. Did the Right Hon. Baronet speak as a
lawyer, or as a legislator ? If Le spoke as a legislator it was
different; and he ought not only to enforce the law as it
i-, but to inquire what it ought to he; and in considering
what it ought to be,
,the legislator was bound to take
into his consideration., the state of facts at the moment.
Had the Right Hon. Baronet suggested that the law should
he changed ? Had he recommended more severity? From
t
tfoijetgnhicntoeulnir:si, e pursued
Hon.
.haßto for
etitiied last five
think e or
y tithes h
et six rb years
could
c onl by the
collected
ered
The Irish landlords thanked that Right Hon. Gent eilian
for entertaining fears for them they did nut entert.in for
themselves. The fact at present was, that the whole Irish.
people were revolted by tithes ; that:was in iubitahle
.--and
what could the Legislature do? Would he take the tithe
pig ? What could he do when the whole nation was con-
spiring against his laws? That was the ease in Ireland.
What was the case with respect to Catholic emancipation
in Ireland? That it was withheld until it could be no
longer denied. It was not conceded until it was felt by
those who conceded it to be what they conceived a dice
necessity. It was not until that last moment that the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite did himself the immortal
honour of proposing Catholic emancipation. It was im-
possible to force down public opinion in Ireland ; it might
be regulated, but it could not be coerced. He implied
the House, therefore, to take measures in time on this im-
portant subject, or otherwise, when they did take them,
they would prove ineffectual. He implored them to pass
such a measure as might be satisfactory to all classes; at
all events, to pass such a measure as might be satisfactory
to the most numerous classes, without including that de-
struction to the remainder which delay might involve.
Sir R. PEEL, in explanation, said that all he had in-
sisted upon was, that the private rights of every incumbent
ought to be sacred. His argument was, that if the dot,
trine were maintainable, that the private rights of every
incumbent were not entitled to protection, the same docs
trine would equally apply to the private rights of the
owners of every other description of property.
Mr. HUiIIE, in answer to the attacks which had been.
made upon liint by the Right Hon. Baronet and others,
declared that they had attrinuted to him doctrines which
he had never maintained. He had not said a single word,
<idler then or at any other time, against the private rights
of incumbents, or against the private rights of the posses-
sors of any other description of property. He hail called
upon his Majesty's Aliniaters to pay attention to the peti..
tion. Ile had said that there were two great evils in Ire-
land—the evil of tithes, and the evil of Church property ;
and he had said that even if the question of tithes were
settled, the evil arising from the great dispcoportinn of
Courch property would still remain to be got rill of.
Mr. BLACKNEY explained ; but the cries of " Spoke,
spoke !" were so loud and incessant, that all tbat we could
hear was, that it was a bugbear to say that by regulating
the tithes in Ireland the property of the landowners would
be endangered.
The motion for referring the petition to the Committee
on Tithes was then agreed to.