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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1.835.

the future tithes of his holding, but to the 'loss occasioned by
the arrears of past years ? I doubt whether you can pass such
a law—(Hear)—aand I am sure that, independent of the prin •
ciples of equity, you will find such difficulties in the way of
such a proceeding as will preclude the possibility of your
proceeding with it.--( Cheers.) Then the question is, " Will
you remit it altogether, as a boon to the Clergy, or will you
take one of the only other two courses left open to you—
will you impose the obligation of paying it on the landlord,
or will you levy it upon the occupying tenant ?" The Hon.
and Learned Member for the city of Dublin is, I perceive,
preparing to address the House, and probably he is about to
suggest that there is another fund from which it might 'be
taken, namely, the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical
Corporation, commonly called the Perpetuity Fund.—( Hear,
hear.) In this case is there any Member present who does not
know the nature of this fund? I may as well mention that its
revenues are derived from two sources--firstly, from the sums
paid by the holders of the perpetuity leases ; and, second.ty,
from the suppression of bishoprics, and the tax imlnnsed on
those retained. Now before the House comes tr any decision
upon this point, it will be absolutely nen;:ssary they should
have before them an exact account Cc the proceeds in the
hands of the Ecclesiastical Commiersion.—( Hear, hear.) Now
at the present moment what is the state of their accounts?
Why, their income amounted to but 30,0001. per annum,
'while there were charges upon them to the extent of
70,0001. per annum.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The. next
question was the arrears- of 1834. My Right Honourable
friend justly says that the previous Administration by their
Bill provided for past years. The claim allowed to the
landlord settles that ; but what are you to do with the inter-
mediate arrears ? What are you to do with the accumulated
amount of 1834 ? If you adopt the plan proposed by my
Right Hon. Friend ( Sir H. Hardinge) the occupying tenant
of Ireland will be relieved of the tithe altogether; and to this,
Sir, the House must come, for the sake of peace. Would you
leave the arrears of 1834 unsatisfied? Would yoii vitiate all
the claims of the Clergy, set the law at defiance, or compel
the Government to call in the aid of the military? I believe
that this House would shrink from placing the Government in
so painful an alternative of exercising their duty by so en-
forcing the payment ;,f tithe, or seeing the law violated. Can
any better course be adopted? Here you have a surplus of
370,0001. out of a fund from which in the years 1831, 1832,
and 1833, you made advances; previously, it is true, to the
clergy but ultimately to be paid by the occupying tenant.
hich a course will now relieve the occupying tenant, and
ihatever difference there may be between lion. Members oc-
zipying opposite places in this House, I am sure that there
ire two principles upon which both sides arc agreed, and the
first is that the existing Clergy should be protected; at least
all will admit that their endurance, their very forbearance
from exacting that to which they have a legal right, and which
they have not exacted, entitles them to compensation—
( Hear)—and the other is that the burden should be borne by
the land in Ireland.— (!leer, hear.) lam convinced that
whatever ultimate opinion this House may express, that the
subject must resolve itself into an equitable adjustment of
this question. Neither party can claim this of the Govern-
ment as a right, and each party have an interest in the realiza-
tion of his own particular views, but it is not in a political but
in an equitable sense that the subject must be viewed. Already
you find that over the whole of Ireland, partly by amicable
arrangements, and partly by compulsory circumstances, the
land is burthened in the very way that it is the intention of the
present measure to legalize. All land excepting that let to
tenants at will, and all leases falling in since 1832, are to be
subject to this rent charge. And here I think Hon. Gentle.
men who object to this measure should remember that it
assimilates in principle to that introduced by the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord John Russell) last Session, and places a com-
pulsory obligation on the. part of the landlord to discharge the
tithe. Last Session I assented to that principle, conceiving
that there was no alternative. True it is, I doubted, as the
Noble Lord seems to signify; but my doubt was whether, at
that late period of the year, so late as the month of July, you
could have comanunication with the Irish landlords on the sub-
ject, and without acquainting them I doubted the propriety of
doing as waa proposed ; but having no alternative, I did assent
to the principle of the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. Baronet alluded to his
Bill,
Sir R. PEEL acknowledged this, and resumed. If Hon.
Members then present undertook to answer for the willing-
ness of the landlord, I feel the greatest disposition to assent,
and did waive the objection in consequence of the necessity of
the case. No new burthen is about to be imposed. We have
been told that so much of the land is in the possession of Pro-
testants, as a reason for not approving the principle of the
proposed measure, and yet in the south of Ireland they are
Protestants.—(Hear.) But Ido hope, Sir, that, putting
aside all minor considerations, the Gentlemen of Ireland, in
consideration of the remission of 25 per cent. on the land
paying tithes, but more for the sake of peace, not as Members
of Parliament only, but as Irish landlords, will lend their
aid and concurrence to the present resolution, embodying
the principles of my Hon. Friend. The distribution of
the balance of 330,0001. will satisfy the claims of the
Clergy for 1834 ; it will put an end to tithe compensa-
tion and an end to the arrear of tithe. I will not solicit
Honourable Members to bind themselves to the details of
the measure to be brought forward, by giving their assent
to these resolutions. I admit, nor would I lose sight of,
the importance of the question to come before the House
on Monday, the 30th of this month, which involves the
principle, the gieat principle, of appropriation.--( Cheers.)
Nor will, I am sure, my Honcurable Friend press the House
to settle or decide on any measure arising out of the prin-
ciple put forth by these resolutions, until the sense of
the House has previously been declared on the question of
appropriation. I hope, however, the House, before it involves
itself in the discussion of the principle of appropriation, will
adopt the proper means of inquiring if there is any surplus at
all to appropriata,—(hear, hear)--before it assents to estab-
lishing a precedent, before it indulges in any speculative pro-
position—cnear, bear)—affecting the probable interests of the
Protestant Church, that the House will ascertain how the
fact really stands ; for I am convinced, Sir, that nothing but
the proved existence of a surplus fund can justify the House
in any such resolution.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said that this, question was one of all
others that, properly settled, would pacify Ireland ; but it was
no use to cry " Peace, peace," unless something was given to
induce peace. There had been two speeches delivered that
evening, the one by the Hon. and Gallant General opposite,
and the other by the Right Hon. Baronet; and never did he
listen to two speeches that excited feelings of such deep
regret. It was true that in the speech of the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet there was more of a subdued tone than
lie usually displayed on matters connected with Minis-
terial questions. This was, perhaps, quite rational, for he
was not yet secure of victory. But in neither of those
speeches was there anything said to encourage hope in the
people of Ireland. The Right Hon. and Gallant Officer, it
was true, had spoken distinctly, but of what use was that, for
his speech shut out all prospects of relief to his poor and un-
fortunate fellow-countrymen. He remembered an anecdote of
one Dr. Slop, a great metaphysician in his day.—(A laugh.)
Dr. Slop gave Corporal Trim, instead of his supper, a dis-
quisition upon metaphysics. " Metaphysics," says Trim,
" what's that? One thrust of the bayonet is worth it all."
And instead of speeches one word would be worth them all.
One single word, and that word was appropriation. That
word would act like magic in Ireland, and he had trusted that
it would have been thrown out. He had hoped that after sup-
plying the necessities of the Protestant Church Establishment
that the surplus revenues of that Church would be appropriated
for the relief of the people. But no ; they would not indulge
them in any such declarations ; they carefully kept back that
word. What right had the people of Ireland to expect that
anything should be done for them from what they were told
by the present Administration ? The returns under the Tithe
Composition Act he had demonstrated last session were im-
mensely overrated, and numbers of the Members had risen on
the same subject in that House,' and he (Mr. O'Connell) had
received a distinct promise and pledge that the returns should
be overlooked and reduced to what they ought to be, and now
no notice was taken of it. Then, too, there was another Tithe
Composition Bill, which was introduced last Session • not a
composition of 75, but 60 per cent. Two-fifths would have
been considered a reasonable amount to be struck ofi and
although the people of Ireland expected this, and the late Mi-
nisters and the House of Commons were pledged to it, yet
now they had a speech from the Right Hon. Gentleman—and
he had watched it throughout—but it did not contain one word
about composition. It was all cant and hypocrisy to talk
about peace to Ireland, when, instead of 60, they had
a composition of 75 per cent., when the late Government
had given a distinct pledge upon the subject of the reduction,
and had, he believed, actually issued a Commission for carry-
ing it into effect. That measure, after passing this House
with a large majority, to which the minority was as nothing,
was thrown out to be sure in the House of Lords. But that
rejection he would ask any gentleman on the benches oppo-
site—always excepting the Hon. Member the Recorder of
Dublin—in what situation that rejection placed the present
Ministers ? Why, it compelled them to offer the parson 75
per cent. instead of 774-, making a difference of 21. 10s. Oh,
say the people, we shall be gainers by 2/. 10s., we shall
have so much less to pay. Oh, no, say that galaxy of glory,
his Majesty's Ministers—( A laugh)—by our magic measure
the parson only will be the loser and the people cannot be the
gainers. The Right Hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had given the history of tithes in Ireland, but be
had confined his account to the last three years. But was any
man present who did not know that it began before, any man in
that House was born ? It began in 1759. In 1772 the Act was
passed that authorised Magistrates to shoot at those who were
out at a certain hour after night-fall. In 1774 and 1775 Acts
were passed creating no less than fifty capital penalties. From
that time then the war had continued ; it had had its lulls and
and cessations ; but an innate sense of justice and a defiance of
wrong had broken the bonds of law and shattered the parch-
ment chains of Acts of Parliament. The dungeon, the trans-
port-ship, aye, and the scaffold, could tell the history of tithes.
They were written in blood. When the tithe war was raging
he had heard of a mother going out one morning in fear and
trembling for her child, whom she dreaded might have been
slain. On examining the first of the dead she approached she
shrieked for joy, for it was not her son ; she came to a second,
and another shriek alike proclaimed her gladness; but at the
third she shrieked not, her eyeballs became as living coals, and
her tears refCsed to flow, she had found her son. Such were
the scenes with which the tithe system had made Ireland
familiar. It was not new acts that would do away with
it ; what they wanted was a new principle. What mattered
it whether they called the impost a composition or a rent-
charge ? What the people of Ireland wanted was it abolition.
He had heard a calculation of the Protestant acres in Ire-
land. That calculation was incorrect; it was made by Dr.
Boytun and Mr. O'Sullivan, who travelled over here, and pre-
tended to give the result of their peregrinations in Ireland,
and it amused him to hear such an account quoted as an au-
thority. Why, he could name Noble Lords who bad an abun-

dance of those Protestant acres; but they were occupied by
Catholic tenants.—(A laugh.) A million had been already
voted for the purpose of settling this question. He had at the
time warned Hon. Gentlemen that it would not be paid. But
they who were so fond of misgoverning ought to pay not only
to obtain peace for Ireland but for the House of Commons.
But the way in which Ireland was generally treated reminded
him of the meekness of the Quaker, who would not on any
account injure a dog, he would not touch a 'hair of his head,
but told the people he was mad.—(A laugh.) It had been said
that several clergymen in Ireland had not acceyted to pro-
vision made for them. But had they not
auvised to refuse
it ?—( Hear.) If the Bill of
":::sslon had passed, would
the murders at Rathcorrpe ave happened? Perhaps they
would. But would :lie murder of Mr. Locke, with six or
seven other bil:nan beings, have taken place? The fact was,
that t;'" :y had now gone through seventy-six years of warfare,
71nd they had tried every experiment but that of altering the
principle. Everything in the way of legislation had had its
turn, down to the hocus pocus of changing names. Every-
thing had been done but relieving a Catholic population from
supporting a Protestant Church.—(Cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) The Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he hoped, would
do him the justice to say, that when this subject had before
been under discussion, he had never displayed any thing but a
due regard to vested interests. In the opposition that had
been offered to his Tithe Bill of last session, he was sorry to
say that the clergy had not been able to perceive, as far as-
their interests were concerned, anything of a reciprocal spirit.
The Right Hon. the Recorder for the city of Dublin had told
them of secularizing the property of the Church, and with a
gravity that bad in it something of the ludicrous, had stated
that when the surplus of church revenues was found it would
be secularized by being paid into the Consolidated Fund. But
he seemed to think that they would maintain their spirituality,
if invested in the Perpetuity Fund. This might do well for
scholastic amusemant, but it would not do for the people of
Ireland. The newspapers told them falsely, perhaps, when
they spoke of the blood shed lately at E nniskil len, but they did
not tell them so when processions were concerned.—(Cries of
" Oh, oh !") " Ah," said the Hon. Gentleman, "we shall
have time enough for that." The Hon. Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to intimate that there were facts contained in the re-
port of the Irish New Poor Law Commission that would
strike horror, as far as the landlords were concerned, into the
minds of all humane men ; and concluded by imploring the
House to mark their sense of the necessity of extinction of
tithe in Ireland, for that nothing short of it could soften or
conciliate, and hold out hopes of better times to that country,
but their marked vote of that evening.—(The Hon. Gentle-
man was loudly cheered from the Opposition.)
Colonel CONOLL Y stated that his reasons for supporting
the measure of the Government was that it carried in view all

those considerations mentioned by the Hon. Member for
Dublin., but without doing injustice to any one. He entirely
approved of that determination of the Government not to

divert Ecclesiastical revenues from Ecclesiastical purposes.
The-present Bill did ample justice to the Clergy, secured a

present income to the present incumbents, and did as much as
could be done without producing irritation. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin had said that the Landlords
would avail themselves of the reduction which the present
measure offered, and would not extend it to their tenantry ;
but there never was a greater calumny uttered. It was of a
piece with all others uttered by the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber when he had a purpose, party er personal, to serve.
The Hon. and Learned Member thought he could do with the
present measure as he bad done with the last—gorge it down
the throat of the Government ; but be would find himself
greatly mistaken, because the measure of the Government
was a sound measure in principle, while that which the Hon
Member passed through the House last session was no better
than a protested Bill.—( Laughter.) If the former had
passed through the other branches of the Legislature he
(Colonel C.) was of opinion that the Minister would have to
come down to the House and congratulate the country on the
retrogression of Christianity, for the very name of religion
Would, by its operation, be erased from the land. With res-
pect to the remission of the 670,0001. due to the country by
the Clergy, and the appropriation of the remaining 330,000/.
to the uses of that body, he (Colonel C.) felt bound to say
that he fully concurred in the principle which dictated it.
The resolution before the House had, he believed, the sup-
pression of agitation in Ireland for its object ; it should there-
fore have his best support.
Mr. CHARLES WOOD wished to know of the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite whether he proposed to withdraw the
second resolution and adopt the first ?
Sir R. PE EL should call on the House to affirm the first
resolution pro forma—the second, for the remission of the
670,0001. already due by the Clergy, together with the grant
of the remainder 330,000/., he should not press at present.
He did not mean, however, to relinquish it ; but would bring
it forward on due notice. It was his intention on some future
night to ask the House to affirm that also.
Sir H. HARDINGE felt it due to himself, the Right Hon.
Baronet, and the House, to state that the second resolution
was only adopted since the morning—in point of fact, since
he, had entered the House.
- Mr. CHARLES WOOD said that with the understanding
that the resolution was to be passed merely pro forma, and
that so doing would not pledge him to the principle contained
in it, he should not oppose its passing. With respect to the
second resolution, however, he should hear a great deal more,
and that of a more convincing nature than anything he had as
yet heard, before ho could consent to charge the country and
his constituents with such a sum as that contained in it. When
the million was voted by the House, there was a positive and
strict assurance of repayment. On the part of the people of
England he looked for that repayment.—( Heat, hear, hear.)
He should not then go into the question of the Irish tithes or
the Irish Church Bill ; but he could not refrain from express-
ing the pleasure he felt at hearing the Right Hon. Baronet
say that the great question of appropriation was to be speedily
settled.—( Hear.)
Mr. LITTLETON should wish the resolutions were post-
poned and printed, when the House would be able to form an
estimate on comparison between their principle and that of the
Bill of lest session ; but from the temper of the House be per-
ceived that was impossible. However, he cculd not let them
pass without entering his protest against them, and pronoun-
cing it, if a division took place, in the emphatic monosyllable—
no. With respect to the remission of the million loan, he
felt bound to say that he believed it to be quite unnecessary,
and also to add in his opinion, if the late Government had con..
tinned in office, it would certainly have been repaid. He
stated this upon the authority of several communications which
had been made to him by clergymen who availed themselves of
the fund, and who intimated their readiness, and willingness,
and power of paying within a very short period. A fortnight
only before he resigned office he had had a letter from one of
them, stating that the writer had the first instalment in hand,
and that he was prepared to pay it forthwith. The Right
Hon. Gentleman was pleased to compare his measure with
that brought in by the Government during the last session,
and to take to himself credit for the difference between them.
But the Right Hon. Gentleman should have remembered that
the measure introduced was not the measure which had been
passed, and therefore his comparison was ineffectual. He
(Mr. L.)believed that measure, as it stood when it had passed
the House, was one entirely in accordance with the general
feeling of the landowners in Ireland. If it had passed the
other branches of the Legislature, it .would, he was convinced,
have had the effect of closing finally the tithe question, an ef-
fect which the present measure could certainly not contem-
plate, as it would be found to be quite as open beforels at the
end of the session of Parliament.
Mr. HUME was surprised the second resolution could have
been proposed to the House, as it was utterly impossible it
could ever affirm it.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of the
measure was not alone the commutation of tithe, but a vote of
money. A million was to be given away in Committee, and
yet the House bad had no previous notice on the subject. It
was unprecedented. Bad enough with notice, it was not to be
thought of without it.—(Laughter.) What he (Mr. Hume)
should propose was the adjournment of the consideration of the
question. The Hon. and Learned Member for the Univer-
sity of Dublin had made a long speech, into which he (Mr.
Hume) should not enter. But he could not avoid expressing
his sense of the melancholy change which had taken place in
the sentiments of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had come
down to the House with a long harangue in favour of a Bill
which was precisely the same in principle as that which he bad
argued against within the last year. It was a miserable in.
stance of the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues try-
ing to take up measures with a premimr.—(Laughter.)
With respect to the conduct of the Right Honourable
Baronet opposite, he could tell him that it was not con-
sistent with the feelings of honour which should actuate
a Gentleman to bring forward a Bill the same in prin-
ciple but more defective in detail than that thrown out by
his friends in another place in the last session, and then
claim the confidence of the House and credit with the country
for the act. The Right HOB. Baronet had said that the
question of appropriation was intimately connected with that
of tithes. Why, then, did he separate the one from
the other? He split the whole subject into halves,
and said, " Let me have one, and I shall be satisfied.".
Would the House be satisfied with such a course of proceed-
ing? The House should have both or none before them:
it would not, or he misunderstood it, be content to take the
matter by piecemeal:
An HON. MEMBER here suggested something about eggs.
—( Laughter.)

Mr. fiUME should not say it was one of the eggs of the
Administration, though he believed it to be a nest-egg.—
(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet ought to know that
the abandonment of one-half of his resolution, even though it
were only temporarily, was a virtual resignation of the whole.
He (Mr. Hume) should propose an adjournment of the debate
until the Bill should be introduced.

Several Members suggested another course to the Hon.
Member.

Mr. HUME then said that, as the more formal mode, he
should move that the Chairman report progress and obtain
leave to sit again.
Sir R. PE E L—l shall take the sense of the House on the
first resolution, in order that my Right Hon. Friend, (the late
Secretary for Ireland) may be able to compare the Bill to be
founded on it. with the Bill of the last session of Parliament.
I adopt that course, because unless the resolution be affirmed,
the Bill cannot properly be framed on it, and because there
can be no comparison instituted between two objects unless
both are visible—( Laughter)—which cannot be the case in
the present instance, except the Bill of the Government be
brought before the House. With regard to the assertion of
the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that it was intended to vote
away a million in the Committee without any notice, I feel no
shame in saying, that I do not mean to ask it without a notice.
That Hon. Gentleman has alluded to the course I have taken
with respect to the measure, and passed some strictures on
my conduct on the occasion. I should wish to ask him cne
question in reference to them. Does he mean to say that in
taking the course or pursuing the line of conduct I have done,

I did aught inconsistent with the character of a man of honour,
or aught unbecoming a Gentleman ?
Mr. HUM E—The Right Hon. Barofet's course cannot be
consistent with honour, when he takes up a measure +the
principle of which was opposed by him last session of Par-
liament.

Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Gentleman knows my course
last Session of Parliament, and he knows my course this Ses-
sion of Parliament. Does he mean to apply to me the terms
that I took a course inconsistent with honour ?"

Mr: HUME—I mean to say that, as a political man, I
should not take the course pursued by the Right Hon.
Baronet, if I were placed in the same position as he is.
Sir R. PEEL, we believe, made some observation, but it
was inaudible to us.
The conversation then terminated.

Mr. C. FE RGUSSON, in the last Parliament, had voted
against the principle contained in the first and second resolu
tion ; and therefore he could not consistently vote in their fa-
vour now. He considered the question was of such a nature,
that it required great consideration, and he therefore hoped
that the House would not he called on to divide on it that night.

Mr. SHE IL said the House was taken by surprise. The
first resolution was, however, to be passed pro forma, while
the second, because it involved the granting of money, was
to be postponed until proper notice had been given. Why
not pass both ? or why pass either ? The first resolution con-
tained three distinct propositions. First, the owner in fee was
to be charged with the tithe. Secondly, a distinct abatement
was to be made in the income of the Clergy ; that is, they were
to get 751. for every 1001., which was to be paid to the land-
lord. If the Right Hon. Baronet wanted to pass the resolu-
tion, why not say at once that the tithe composition was to be
a rent charge?—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet
was not consistent in his conduct, for he admitted that no no-
tice had been given of the resolutions, while he called on the
House to pass them. He (Mr. Sheil) wished to ask the Hon.
and Gallant General opposite whether the Clergy were to sue
for their composition in the rent charges, or whether it was to
be left to the State to sue for them ?

Sir H. H A RDINGE said that the Clergyman in the first
instance was to apply to the landlord for the amount of his
rent charge. If it was not paid by him the case was to be
transferred to the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission.
By this means the collection of tithes would be no longer the
task of the Clergyman.
Mr. SH EIL said that the statements of the Hon. and Gal-
• lant General only proved the necessity and great importance
of a previous notice on the subject. The Bill of last Session
gave a control over surplus ecclesiastical property to the House
of Commons. The Bill before them confirmed it in the hands
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In the former the prin-
ciple of appropriation was indirectly recognised by that means.
In the latter it was entirely abrogated. Again he asked why
not defer the resolution ? He entertained a strong objection
to putting resolutions on matters of that description to the
House merely pro forma.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged that the first resolution
might again be read from the Chair.
The resolution having been read by Mr. BERNAL—
Mr. G 0 U LBURN rose, and said, the Hon. and Learned
Member opposite had complained that he had had no notice
of the nature of the first resolution which had that night been
brought forward, and therefore that he was totally incapable
of pronouncing any opinion upon it. He wished to ask the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman how he could expect to have
any notice of the preliminaries of a Bill which was to be intro-
duced ? If the resolutions in question were more particular
than what suited the taste of the Hon. and Learned Member,
it was because it had appeared to his Right Hon. Friend that
it would not be proper to bring forward a question of this very
grave importance without stating more on the face of the re-
solutions than the mere form of announcing the Bill to be
brought in. If the Bill had come into the House without
this resolution, what would have been the argument of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman? He would have exclaimed
that Ministers had asked him to vote in the dark; that they
had wanted him to pledge himself blindly to an important
measure ; and that he would not rush into such a measure
without knowing its principle and object. Such would
have been the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, and yet he now turned round upon Ministers and
accused them of stating too much.—( Hear, hear.) In his
opinion the Hon. and Learned Member had raised very unfair
objections to the resolution. He put it to the House, whether
Ministers were deviating from the course pursued with other
Bills upon the same subject ? The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber had referred to the Bill which had been introduced by the
Hon. Member for Stafford in the last session, but other Hon.
Members had called upon the Hon. Member for Stafford to
produce some practical resolution, which should embody the
principles upon which the Bill intended to proceed; and which
was done, not to the same length as in the present case, al-
though they were in substance the same. The former resolu-
tion had contained some of the very same words as the present,
namely, that out of the redemption money, land or money
should be provided to indemnify the owners of tithes.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) And yet when the resolutions were brought down
by his side of the House, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
and his friends, who had seen nothing but propriety in the
similar course that had been pursued last year, turned short
round on Ministers, and said that they had stated too much
in the resolution, and called upon him to go further in his
pledges than was consistent with propriety, or the usages of
the House.--( Hear, hear, hear.) With respect to the reso-
lution itself, lie must say, in answer to the Hon. Member for
, Middlesex, that it was not fair in him to cast imputations
upon Ministers for bringing this resolution forward. In point
of fact there was a great doubt whether any resolution was ne-
-1 cessary to the introduction of the Bill. But his Right Hon.
Friend and himself had thought it would not have been acting
fairly to the House if they had come down with any resolution
of the present nature without putting into the resolution the
effect of the measure itself. Although the present resolution
was in the shape of a money grant his Right Hon. Friend had
very properly consented to postpone one part of that resolu-
tion ; but so far from this being any just ground of imputation
against Ministers he for one would have been sorry if occasion
had been given by gentlemen opposite to tell him that Minis=
tern had concealed from the House the course which they had
intended to pursue. He conceived it to be impossible that
Honourable Members could, consistently with the ordinary
forms of the House, withhold their votes from this resolution,
inasmuch as their supporting the resolution did not bind them
to support the details of the Bill. The resolution left every
Hon. Member at perfect liberty hereafter to oppose the entire
Bill, or to oppose it in detail in all its parts.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY was very sure that the Right Hon.
. Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) would scorn to entrap the House
into a recognition of any measures not contemplated in the
resolutions themselves. But all he wanted to know was, that
if the Committee affirmed the first resolution, would the Right
Hon. Baronet consider that they 'had affirmed anything more
than their consent that Ministers should have leave to intro-
duce a Bill for the extinction of tithes? If this were well
understood, he did not apprehend that any Hon. Member
would withhold his assent. Every gentleman in that House
perfectly well knew that the extinction of tithes was a darling
object with every class of persons throughout the country,
and if the House placed upon its resolutions any other opinion
—any principle to which so many of its Members were hostile.'
—he would say that the House had been entrapped into pre-
maturely giving its concurrence to a measure with the na-
ture and extent of which it was not acquainted. He under-
stood the Right Hon. Baronet to say three things. First,
that Irish tithes could be extinguished to the extent of 25
per cent. below their actual value. In this respect h e
(Mr. Harvey) should say that the Bill would be prefer-
able to that of last year, for the Bill of last session
had proposed to abandon 40 per cent. for the benefit of the
landlords. He considered the tithes of Ireland to be public
property—( Hear, hear)—and the Bill was nothing more nor
less than a bribe to Irish landlords to consent to a measure by
which the public property would be sacrificed to their benefit.
But when the Government should have converted this rent
charge, which was not less than 500,0001. per annum, into
landed or some other sort of security, he would ask, them whe-
ther they or any set of men could be ignorant of the danger
of placing in the hands of the Church landed property to the
value of half a million a year ? Were Hon. Members ignorant
of the origin and nature of the Mortmain Act, and if they were
not, could they now consent to give to the Church an accessory
of lands to the extent proposed ? The resolutions affirmed,
thirdly, that, after tithes should be converted into a rent
charge, and invested in land, or in money securities, the
amount should for ever be inviolably applicable to the same
purposes. Let not the House be inveigled into a course from
which they could not retreat, and which they would have so
much reason to regret. He hoped that the Committee would
ponder before it was deluded into any such transaction. He
called upon Hon. Members to reflect that their admission of
the resolution would be used against them hereafter with great
dexterity.—( Hear, hear, and cries of Question.)
Mr. WA RD wished to know if all that had been asked of
the Committee in calling upon it to assent to the resolution
was to permit Ministers to lay the details of their Bill before
the House? If Ministers would give such a declaration, dis-
tinctly stated, lie should not oppose the motion before the
Committee.—(Criies of Question and divide.)
Sir R. PEEL could not conceive that any Gentleman in
permitting the resolution to pass could prevent himself from
objecting to the Bill either altogether or in part. The reso-
lution embodied the intentions of his Majesty's Government,
and if it were permitted to pass it .was the intention of Minis-
ters to bring in a Bill conformably to the resolution. The
Hon. Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) might recollect
that lie assented to the resolutions of the last year, and that
he afterwards changed his opinions when the Bill was
brought in.
Mr. WARD would vote for .the resolution if he did not
preclude himself from voting against the Bill, or any part of
it of which he might disapprove. He took this simply to be
the meaning of the Right Hon. Baronet. He would not go
into details, but he would congratulate the House on one or
two points. He in the first place congratulated the Rouse
most sincerely on having a Ministry not of concession, but of
resistance to popular principles, who would maintain invio-
lable the rights of the Church, and whose first act was an
acknowledgment that it was impossible to maintain the
Church system as it now existed. He congratulated the
House upon the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for
Northumberland (Lord llowick), who had distinctly pledged
himself to a new appropriation of Church property, and he
was only sorry that he could not obtain the Noble Lord's
assent to the same proposition last year.—( Cries of Question,
question.)
Mr. S. RICE maintained that there was no analogy be-
tween the present proceedings upon this subject and those of
last year. The state of the country at the two periods was
essentially different. After the report of the Church Com-
mission he did not think that any pledge to a future appropria-
tion of church revenues could be entertained by Ministers. If
Ministers would consent to take a resolution which would
merely enable them to introduce a Bill into that House there
would not be a dissenting voiee.on his side 6f the House. He

knew that his Gallant Friend would not have come forward
with his resolutions if he had not had his Bill in his pocket,
and let him, therefore, move a general resolution, and at once
introduce his measure. He objected strongly to important re-
solutions being introduced merely pro forma, especially upon
subjects which deeply interested the public mind. He would
offer no opposition to the Right Hon. Baronet if he now moved
for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the laws re-
lating to Irish tithes. The present resolution certainly did not
commit the House in any respect.—( A burst of laughter from
the Ministerial Benches.) His apprehension was that the House
might in future be committed by the resolution. Ministers
spoke of the resolution being mere surplusage ; but in his
opinion it was surplusage of a most mischievous nature
Whatever might be the result of that night's discussion, he
should certainly bring forward the question again when the
House resumed. He was convinced that no Bill relating to
Irish tithes could pass through that House until the question
of appropriation had been settled--( Hear, hear, hear)—and if
it could be carried there would be no chance of its being satis-,
factory to the country. Were the Hon. Member for Dublin
University now in his place, he could have reminded him of
the protest he had made last year against the principle of the
resolution to which he now was giving his assent.—( Here the.
Hon. Member, Mr. Shaw, entered the House.) The Hon.
Member's sudden appearance put him in mind of his own de-
clarations on a former occasion. The Hon. Member had
treated the loan of 1,000,000/. as an insult to the Clergy of
Ireland, and now he complained of the payment of the million
being an insult, and set forth the reluctance or inability of the
Clergy to refund the money. With respect to the repay-
ment of the one million he would say that he knew the con-
dition and feelings of the Irish Clergy fully as well as the
Honourable Recorder of Dublin, and he would consider their
sufferings, but never until justice could be done to the people
of Ireland. This was not a question of pounds, shillings,
and pence, and he would say that no man in that House had
been more willing than his Hon. Friend the Member for
Middlesex to vote the money of England for the real pacifi-
cation of Ireland. If the clergy of Ireland were now suffer-
ing, and to the extent that had been stated, the blame lay on
the other House, which.had rejected a Bill unexampled in its
generosity.—( Laughter.) The first Reformed Parliament of
England had been willing to make a sacrifice of 3,000,000/.
to the pacification of Ireland, and under such circumstances
the responsibility lay on the other party. The question was
different now. He would not part with a single fraction until
lie saw a prospect of a just settlement of the question. He
trusted that the Committee would not allow itself to be
seduced by a sidewirid to assent to a proposition which nega-
tived the views that his side of the House were determined
to take.

Mr. SHAW rose to complain that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had totally misrepresented him. The Hon. and Learned
Member showed that his present vote was consonant to the
view he had taken of the subject in the first instance.
Mr. H. GR A TT AN said that if the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was willing to accept the simple proposition that
leave should be given to bring in a Bill to abolish tithes in.
Ireland, he (Mr. Grattan) should not oppose such a proposi-
tion ; but if, on the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer remained silent, and refused to accede to that mode of
proceeding, he must take the opportunity of protesting
against several parts of the resolutions before the Com-
mittee. The whole system of tithes in Ireland was abo-
minable, and he protested against the principle to which
it led of bribing one class of men in that country to
tyrannize over another class. If the vested rights
of the clergy were to be held so sacred, he must put
in a claim for the vested rights of another portion of his Ma-
jesty's subjects, he meant the poor people of Ireland. Their
rights to the tithes were considered unalienable, until the Re-
formation unjustly deprived them of them.—(Loud cries of
" Question.") If the House wished to know what would sa-
tisfy the people of Ireland, he should submit some resolutions
as an amendment, that he doubted not would have that effect
if adopted. The first resolution would declare that, for the
sake of humanity, the state of Ireland required that tithes
should be abolished in that country. The second declared
that the rights of all persons, having vested interests, should
be provided for; and the third, that a tax be imposed in lieu
of tithes, and the amount raised to be paid into the Exchequer,
for such purposes as Parliament should think proper. , Was
not that, he asked, a fair proposition ? If that proposition
should not be acted upon, or some other in the same spirit, lie
hoped that Ireland would never remain quiet, and that the pre-
sent hatred of the people to tithes would increase rather than
diminish. If the Government wished to regain the affections
of the people of Ireland, it must do them justice. They
would no longer submit to such odious tyranny.
Lord STANLEY was rejoiced to perceive that the Com-
mittee was disposed to accede to a proposition offering so
much, but so much only as would enable the Governinent to
bring forward that measure which had been expounded to
them that day. He felt great satisfaction, too, that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to withdraw
one of the resolutions, which, if acceded to, might have the
appearance of conceding more than as a mere matter of
form it was intended to convey. He had hoped that after
these concessions to reason, to justice, and to sound argu-
ment and discretion, and after the declaration of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, that the words of the resolutions
were not meant or designed 4,0 bind any Hon. Member be
yond the bare permission to introduce his zneasure fully be-
fore the House—he had hoped, lie said, that there would
have been no further discussion upon the subject that night.
The various matters of the Bill about to be introduced must
lie most important, and to all the propositions in the present
resolutions be felt disposed to give his assent. He approved
of that part of the resolution which went to establish a rent
charge, reduced, as it was intended to be, by 25 per cent.;
and he considered it a highly important feature in the Bill
that this rent charge was to be redeemable immediately in
such a manner as the landlord might please, on terms most
favourable to himself, but without at the same time causing any
great reduction in the funds necessary to be raised. The last
preposition, which went tp establish that these funds should
be appropriated to the uses of those who were entitled to them,
lie was prepared fully to affirm ; but this he did not think was
the time to enter into a detailed argument upon that head.
The subject ought not to be met with a sidewind. It appeared
that a Bill was to be brought forward that should be founded
upon the resolutions before the Committee, and it was impor-
tant that it should be distinctly stated how, and in what man-
ner, every part of that ,Bill was to operate. If the Committee
should come to a division now, they would still be as much in
the dark after that division as before. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had said that the resolutions were not intended to
bind any Member to any part of the Bill of which he might
disapprove, and where, then, could be the benefit of a division
that night? If they were to have a fight, let them fight in
earnest, but not enter into a profitless contest that went only
to an unnecessary prejudging of the question. If the majority
should be with the opposite side of the House, the appropriate
principle would still remain to be decided, and if the Ministers
should have the majority, that would not at all affirm his pro-
positions, but would only obtain for him permission to bring
in his Bill. In this state of the question, he confessed that if
the Committee went to a division, he felt disposed to vote for
the insertion of the words proposed, in order that the Bill might
be brought in, depending, as he implicitly did, on the declara-
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was not bound
by that vote to approve the Bill hereafter. His sole object
was to give the Government every opportunity of laying be-
fore Parliament their specific measure in all its details. Per-
haps lie might be thought to speak sometimes on one side and
sometimes on the other.—( A laugh.) He confessed candidly
that his wish was to see the Bill brought in w ithout the words
to which objection had been made—(Oheers from the Oppo-
sition)—but he did not think that there could be any advan-
tage derived from contesting that point in the present state of
the question. It would be only leaving the country in doubt
as to the nature and effect of the decision whichever way the
majority might be, and that he did not think was prudent or
politic. On so important a subject as this every step taken
,and every decision come to by the House should be clear, dis •
tinct, intelligible, and, as far as possible, satisfactory to
the country. While he assented, therefore, to the four
propositions that had been submitted to the Committee,
he assented also to the principle maintained by those who
refused to be bound by the words of those propositions.
He was sure at the same time that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer did not mean anything in the least degree unfair,
or in bad taste or bad .feeling, by any one of those proposi-
tions, and therefore if the words were considered necessary to
carrying forward the measure by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, he should vote against reporting progress. His wish
was to have the measure fully and fairly before the House,
so that it might undergo ample discussion in all its details and
in all its momentous bearings. If the Committee was dis-
poseckto agree to such a proceeding, let the Government take
a resolution, giving leave to bring in a Bill founded on certain
principles, hereafter to be canvassed in all its details. He
had not"the most remote idea of addressing the House that
night—indeed he bad gone out, supposing that the discussion
was at an end, but he was desirous of guarding himself
against any pledge, without first having before him the specific
measure in all its details.
Mr. P. THOM SON did see involved in the present reso-
lution a principle to which lie could not consent to be consi-
dered in any way pledging himself. Why did not the Go-
vernment make a simple proposition for leave to bring in a
Bill, by which they would be enabled to bring the whole
question before the House, without the appearance of any
compromise of principle on the part of any Member in the
vote he might give ? Why not withdraw the resolution, and
substitute another on which to found a Bill simply to abolish
tithes ? Unless the Right Hon. Baronet adduced sufficient
reasons for not acceding to this course, he was sure his Noble
Friend (Lord Stanley) would not, and he hoped the House
would not, permit himself to be involved in any declaration
that might either in reality or in appearance compromise any
principle. Was there any valid objection to the course be
proposed ? He felt deeply upon this subject, and he again ap-
pealed to the Committee not to be involved in any compromise
of principle on so momentous a question.
Sir R. PEEL then rose, and spoke to the following ef-
fect :—Sir, if I considered the course which I meant to pur-
sue upon this occasion inconsistent with the usages and prac-
tice of this House, or if I felt convinced that it was inconsistent
with common sense, no false shame, no fear of incurring a
charge of inconsistency, should deter me from accepting that
modification of these resolutions which has been suggested by
Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. If, how-
ever, I.feel that the course I propose to follow is consistent
with the usages of the House, is consistent with precedent and
with justice, I care not for the consequences, I care not what
the re.sult may be, I am determined to persevere in the course
I originally proposed to myself.—( Cheers.) All I now ask
from the House is permission calmly and dispassionately to state
what are the grounds of my adhesion to my original purpose
as regards these resolutions. Ever since I have had the honour
of a seat in this House, I have always understood that in all
questions which have relation to religion, it is necessary to in-
troduce the subject, in the first place, to the consideration of

Parliament by moving resolutions, and that it is not enough
simply to move for leave to bring in a Bill. This is the stand-
ing order of tile Houser-4. No Bill relating to religion, or to
an alteration of the laws relating to religion, shall be intro-
duced by way of a Bill till tile proposition shall have been
first considered in Committee."—(Loud cheers.) I na-
turally thought, therefore, that I was acting in perfect
accordance with the rules and forms of the House, with the
established and well-known usages of Parliament, when I de-
termined, before moving for leave to bring in a Bill, to state
in the shape of resolutions what were the general views upon
which that Bill was to proceed.—( Cheers.) Well do I know
what would have been the course of the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. S. Rice) had I abstained in these resolutions
from going into some detail as to the general nature of the
measure. Had I not embraced in them so much of explana-
tion as would open generally to the House the view which the
Government takes of the question—had I not done so ts-bat
would have been the course of the Right Hon. Gentleman ?
(Mr. S. Rice.) He would have stood forward in his place,
and loudly complained that they were left completely in the
dark ; that the resolutions contained no details which could
enable the House to form any judgment of what was intended
to be done, that it was a shallow device to entrap the House and
to delude the country.—(Loud cheers.) " Why don't you
(would the Hon. Member for Cambridge have said) go
into details? Why don't you embody in your resolutions
such explanations of your views as will enable us to judge
what are your intentions ?"—( Cheers.) If there be any
Hon. Gentleman present who is apprehensive that by
voting for these resolutions he is pledging the House
to the course it shall hereafter pursue, to him I will
say " See what is the difference between the resolutions pro-
posed by the present Government, and those proposed by the
Government of Lord Grey upon the very same subject ?"
When the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had a
similar measure to propose last session did they confine them-
selves to a jejune resolution ? Did they not embody in the
resolutions they proposed so much of detail as might explain
what were their general views ? Here are their resolutions :
" That it is the opinion of this Committee that composition
for tithes be abolished after the Ist of November next—( Loud
cheers from the Ministerial benches)—in consideration of an
annual land tax—( Cheers)—payable to those who are entitled
to the tithes ; that the said land tax shall be redeemable—
( Cheers)—and out of the proceeds of such redemption that
provision be made, either in money or in land— (Loud cheers)
—for the indemnification of such persons as are now entitled
to the receipt of tithes"—( Great cheering.) I will say no
more upon this part of the subject but merely observe that one
of the tellers upon the division which took place, was the Right
Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. S. Rice)—(Cheers)—who
now so warmly opposed resolutions that differed so little—
that differed in no material point, and but very slightly
in words--from the resolutions now proposed. " But,"
says the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, " with
the opinions I entertain of the Church of Ireland ; with the
conviction on my mind that its revenues are much too large ;
believing that it is the right of Parliament to deal with any
superfluous revenue that may accrue on a modification of the
tithe system—l cannot," said the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Poulett Thomson) "accede to' the resolutions that are now
proposed, and will not tie up my hands from dealing hereafter
with the temporalities of the Irish Church." May I ask how
long it is since the Right Hon. Gentleman has taken up that
view of the Irish Church question which he now expresses,
and upon which he is determined to oppose these resolutions ?
Surely it must have been since the last session of Parliament
—since the period when the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton) proposed his resolutions. Had
the Right Hon. Gentleman entertained his present opinions en
the temporalities of the Irish Church before last session—had
he then entertained the principles upon which he now main-
tains that the temporalities of the Church ought to be appro-
priated, how could he have acceded to the resolutions of last
year, for they, as effectually as the present resolutions, pre-
cluded him from carrying his great principle of appropriation
into effect ?—(Cheers.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman did not
then feel such scruples—if, after profound reflection—( A
laugh)—he had come to the conclusion that church property
might be made applicable to secular purposes—if, with a safe
conscience, and without scruple, he could assert the resolutions
of last session—how comes it that such scruples arise now ?
( Cheers.) How comes it that he may not hereafter feel him-
self as much at liberty to deal with any surplus of Church
temporalities that may arise, as he did last session when he
offered similar resolutions ?—(Lond cheers.) It is perfectly
clear that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not precluded by
the resolutions of last session from the application at any
future time of his principle of appropriation ; neither is he so
precluded by the resolutions now proposed. " But," says the
Right Hon. Gent., "your resolutions embrace a money vote."
My answer is, there was no money vote in the resolutions of
last session—there is none now.—( Cheers.) It has been sug-
gested to me by an authority for which I entertain the
highest respect (Lord Stanley), to leave out that particular
part of these resolutions which has reference to a money
redemption and to investment in land. I am sorry that,
consistently with a sense of duty, consistently with the
view of the subject to which I have come, after mature
deliberation, I cannot accede to the suggestion of the Noble
Lord. The words which the Noble Lord wishes removed
were introduced only for the purpose of explaining fully and
fairly what is the real nature, the objects, and tendency
of the proposition which the Government means to submit
to the House. Had we omitted the concluding proposition
of the resolutions now submitted to the Committee, we could
not show what is the real nature of the Bill with which we
mean to follow them up, and we might, then, indeed, fairly,
at least with some degree of justice, be chargeable with an in-
tention, and a wish to entrap the House, and to delude the
country. What will be the effect of withdrawing this part of
the resolutions 1 Will it not be interpreted into a proof that
I consider the resolutions as. implying a pledge ; and that
for this reason, and for this alone, I consent to have those
words expunged.—( Cheers.) Even if I omit these words,
what is it the Committee will have to affirm in that part
of the resolution which will still remain ? First, they will
have to affirm the annual-rent charge ; secondly, the pay-
ment out of that charge 'to those who are entitled to the re-
ceipt of tithes; in the third place, they will have to affirm the
deduction of twenty-five per cent. ; and, fourthly, the im-
portant principle of redemption. But, by assenting to these
four points, is it to be supposed that the Committee will be
pledged to all the details of the Bill? They will be per-
fectly at liberty to deal with the details. The resolutions do
not preclude me, they do not preclude the Ilouse, from any
alteration in the details which hereafter, upon consideration,
it may be deemed expedient to adopt. Though I insert in the
resolutions the sum of seventy-five pounds, do I mean by that,
or do I suppose that the House would hereafter be pre-
cluded from inserting fifty pounds, or sixty pounds, or sixty-five
pounds, or any other sum ? No. I mention this particular that
we may be enabled at a future period to submit the whole
measure to the House. These being my views, must, with-
out adopting any one of the alterations proposed, adhere to
these resolutions as the exposition of the intentions of the
King's Government on the subject of tithes in Ireland.
—( Cheers.) The adoption of the resolutions is not binding
on the House against future alterations in the Bill that we pro-
pose to introduce. The Bill of the Member for Staffordshire
was altered last session—first at the desire of the Right
Hon. Gentleman himself; and again on the suggestion of the
Hon. arid Learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin. The
House afterwards completely changed the original resolution
on which the Bill was founded. I pursue a different course
now, and refuse to' alter these resolutions, shall I place myself
by so doing in a more unfavourable situation than did the
Member for Staffordshire last year ?—( Cheers.) I have only one
more appeal to make to the House. As soon as my Right Hon.
'and Gallant Friend ( Sir H. Hardinge) had proposed the resolu-
tions and explained to the House what were the views of his
Majesty's Government, the Noble Lord, who acts as leader of
the Opposition, felt so completely convinced, of the total ab-
sence of all future obligation to arise from affirming the reso-
lutions, that he did not hesitate to say, " I will not place the
slightest obstacle in the way of these resolutions ;" and the
late Secretary for Ireland was so entirely convinced of the
justice of the view I have taken, as to the effect of them on
any future deliberations of the llouse, that he said " I will
vote for the resolutions, with a protest, however, that I am
not bound by them." When such is my own view—when such
is the view of the Noble Lord (J. Russell), and of the Mem-
ber for Staffordshire, that there is nothing binding in them,
nothing to preclude hereafter the assertion of any principle or
the alteration of any details—it would be inconsistent with
common sense—with all practice of former Governments—
with the usages of the House, were I to consent to the alte-
ration proposed. With this view of the matter I feel that I
should not be doing my duty as a Member of this House, as a
Member of his Majesty's Government, if I consented to the
course which it is now endeavoured to persuade me to.
Mr. P. THOMSON explained. When he voted upon the
resolutions of last year, the great question of appropriation
was not raised, and the Government was not communicated
with upon it. The present Government, however, was ; tho
Right Hon. Baronet having announced the principle that the
temporalities of the Church must never be applied to any but
Church purposes.
Sir R. PEEL.—My answer is this :—The Right Hon.
Gentleman says that last year the question was not raised of
the appropriation of Church property. Now, how stood the
fact ?—(Cheers.) A counter resolution was moved to this
effect, " Due regard being had to existing interests, any sur-
plus that may remain shall be applicable to such purposes as
Parliament may hereafter determine."—( Loud and continued
cheers.)
Mr. S. RICE said in fact there was no practical difference
of opinion on both sides of the House.—(A laugh.) They
had no wish to preVent the introduction of the Bill. When
he acted as teller it was under circumstances quite different.to
the present. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Goulburn) brought in Tithe Composition and Tithe Commu-
tation Bills. Had they been followed up, much of the evil
that had since occurred would have been prevented. Now these
Bills involved a question of religion as much as the measure
to be proposed did, but yet the Right Hon. Baronet assented
to them without any resolutions having been previously
moved.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) Where were the
scruples of the Right Hon. Bart. then ? The Hon. Gentle-
men opposite thus rejected their own authority arid acted upon
that of their opponents. When they on his side of the House
were quite avillieg to permit a Bill to be brought in, was it
conceivable that some ulterior object was not concealed under
this perseVerance in the present resolutions? If his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume) would consent to withdraw his amend-
ment he would propose the following as a substitute for the
resolutions now proposed :—" That it is expedient to alter
and amend Tithes in Ireland."

Sir R. PEEL said it was not competent to the Member
for Middlesex to withdraw his amendment without the consent
of the House. He was not disposed, however, to raise any
question which might lead to debate upon a mere point of
form.

Mr. Hume's amendment being withdrawn,. ana that of 31r.
S. Rice put from the Chair, the House divid.ed—
For the amendment 93
213
For the resolution
Majority for Ministers ............... --15
The House then resumed, and the other orders of the day
were disposed of.
The House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve.

PRICES OF,CANALS, DOCK STOCKS,
ASSURANCE COMPANIES, &c. &c.