The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-28 00:00:00

repaid him for any loss he might sustain from the non-pay-
ment of tithes by his tenants: but the middleman had no per-
manent interest, and consequently no such compensation.
His great objection to the clause, then, was that an injustice
was done to the middleman, in exposing him to risk and loss
for which he had never covenanted, and that without any
compensation. It was not his (Lord Stanley's) intention to
move an amendment ; but he hoped that his Noble Friend
would take the subject into consideration at the sth clause,
or at all events, before the bringing up of the Report. He
hoped that some means would be devised to get rid of the in-
justice which the clause inflicted upon a large class of persons.
Mr. WALKER thought that the occupying tenant ought
not to pay more to the landlord than the landlord paid to the
clergyman.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said that this clause gave the middle-
men the power of ejecting their tenants for non-payment of
tithes ; and that was a sufficient compensation to them with-
out any additional bonus.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the cases put by the Noble Lord would become day by day
fewer. The fact was, that in this Bill, as in that of the Noble
Lord, it was assumed, that as regarded existing leases, land-
lords and tenants would arrange so that injustice should be
done to neither party.
Mr. SHAW preferred the descending to the ascending
scale. Upon the whole, he thought that it would be best to
throw the burden upon the first estate of inheritance.
After a few words from Mr. DAVID ROCHE,
Lord MORPETH could see no other way of steering be-
sween the reduction to be given to the landlord and the relief
to be afforded to the tenant than that proposed by the clause.
The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 3 and 4.
On clause 5 being read,

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that so little had the people of
Ireland been in the habit of paying tithes of late years, that
the re-enactment of them by this Bill was almost like throw-
ing a new burden upon the people. What would be the con-
sequence if this Bill were rejected ? By the Noble Lord's
( Stanley's) Bill, the clergy would have recovered 774/. per
cent. of their tithes; by the Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite ( Sir H. Hardinge) 75/. per cent. ; and the Bill now
under consideration insured the clergymen 731. per cent ; but
if the Bill were rejected, what would they recover ? Little or
nothing.--( Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY denied that any member of the Church
objected to the settlement of the question, or to the amount
proposed to be awarded to the clergyman. He hoped that the
House would not let it be supposed that the payment of tithes
to the clergy as a body, was likely to cease ; as for the pre-
sent measure being a boon for the clergy, he doubted whether
a larger amount of tithes would not be paid if this Bill did not
pass, than if it did. In the Act which he had introduced,
provision was made for the payment of the clergy by landlords,
and payment had been made to the amount of from 180,000/.
to 200,000/. The payments which would be made under this
Bill would not, at the utmost, exceed 280,0001. If this did
not pass, 200,0001. per annum would be paid without any dif-
ficulty to the clergy, and certainly many difficulties would arise
under this Bill. He did not urge this as an argument against
a fair arrangement ; on the contrary, he was most anxions to
promote it. He protested against the assumption that tithes
would not be paid if this measure did not pass.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed
that, for the future, it would be highly dangerous to the in-
terests of the Church, if this measure did not pass. If it were
carried into effect, the clergy would never be brought in con-
tact in any way with the tithe-payers, but would go and obtain
the amount due to them from the collecting-officer of the Go-
vernment. This, he thought, was highly advantageous to the
clergy. He also begged his Noble Friend to recollect that
the landlords were not always so willing to pay tithes.
Mr. SHAW declared, on the part of the clergy, that they
were willing to make any sacrifice for securing the peace of
Ireland ; but they could not, conscientiously or consistently
with their duty, consent to sacrifice a principle.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had not objected to the principle a few months ago, for he had
applauded the measure proposed by the Right Hon. and
Gallant Member (Sir H. Hardinge), in which a deduction of
25 per cent. was to be made from the income of the clergy.
By the Bill of last year, the clergy would have received
77/. 10s. per cent. ; by the measure of the late Government
they were to receive 75/. ; and by the present Bill, 731. 10s.
per cent. The Right Hon. Gentleman would not consent to
yield up the principle—which he had already done—or to
allow the claims of the clergy to be lessened, which appeared
also to be the case, for the advance which they made was
very much like that in a Dutch auction, where each bidding
was less than the former. He would caution the clergy against
listening to the suggestion of the Noble Lord. It would be a
matter of absurdity to rely upon the landlords, or to suppose
that they would willingly consent to pay tithes. They might
not choose to resort to the committal of Whiteboy outrages to
prevent the payment of tithes, but still they would manifest
the strongest possible opposition to the Church. He believed
that the number of landlords who consented to the payment
of their tithes, under the Bill of the Noble Lord, did not ex-
ceed twelve in number. If the clergy were to rely upon the
Noble Lord's Bill to procure the payment of their tithes, they
would obtain merely a mouthful of moonshine.--( Laughter. )
It was a gross delusion to suppose that the clergy would ob-
tain their tithes if this Bill did not pass.
After a few words from Mr. RUTHVEN and Lord SANDON,
the clause was agreed to.
Clause 6 was agreed to without observation.
On clause 7 being proposed,
Mr. SHAW said his objection was not founded on the
amount of the reduction, but upon the fact that the arrange-
ment would finally have the effect of absorbing so much of the
permanent property of the Church, that sufficient would not be
left to maintain it.
After some observations from the CHANCELLOR Of the EX-
CHEQUER and Mr. O'BRIEN, the clause was ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 8 was likewise, after a proviso had been added, or-
dered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9, empowering a revision of the tithe compositions
already entered into, having been proposed,
Lord STANLEY said that, although it was not his inten-
tion to oppose the clause, or take the sense of the House upon
it, he still thought it ought to be explained why, without some
strong case were made out to justify it, the Government should
now rip up the arrangements for the composition of tithes
which had been entered into, perhaps, 12 or 14 years ago, and
after the fullest deliberation possible on the part of all parties.
He would not say that a particular case might not occur in
which the right of appeal should be given, but he at the same
time thought a provision like the present wholly unnecessary.
By the Act of 1833, the right of appeal was given to the
Lord-Lieutenant in Council in all cases where the compo-
sition was entered into not only unduly but through igno-
rance on the part of either of the parties ; and what was the
consequence ? Why, that this right had been exercised only
in two or three instances.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell
and one or two other Members on the Ministerial benches.)
He supposed the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant by cry-
ing " Hear, hear," to convey to the House an impression that
the reason there were so few appeals under the provisions
of that Act was, because the tribunal before whom they were
to be heard was inconvenient and expensive ; but what did
the Act, commonly called the Million Act, do ? That Act was
passed in the next year, and by it the appeal was transferred
from the Privy Council to the Assistant Barristers, in order
that where the composition was excessive the parties should
have an opportunity, without great expense, of having it re-
duced to a just and reasonable amount. He must say that he
considered the powers now proposed to be given to the Com-
missioners of Land Revenue were entirely too large, and he did
not think it was even decent to confer such powers on any
body of men without distinctly specifying what the allegations
were to be which would justify their interference, or that they
were to receive no statements which were not made by those
who were actually parties to the facts. Under this Bill the
Lord Lieutenant would only be a ministerial officer, but he
would have no power whatever of directing where the revision
should take place, or where it should not ; and so also the
parties were to be called before the Revising Barristers not to
confirm the allegations which they had made, but to go into
other and new evidence of which the opposite side could
have no notice whatever, and therefore no means of re-
butting it. Upon the evidence so produced those Barristers
were to decide, and from their decision neither party would
have any right of appeal whatever.—( Hear, hear.) This was
his objection to the clause now under consideration ; but he
did not, as he stated at the outset, mean to divide the House
upon it, or do more than enter his protest against a provision
of the Bill for making new compositions, which he considered
was as altogether unnecessary as it was unjust.
Mr. Sergeant PERRIN was understood to say that no ap-
peal for revision was to be received which was not lodged
within six weeks from the passing of the Act ; and that in no
case would a revision be granted where an appeal had al-
ready been tried upon the merits. The average by which the
new compositions were to be regulated was to proceed upon
the average of the last seven years, according to which the old
compositions had been calculated.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought it would be better to leave out
the clause relating to revision altogether, as he considered it
neither more nor less than an idle mockery, introducing com-
plicated and useless machinery.—( Hear.) At all events the
time allowed for appeal was too short, and, instead of six
weeks, three months at least should be given. What the
people of Ireland complained of was that the average on which
the late compositions were based was not a fair one. That
average proceeded on the sums decreed to be paid for tithes;
but was it not well known that such decrees were, in nume-
rous instances, the result of connivance and collusion between
the parties? In many cases decrees were obtained for the
tithes of a particular farm in a parish, and although such evi..
dente was manifestly insufficient to show what had generally
been paid throughout the parish, yet it was from this single
decree that the average was taken, and the composition ar-
ranged. Unless this power of appeal were granted the Bill
would never suffice to tranquillize Ireland.
Mr. JACKSON was of opinion that guards should be had
to prevent vexatious attempts to re-open the compositions,
more especially as many of these compositions were made a
long time past, and the evidence upon which they were made
had been in many instances lost.
Lord CLEMENTS advocated the necessity of admitting
those appeals, as he was aware that there were many cases of
hardship which required re-opening.
Mr. PERRIN defended the amendment, as one calculated
to prevent any unnecessary or vexatious re-opening, at the
same time that it would grant revision where revision ought to
take place.
Mr. WYSE thought it better to leave the amendments open
and get them printed, so as that the House might render itself
better acquainted with their nature.
After a few words from Messrs. O'CoNNELL, D. CALLA-
GHAN, and SHAW, the 9th clause was postponed.
Clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13 were postponed.
Mr. SHAW suggested the postponement of the 14th clause.