Star.
London, England, 1824-03-10 00:00:00

IRISH' TITHES COMPOSITIOV.

. Mr. GOULBUIIN.rose to move for leave to 'bring in
a Bill to. amend the Tithe Composition Act in Ireland.
lie was encouraged to hope that the *alteration he bad
to sie:..4eit would give complete efficiency to that mea-
sure. He hoped the moniept wobld shortly arrive when
by attentively watching the working of this Bill in its
amended state, the ,Legislature might adopt, at last, .2
genera;ly operative' measure, which would give general
satisfa eon, and effect a complete acquiescence through-
out Ireland in the system of Irish Tithe's Composition.
These had been two Sorts of objections made to this Bill;
namely, objections to the whole of the Bill, and tothose
he dio net intend to:make any allusion, strengthened as
le had teen by the strong suppoit of that House in
their vete of last year;. and objections to its several en-
actments. He thought it would not be difficult to prove
that neither had any additional burtheqs been laid on
the Public, nor had there been any inclination shewn by.
the Bill to increase the incomes of the Clergy,
.o,r Any
carelessness of the interests of the lay impropriators.s
He proceeded ro state at length the progress the Bill bad
made. Alter its general circulation through all the
parishes of Ireland by the Irish Government, there had.,
been upwards of 1000 applications for special vestries
to carry the Bill into effect in so many parishes. Of
the results in these parishes 579 were known—namely,
that 240 had adopted the Bill, and 339 had adjourned
its further consideration to a future period. To prove
that the Bill had been considered by others besides the
Clergy to have studied their interests, he should only
state, that whereas the applications for select veitries
by the Clergy had been 507, those by lay persons and
land ov, tier s were 526. The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman went at length into an examination of the rates
per acre of Tate Composition agreed on in the diocese
of Cashel, the best cuttivated county in Ireland, from
which it appeared-the average per acre was only.2s.lid.
which in tact was no more than I s. 3d. per English
acre. In the diocese of C;onfert it was 1 Id. or 6d. per
11.nglish acre. These calculations would shew there was
untruth in the charge that the rates were calculated to
increase unfairly or enormously the incomes of the
Clergy. Indeed, many of those who had adjourned these'
vestries had since applied to hold fresh vestries in order to
adopt the system. The greatest opposition experienced
Was from the proprietors of grating land,who hadbitherto.
enjoyed an exemption from tithes, and who beef used all
their influence to defeat what they never stroul4 have de.
feated by argument. These no doubt 'would be soon
cured, through the it.edium Of those who possessed the
property iu land whenever the present leases should espire.
It was to be recollected, that the pill was brought in at
a tune when for t iv° years previOus little or no tithe had
been collected. The House, therefore, was obliged to
refer to a period when it was peculiarly difficult to as-
certain the income of the' clergy. There were many
parishes in which tithe had not risen with the rise of
produce. These were some of the difficulties that met
the Commissioners. However, of the 240 parishes in
.vi,hich agreements had been entered into with the
there was not one in which complaint was
Made that the rate hdd been higher than the landowner
'aught in justice to pay, or the Clergyman to receive:—
.1.11 some instances where tithe had increased, the high
average operated against the progress of the Bill. In
such cases it followed of course that Vestries were ad-
!mined. By the provisions of the former rill the in-
t.'nu: to be a si:;ned was in proportion to the rate of
corn oa an average of three years. lle meant to pro-
pose that. the average shoulii be taken on seven years,
:root itgl to 1821. Another object he had in view
to give no more than one vote to each of the Yes-
by the former regulations the number of votes
cir member of the Vestry had was in proportion to
amount of tithe paid. , It .was obvious that all
1.." lesion classes were thus excluded from giving effect

•
to their vote, and that they teho -paidlost tithe must
Irate an unfair preponderance. By the first Act' he
composition was to take effect from the sth November
.following the agreement. From the time at.which the
Act passed it was impossible this could take effect, riot.
,could it from the Ist of November next, considering the
time at which it was likely the measure now proposed
would be carried through the House. He meant there-
fore to propose, that every composition entered into
before the Ist of May should commence its operation
from the Ist of May. The only other change he meant
to propose was relative to the mode of collecting the
tithe in each parish.
Mr. GRATTAN said, it was now proposed to amend
an Act of the operation of which the House knew
-nothing, as no documents ha.cl• been laid before. the
House. He would venture to say, that out of the 250
parishes eitrded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the'
Bill was not in operation in a single one. He took
some trouble to bring the measure into operation, and
presided-at two Vestry Meetings; but there was hardly
one present who seemed to comprehend the nature of
the Bill. Were it not for a circular sept round by the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) it would have
been impossible to act upon the measure at all. In one
of-the instances alluded to, the Rector himself moved
all the Resolutions, and they were all negatived.
Mother, the Rector agreed to accept 4001. but made a
difficulty as to the modeof taking the averages on three
years. To remedy this difficulty, he said he woufd.give
a bond for Mil. agreeing at the same time to receive-no
more than 4001. He thought it highly objectionable
to take the average on seven years. It would be more
easy to judge of the probable average price of corn for
three years. -He also objected to the proposal of giving
every man only one vote, for in that way-the lon7er class
would prevail, and not they who occupied most 14nd.
Air. HUME said the Bill nosy proposed would rather,
increase the confusion. Nothing could remove existing
difficulties but the breaking up of the whole Church
establishment of Ireland. It was most unjust to call
upon thirteen out of fourteen of the population to sup
poi tan establishment to which they did not belong.=
This great cause:of irritation should be zemoved by
enabling land owners to buy up the tithe at once. It
would be better to delay this measure till the papers
moved for had been produced, They could not other-
wise know the effect of the Bill passed last Session. He
should for these reasons oppose the motion for bring.
ing in the Bill. •
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he saw no reason for op!
posing the motion. It was not intended that the Bill
should be brought into Committee until the necessary
information was before the House.. It would, therefore,
-be fighting against a.shadow tc answer the observations
of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume). if ever he heard
a speech in favour of a motion for amending a Bill it
was that of the Member for Wicklow (Mr. Grattan),
for the [lon. Member professed that he could not un-
derstand the. Bill as it now stood. He should, therefore,
rather have seconded the motion. There were, how-
' ever, two things to be considered, at a meeting; the
thing to be explained, and the Chairman who under-
took to explain it. . •
Mr. GRATTAN said, he looked attentiTely at: the
Bill. He did 'not mean to say that it was altogether
unintelligible to him, but he could not make it under-
stood by the 23 Vestrymen who attended. •
-Mr. Secretary PEEL proceeded. He thotight it must
be more objectionable to take the averages on three
than on seven years. It might be left optional with
the parties to make their agreement for 21 years if they
pleased. They were not now in a situation to judge of
the details. It would be better to postpone all discus-
sion to a future period.
After a few words from Mr. GRATTAN and Mr.
.111rste, leave.was given to bring in the Bill.
BEQUESTS TO ROMAN CATHOLICS FOR PIOUS PURPOSES.

Sir H. PARNELL said, he presented a petition last ,
Session from the four Roman Catholic Archbishops of
Ireland, praying that Ropsan
•Catholics might be en-
abled..ti hold and purchase lands for charitable and
pious purposes. It was then his intention to introduce
a Bill on the subject, but the Session was too far ad-
vanced. In consequence of a communication with his,
Rig hr Han: Friend (did Attorney-General for Ireland);
he nbw found that the petitioners acted under a misap-.
prehension of the state of the law as it related to Ca-•
tholic charities. In the course of the two last years a
Roman Catholic Lady had made several bequests for
pious purposes. The Commissioners of Charitable Be- ,
quests filed a Bill in Chancery to defeat the object, and
to have the property thus left applied ti' other purposes..
The question was argued before the Chancellor of Ire-.
land, and he decided that the bequests were legal in
every respect. The Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr.
Plunkett) was not concerned in-the cause, but he assured
him (Sir H. Parnell) that the law gave the same privi-
leges in this respect to the Catholics of Treland,"as were
enjoyed by the Protestant Dissenters. 'Under this assul
rause, he felt it unnecessary to press the subject further.
SUPPLY.
Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of Supply;
Thezesolution being put relative to the civil estabT
lishment•of the Ordnance, •
• Mr. H ME asked whether Commissariat Clerks were
to be considered on the same footing as those of the
Ordnance, after being transferred from the old to the
new establishment? •
sir E. HARDltsidg said they would retain all the
• • • . •
advantages that belonged to them in their former situa-
tion. The change woulc[nqt operate to their disadvantage.
-Mr.CALCRATT said thetlerkaithe Ordnance was
not adequately paid in proportion to the salary of under.
secretaries and other public officers. His time was fully
occupied, and he must be a Member of Parliament.
The salary, however, was no more than 1,0001. a year.
When he (Mr. Calciaft) filled the office the salary was
double, and he di'd nos think himself overpaid. -
• d
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he was not prepared. to give's
an opinion on the.subject ; but enough had been said
by thenOnordable Gentleman to satisfy Government'
thatirwas %iell.l.vpitlty-of consideration. • ,
Mr. HUME•said; tbatif any addition should be made,"
he hoped it would be taken from the salaries of those,
who had not so much to do.—Resolution agreed to.
The Resolution being put relative to the Military
'Academy at Woolwich.
Sir H. HARDINGE, in answer to an _observation
from Mr. Mime, said that a reducsion of 1,5001.. had
been Made in Masters and Professors since last year.
There were no more than sixty.-three Cadets under a
course of,iilstruCtion, iiumber was less the Aca-
demy could not go on at all.
After few words from Mr. D. Gaunt and Sir H.
HA Am.yoz,sthe Resolution was agreed
On rite Resolution for a vote Of 114,4311. for the itrrice of the
Ordnance in the Barrack Department in Great Britain— • :
Mr. HOBHOUSE objected to it. It was true that

• ,
the Patriots of-former days wished to have barracks;'
but then we had no standing artily, and the soldiery
were paid out Of the King's pocket., It war a perfectly
novel and unconstitutional mode of lodging the soldiers
of this day. It WAS perfectly possible for every free
country to make too great a distinction between a soi-
l:het and a citizen. He would not deny that a soldier
trained in barracks • might turn out a finer animal for
parade ; he might becoMe a more perfect' machine—a
more finished hutomaton ; he would alto admit that it
was desirable to have the soldier as complete as pos-
sible in his military exercises; but it could not on the
other hand be denied, that in former times, before a
single barrack existed in..thetrhintry, we had turned out
soldiers capable of upholding the honour of tie, country
in the field against the best trained and best da-ciplined
ar miss of the Continent, and that the soldiers of those
times had achieved victories that would bear a compa-
rison with any of those which had been gained in later
days. The Honourable Member concluded by moving
as an Amendment, a Resolution—
" That it appeared to the risme that since the condtHion of the
,war in 1815, more than two millions had been expended in the
maintenance of barracks in the United Kingdom; in addition to
which a vote was proposed of £114,531 for the same purpose for
the present year, which it appeared was to be applied in part to the
erection of a permanent herceck, in the King's Mews, for one of the
Regiments of Foot Guards; that the [louse could not but view
with great suspicion the establishment of a system so utterly at va-
riance with the recorded opinions of eminent and enlightened men
of former times, and among others of Jr. Justice Blackstone, who
declared the condition of a permanent standing soldier, and the
erection of barracks, camps, and inland fortresses, for the separation
of the soldiery-from the citizens, to be repugnant to the principles of
the Constitution of the country; and therefore that the House could
not vote a larger sum than £90,000 for the barrack department,
and-was of o-si, niou that no permanent barracks ought to be erected
within the MetThpolis."

Sir 11. 11A111)1NGE said, it must be in the recollec-
tion of many Members, that at an early period of the
late war the table of the House was covered with Peti-
tions praying for relief from the hardship of having
troops quartered or billeted upon the people, and for
the increase of barracks for the lo,dging of the troops.
When the preparations of the enemy called for cone.
sponding efforts on our part,which rendered it necessary
to collect large bodies of troops on various points of
our coast, it was found impossible.to keep them under
cover throughout the winter, and equally so to lodge
them in the public-hou.es on the coast—it was impos-
sible, therefore, during the war; to have avoided the
erection of barracks. Since the peAce, he had already
stated) that a very large portion of the barracks so
erected had been put down ; those which remained were,
for the most patt, situated in places where large bodies
of troops must necessarily be collected for the conve-
nience of disposing of them as circumstances might re-
'quire, and were not more than adequate to the accom-
modation of ti'e disposable force of the country—the
whole of the barracks in the Kingdom not exceeding
the accommodation- required for 30,000 men. With
respect to the permanent barracks in the King's-mews,
for one of the Regiments of Guards, he did not know
that their erection had yet been determined on, and wail
at a loss, therefore, to imagine how it could appear to
the Honourable Member or the }louse that a part of
the present vote was to he so applied. Before the Re-
volutionary war of 1792, when, with the exception ofl
the Tower, there were no barracks for the use of the
Guardsebut the whole, of the three regiments were dis-
persed in quarters about the town ; the consequence -of
such a modsi of quarteringxhetn was, that the Guards
were in ~the most deplorable state as to discipline,
and in 1790, at least one of every' fourteen men. con-
victed at the Old Bailey belonged to the Guards
(Hear, hear)—whereas at present. it. was the fact, that
out of the whole three Regiments, not one man had
been convicted there for a considerable time
.past—so
great was the improvement effected by the more effi-
cient controul which the barrack system gave to the
Officers over the men.

Mr. HUME said, the only object of keeping up such
establishments, and of maintaining rf.o large a standing
army as we had at. present, was to convert the Govern-
ment of this country into a military despotism—(Hear,
hear)..-41e said it was so—(Laughter)—for the idea of
keeping 73,000 men under arms in a civil government,
in a time of profound peace, with any other view, was-a
great absurdity.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said, he learned the fact of the
refection of permanent barracks in the King's Mews
having been determined on' .by.putting the question to
tl)e Secretary at War from his place, when he received
an answer across the House in the affirmative.
Sir U. BURGH said, that since the transfer of the
Barrack Department to -the Board of Ordnance 4'1822,
the greatest exertions had been used to lessen the esta-
blishment, and to reduce the expenditure; and a consi-
derable number of barracks had been put down, both in
Great Britain and in Ireland.
The Amendment was Orn put and negatived without
a -division, and the original resolution was agreed to.
The Recovery of Penalties Bill went through a Committee, and
was ordered to be reported this day se'nnight.
ILL-TREATMENT OS4 CATTLE RILL.

Mr. R. MARTIN moved that the House do resolve
itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. HUM E saw no reason why the Honourable'Mem-
ber for Galway should be the exclusive protector of
cattle. He (Mr. Hume) had hitherto taken , no part
against the Honourable Menthes measures except that
of voting against them —(A now, however,
felt it necessary to say a few words on The subject. By-
the Bill which the Honourable Member had introduced
this Session, it was made an offence to overload a horse.
How was it possible roascertain what load was suited to
a horse's strength ? He had seen a little pony that could
carry his Noble Friend near him (Lord Nugent) with
the greatest ease—(A laugh).—lt would not surprise
him, however, to find many a large horse that. would
Add it difficult to do the same thjng—(Larighter).—
He was willing to admit that the Honourable Member
'for Galway would have done good if he had allowed
his Bill of last Session to remain unaltered. lie would
itatewhy he doubted the humanity of the Honourable
'Member. On a former evening he (Mr. Hanle) made a
Motion,to prevent the torturing of imen—he meant by
flogging. He expected, as a matter of course, that the
Honourable Member for Galway would give him his
vote; but, to his great surprise, he found that that Gen-
tlemani.who was so anxious to protect oxen, and who
sympathised so much with the sufferings of dogs and
cats, did, without the slightest remorse, consign, as far
as his vote went, 73,000 Englishmen to the torture of the
lash—(Heat). The Honourable MeUrber concluded by
moving that the House should resolve itself into a Corn-
mitteepn the Bill on that day 'six months.
• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to second the
;Amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for
Aberdeen. The present Bill appeared to him to be vex-
atious' and every- way unnecessary. The definition of the
offence in the Bill which 'the Hon. MeMber kir Galway
,had introduced last• year, was the wilful ill treatment

uf horses and cattle. He nndarstood, howevet, tbat the
object of the present Bill was to render the ill-treatment
Of those animals, arising from inadvertence lad negli-
gence, a misdemeanour. There was one clawe of tl:e
Bill which, in charity to the framer of the Bid himself,
he hoped would be withdrawn. He alluded to that
clause which authorized any individual to apprehend a
person in the act of ill-treating cattle. He knew, from
the teal which the-Hum. Member had heretofore
dis-
played in the cause of humanity, that not a week would
'elapse befot,e he would he forced into some desper.ite
'conflict in attempting to en'orce the law—(A laugh.) He
remembered that the Hon.. Member had been extremely
anxious to inttoduce the word " bull' into the Bill of
last year. After a long discUssion, however, the bull
was ejected by a large majority—(Laughter.) The Hon.
Membgr, however, coati ived to itrroduce the words
"or other cattle," and he had been endeavouring,
during the last year, to pershade the Magistrates that
the bull was included in that de-,ctiption. lie sup-
posed it Was for the same object that the lion. Member
had introduced the words "or other castle" into the
present Bill. He- (the Attorney-General) objected to
having the bull introduced thus covertly. The lion.
Member should take the bull by the horns, and bring it
in openly—(Lareghter.)
Mr. W. SMirli was convinced that the7Bill of his Honourable
Friend, ridiculed as it had been,had already conferred great benefit
upon the torn wonky. He conceived the object of the present Bill
to be goncl,a aid was therefore disposed to go into a Committee upon it.
!Ur. It. Al A lIT I N replied to the arguments of the speakers in
opposition to his Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the amendment.
' 1)r. LUS II IN GTo N had not beard any sufficient argument
urged to prevent the Bill from going into the Committee; and there
receiving such amendments as might seem expedient.
Mr. C. W YNN opposed the Measure for the same masons
' which had led him to oppose flue existing Act of the Honourable
' Member for Galway.
Mt. BUXTON supported the motion. Tie had asked a friend
what tlYvct the Bill of last year had produced, and the answer was,
that it had put amend to half the cruelty which formerly prevailed
In the country.

Mr. W A RIM said it bad been Stated by a Right Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. \Vynn) that the cases which measures of this kind
brought before Magistrates were in general of so doubtful a cha-
racter, so nicely balanced; that it was a, chance whether conviction
would or would not take place. lie denied this to be the fact.
An overwhelming majority of the cases recently prosecuted were
of so atrocious a character, that conviction had regularly followed
accusation. He should support the motion for the Bill going into
a Committee.
Alderman BRIDGES also supported the motion. He shortly
pointed out the evil effects which an habitual practice of tormenting
animals, or seeing them tormented, must produce on the mind, and
illustrated his proposition by an allusion to liogarth, whose Hero,
in The. Progress of Cruellq, commences with tying a canister to a
dog's tail, and ends by committing murder.
Mr. GOU I.BU RN opposed the motion. The Bill of last Session
had, it appeared, effected much good : but because it did not effect
all that the 'Honourable Member contemplated, he now came for-
ward, and called um the House to tolerate a most disproportioned
punishment, by making the offence a misdemeanour, at the discre-
tion of the Magistrate.
. Mr. G. BAN LIES expressed himself in favour of the Bill. -
Mr. HUSICISSON spoke against the Motion. The House Was
now required to increase the punishment for this offence, although
the Honourable Member for Galway had shewn that this was not
necessary. The Honourable Member himself had stated to the
House, that, generally, when he obtained a conviction, he paid the
penalty himself, the persons accused being mostly too poor to pay it.
This surely proved that the present Bill was sufficiently severe.
Mr. COURTENA Y said, the statement that a penalty of 51.
would not prevent bull-baiting, because persons addicted to that
practice could easily raise so small a.sunt, was quite fallacious. The
penalty of N. applied to every person actively engaged in bull-baiting.
The call of" Question" now became general, and the gallery was
cleared for a division. While strangers were excluded, the House
was counted, and there not being forty 'Members present, an adjourns
meat took place at a Quarter before Twelve o'Clock. •