The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-05-18 00:00:00

SAVINGS' BANKS.

11 r. llumKgave notice in:ii;nlr;'i-ii of May he should sub-
mit a motion lathe house on the subject of savings'. banks.
Mr. E- TENN ENT gave notice that on an early day he should
call the attention of the house to the necessity of a direct mail
con,veyanet: between Dublin and Belfast.

Several road hills were read a third time and passed.
The notices of motion which stood for this evening Were post-
pouo until future days.
A slictrt discussion ensued as to the new mode of lighting the
house. No decision was come to..
A WOUR SF.I) DERATE:-APIROPItT tTION Cf.AUSF.

The order of the. day for resuming the adjourned debate upon
the Irish tithes bill having been read,
- .Mr. LITTON said he woniii, as briefly_ as he could, state the
opioiona .which induced. him to vote..agaitist the details and
against the principle of the resolutions, irs.l to support the me-
... lion of the hou. baronet, the mennte, for North-Devon. It was
a great .satisfaction to hins to know that his opinions coincided
with those of the great mace of the protestant population of Ire-
land ; and that there were few oldie mesubers of the established
:church in that country whoilid nut perceive -the injury which
&bores ncrglicar-biansulted on a question of this alciiid,-arlifiliey
were all unanimous in opposition .to the measure. There eras
- toerefore.no ground far the assertion which was so boldly made
..on-the other side, that the bill was a boon to the clergy. They,
on the contrary, considered it a measure striking at tee roots of
private property, and tending to the ruin of the church. The
noble lord opposite had very truly stated, that this measure
should be looked upon with a view to its, effects upon the peace
of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) But he thought that the more fair
course hir the-noble lord would be, to give the opponents of the
-measure, on-his (the opposition) side of the house, the oppor-
tunity of explaining fully the principles which would induce
them to vote for.the motion of the !son, baronet, and against the
resolutions. If the discussion were fairly, fully, and plainly
taken, the resolutions of 18.35 must be removed from the books,.
because they forced on the house in advance the principle of
appropriation, which every one sitting upon that side of the
house most strenuously opposed. He thought it important that
the house, and especially the English members on both sides of
the house, should know the exact state in which the property of
the church of Ireland was at present placed, what were its gene-,
rat receipts, what was the state of the payments of the tithes of
that country owing to the working of the various acts of podia-
nient which had been introduced, that they might appreciate
the suggestion that in offering what was called a boon, by the
present resolution, anything of service was done to the clergy,
or anything effected, save a spoliation of their incomes. By
the operation of Lord Stanley's Act, which was passed in 1832,
two modes were snggested, by which the payment of tithe
was taken from the occupier. (dear, bear, hear.) The first
was by the landlords who had- the power to undertake the pay-
ment of tithes, to enter into a contract which made them liable
to the clergyman for the entire tithes of their estates, giving
them fur the trouble of collection and the risk of loss, a bonus of
15 per cent. In the province of Ulster six-sevenths at least of
the tithes of that province were paid by the undertaking land-
lords. The clergy in that province had not to encounter the
hostility of the tenants, for they were dealing with those who
throughout all Ireland were paying the tithes—he meant the
landlords. The clergy of Ulster were thus paid five-sixths, or
six sevenths, of their income, without the slightest difficulty or
loss. They had just as lunch title, as easily enforced, and as
successfully acted upon, ;IS any landlord had to his rent. There-
fore, itS to that course, he would ask what bonus was given to
there hy deducting at once an additional 15 per cent., without
the slightest necessity for it, or the slightest return being made
for it.. They did not come into collision with the occupier; they
had a fixed.sertled title—settled by law, for which both remedies
atla w and in equity had been gives; them ; and he would venture
,r, say, that.there was no instance in the province of Ulster, in
,„whjehabe landlord had forced the clergy to sue bins at law for
,that which was not tithes, but rent charges ; with respect to the
.a her. clauses, tae ether provisions of Lord Stanley's act, in every
case of'a tenancy limn year to year, subsequent to August, 1833
iu every case of a !ease made since that period, the landlord was,
by that very act, of havitlg his land discharged, charged with the
tithe without deduction. Every lease made since 1832, and
every existing tenant from year to year, is not liable to the pay-
ment of tithes, but. the landlord is liable for it. Now, his object
was. to show: that in the southern and western parts or Ireland
lso.S-scost disaffected towards the payment of tithes were now
wilting to pay them. He won I also say with respect to the
occupiers, that the great proportion of them paid their tithes.
':-.:OW he would undertake to say, that when the returns which
he should move for were laid upon the table, it would be shown,
upon an average, thot the clergy received 50 per cent. of
*their tithes without deduction. Was it tiny b,on to take
anything from fifty per cent., which was really paid ?.
Do they • produce peace, and any absence. of litigation ?
Do they produce regularity of collection with respect to this
• fifty per cent.? Regularity and punctuality they already had
without litigation, and with the assistance of his lay brethren of
the protestant faith, who were in fact the real payers of the
tithe, the landlord was the real payer of the tithe both in
England and in Ireland ; the clergyman was in peaceable re-
ceipt of 50 per cent. The fifty per cent. paid without the
trouble of collection, and without its being the source of- Istiga-
tiers, was it a boon to give hint at a loss of thirty per cent.?
The fifty per cent. was now secured to him—as secure to him as
the well-paid rents of any gentleman in the house. It was upon
these grounds that he impugned the first resolution—it was an
uncalled-for reduction of the incomeof a clergyman, upon which
lie depended, and might reduce him to beggary and ruin. So
• fir he had endeavoured to-show the house that by this first re-
solution they were acting most unjustly. it .was very well to
talk of taking off fifteen per cent; from the incomes of the
clergy, but would by and by reach one hundred per cent.,
.(haar, hear;) and that merely for the sake of satisfying a cer-
tain party, and if the clergy refused they would then be called
a grasping and grinding set, who preferred money to the safety
of the realm. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) With respect to
•the incomes of the successors of the present clergy, he begged
the attention of the house while he stated his total dissent from
the version of the noble lord who closed the debate last night
open the effect of these resolutions. Notwithstanding the
2,toyernment. had avoided any very distinct enunciation of an in-
tention to appropriate to secular purposes any income of the
present clergy, he must be allowed to say that he would demon-
strate that with respect to their successors, those resolutions, if
passed, lound ahe house and the country to appropriate for
every year four-fifths of ttie income of the church. (Hear,
hear.) The .house would please to observe that, by the second
of these resolutions, so touch of the rent charge as was now paid
in lieu of tithes should be purchaseahle by the government, at
sixteen years' purchase, at the rate of seventy per cent. The
clergy were no longer to receive tidies, or the existing rent-
. c!harge ; but, instead of eitLer, ' they - were to receive an an_
nu: v from the consnliduted fund, which, he .contended, would
not, accoirfine to those resolutions, produce more than 31- per
cent. (H-ear. bear;) The noble lore}. opposite (Lord John
Russell) cried " !low:, hear," hut he (Mr. Litton) would assert
lik*Averitlic.f6:ro inc u ioe of the clergy was considered, the
P!''cr-' ritie irii-rrr'L.,',l .-cl;ri.!)s, of the rent-charge would he to
viiliikW_V ii iirt,,,1.,.:(i, 4,-,4-,.!,i:i. cont.. but to 56 oer cent. (Hear,
\
all. he ar.r.: l•fi:, ~,s, , „ .
le to say the sixteen 'tears'
les relYa4: - ‘4,,,,i-v,.,, • -- • - _ that , • • teats'
A ~,,..,.,,yt,, 1, in,,,t,d, 1,,,t in the funds but in
v.,,,,„, „,,-,-:,,,..,_ ?, tMe. Russell.—" No. •no, not- in land.")
"'"!' ri„IP.PeSe ir• were in late!, which would give the
fjl'e"''r I"l'al'llitY '(',.f.'zr fixed iticerne in many parts of Ireland,
the purcLuse-hioney of land Would net yield more than 31 per

cent., and in those places where land was cheapest land was
worth frotn thirty to thirty-three years' purchase, and in some
instances he knew it to be woith forty years' purchase. All the
difference, therefore, would go into the pockets of the state for
secular purposes, such as county charges, Ste. It was for this
reason that the learned member for Dublin was principally
pleased with the resolutions. Why did not the government dissi-
pate the doubt which now enveloped the question, by leaving the
discussion on these resolutions open to fair and free debate?
What right had the government to chain hon. members to the
principle of appropriation, established in the resolution of 1835?
Every hon. member was entitled to come free and unshackled to
the consideration of the subject, without being tied down to the
principle of appropriation, to which so large a portion of the
house strenuously objected. He should be wrong in entering
at large into the question of whether there would or would not be
a surplus. It was perfectly welt known that there was a large
body in this house, as well as of those attached to the church of
England out of doors, that would never yield to the question of
appropriation. It was perfectly well known that the tithe ques-
tion could not he settlett'while they huug upon it the resolutions
of 18'15 as a necessary ingredient. He therefore arraigned them
as the patties who were seeking to prevent this question from
being settled—who themselves preserved in. the country the
apple of discord, by reason of refusing to withdraw the resolu-
tions which kept up the discord. (Hear.) Let them introduce
any resolution or bill, which should coin:fain the assertion of such
principles as they though fit. Let them be discussed then—but
let them nut be said, as free agents, to enter into the discussion
of any bill whilst they were clogged with these objectionable
resolutions.
Mr. LASCELLES followed, on the same side. Mr. Redington
delivered a wild and unmeaning. harrangue, in favour of the
appropriation clause, or rather of voluntary principle. Mr.
Townley expressed his determination to support government.
Mr. Young spoke in favour of Sir Thomas Acland's motion.
Mr. lieuett renewed his oath of allegiance to the whirs—but
but protessed himself unable to understand Lord John Russell's
resolutions.

Lord SaNnoN did not rise for the purpose, in any degree of
impugning the motives of the hon. gentleman who had just sat
down, and he fully and entirely believed that the opinion at
which he had arrived was as honest and as conscientious as it
was possible for any man to exercise. He rose for the purpose
of vindicating himself and his hou. friend, the member for North
Devon, who sat beside him, from the charge of bringing for-
ward this motion merely. as a trial of party strength, involving
no practical consequences. If he really felt that the resolution
which it was now sought to rescind was as obsolete and effete as
the hon.' gentleman opposite considered it, or as effete as the
act of Richard IL., which was quoted by another bun. gentle-
man last night, he should certainly never have thought ht to
interpose an obstacle to the noble ioid's resolutions the motion
of his hon. friend, " But,". continued time noble lord, " this
question obsolete ! obsolete! why, the resolutions are only three
years old altogether. ( Loud cheers.) These were the constant
boast of the gentlemen who brought them forward, and this is
the first rear in which the principle which they embody is not
avowed. At is said that the proceeding did not take ,lace in .
the same parliament; the objection is purely technical—Ccheers)
—the party which brought forward the appropriation clause is
the same, and there is the same ministry, and the motion to re-
scind it is opposed by gentienteit who have re-asserted their
abomination almost of the Church of Ireland as an institution.
(Cheers from time opposition.) It is surprising, then, that we
should view with jealousy the continuance of these resolutions
on the journals? Obsolete, sir! Idle! Why, we find the hon.
gentleman opposite looking into the resolutions now proposed
by the noble lord, and exerting all the energies-of his practised
mind in trying to ascertain, if he could, whether the principle of
appropriation was involved in them or not; and are we to be
taunted—are the clergy of Ireland to be aspersed, because they
thought that they saw the principle of appropriation contained in
them ? (Hear.) I believe that that principle is not here in sub-
stance, but in shadow. What, I ask, was the object with which
the sixth of these resolutions was preserved? I believe it was
to delude the people of Ireland,. and to enable their friends
and leaders to tell them that the principle of appropriation
was still preserved, although it was not distinctly marked out
in the government measure. What other object can you point
out in your sixth resolution ? It says, " That it is the opinion
of this committee, that the rent-charges for ecclesiastical tithe
should be appropriated by law to certain local charges now
defrayei out of the consolidated fund and to education, the
surplus to firm part of the consolidated fund." I see by
this resolution that you have still a lingering desire to per-
suade the people of Ireland that there wits be a surplus, and
that it shall be devoted to other than ecclesiastical purposes.
[low else is it that you came to talk of a surplus, and of local
charges, unless you wish to make it appear that like the prin-
ciple of appropriation is retained, though the substance is gone,
and it is' toonii, after a curious examination, not to be in ex-
istence! (Continued cheering.) The hon. gentleman. who
entered upon that examination asserts the principle of appro-
"priation to be obsolete. but I suspect that there are many mem-
bers on his side of the house who would not find it quite conve-
nient to avow to their constituents in Ireland that the pY:iiciple
of appropriation is out of date. We are met by the taunt that
this motion is idly, and that, as the hou. gentleman said, we are
raising cock robin for the purpose of killing him again. (a
laugh.) But, sir, it is no light or trifling matter to shake a
great part of the property of Ireland toils foundations. (Cheers.)
It is no light matter for the ministers of the crown to have en-
gaged the House of Commons to assert that the surplus of the
property of the church should he devoted to objects not con-
nected wit h. ecclesiastical institutions, and that no settlement of
the tithe question can..be considered final or satisfactory which
does not embody that principle. It is no light matter for mi-
nisters to have told an excited population this; and in my
opinion the only way .of restoring the value of the property
placed in such imminent hazard, is by having these appropria-
tion resolutions rescinded and disavowed." (Heat, and loud
cheers.) The noble lord proceeded to observe, that those who
represented the church were now called upon to make a great
sacrifice, to make a trial of the state as a paymaster, and to
sever their interests from the land with which the clergy had
hitherto been connected. They were also called upon to enter
into a proposition for extending municipal corporations to Ire-
land, which many conceived would seriously endanger the in-
terests of the Irish church, and ought they not to see that the
church was placed in a position of safety, and secured front fur-
ther assaults? As a means of giving security to the church es-
. tablisimment of Ireland, it was their (the oppositien's) desire to
erase from the statute- hook that 14.1 my ika
grime/nen on toe other side, as fettering future
legislation, anti- interposinr, insuperable onStactes to the final
settlement of this question. (Hear, hear.) Did they not now
feel the force of that practical inconvenience; which was at the
present moment,Mne of its worst visible consequences—that not
only in argument, but in tact, the most serious obstacles int.-
Tiede(' the definitive arrangement of this great question ? It had
not been his (Lord Sandon's) intention to enter into this ques-
t tion at large; but he had been stimulated by the remarks of his
hon. friend who last addressed'the house into an effort tore-
. establish himself, and those with whom he acted, in-this matter,
in the good opinion of the•house; and to prove not only that
this was not a mere party question, but that the resolution which
it was their object to induce the house to rescind was neither an
idle nor an obsolete resolution ; that it wag nut at this moment
without its practical effect; and that, if they abstained from
reacindins.,, it, it it-as in vain for them to expect that security for
the Irish church establishment without which it was impossible
for them to proceed to the consideration of introducing any
change into the system of municipal government in Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) Entertaining these views, he had no difficulty
in supporting the motion of his hon. friend.

Mr. Waal) rehearsed those principles in regard to church
property, which have long been associated with his name. He
declared that church property possessed none of the attributes
of property —that the Roman Catholic ought to be the established
religion of Ireland; and, (borrowing the phrase from Mr. Car-
Ivies History 011ie French Revolution) he styled the established
church of Ireland "a political lie."
Lord TEIGNMOUTH grappled with Mr. Ward's statements;
and showed, that viewed even on temporal grounds, the esta-
blished church of Ireland had been a blessing to that country.
Mr. BRI.I.EW followed Lord Teignmouth in a speech, to which
the house, (valuing it at its real worth) paid not the slightest'at-
tention.

Mr. Snit w, after entering into an investigation of the princi-
ples of the Irish tithe-composition scheme, called the attention
of the house to the extraordinary position of the Queen's govern-
ment, in regard to the established church of Ireland. That
church had been designated by the Irish Secretary, "a badge
of conquest- over the Irish people!" Now, Mr. Shaw begged
to ask, whe!her, in that functionary, such language was not
highly unbecoming ?
Mr. O'Corearera., in the usual strain. - The able summary in
the Timer says of the speech of this learned gentleman, " We
had the misgovernment of seven centuries: the Scotch, on the
mountain side, compelling,, with their broad swords, the esta-
blishment of the-religion of the majority; the Irish corporation
hill; and the general topics of justice to Ireland. The Mer-
chants' Hall had convinced him that so far as professions of re-
form went, whigs and tittles were both acting the same part,
nnl it. Rhould not he forgotten that some of the tories who were
then sitting opposite hint had been at least in profession whigs.
( Ministerial cheers The difference between the two parties
was, that the tories professed reform to a certain point. Up to
that point the whigs wen prepared to grant reform, but the to-
ries were not. (Oh, oh.) The question to be decided that night
was, "shall Ite!and be governed by a faction for Its own interests
and against the•interests of its people?" (Derision hum the
Opposition benches.) "I thank you," said Mr. O'Connell, "for
that shriek ; (the sAme noise from the same quarter continued)
—manya shout et insolent domination—(continued uproar)
deepicable and-contemptible as it is,—(uproar continued) have
I heard against my country. (Uproar continued, during which
Mr. O'Connell, with uplifted fist and great violence of manner,
uttered several sentences which were inaudible in the gallery.)
The SPEAKER was at last obliged to interfere and call the
house to order.
continued.—Let them shout. It is a sense-
less yell. (Confusion worse confounded.) It is the spirit ot the
party that has placed you there. (Uproat.) Ireland will hear
your shrieks. (Continued uproar.) Yes; 'you may want us
again. (Roars of laughter.) What would Waterloo have been
if we had not been there? (Ministerial cheers, and opposition
laughter.) I ask not that question for Your renowned com-
mander•in-chief, who is himself an Irishman, but for the hardy
soldiery of Ireland who fought the battle for him. ("Question."
and laughter from the opposition.) I say again, that is the
question. (Hear.) The question is, shall the people of Ireland
be amalgamated with the people of England ?' Refuse to receive
us into that amalgamation, and abide the consequences. (Criss
of "hear, hear," from the opposition benches.) Sneer at me
as you like—(laughter from the same quarter)—but recollect
that I speak the voice of millions— (tetiewed laughter)—who
will hear again nf the base insult offered to me this even-
ing. ( Loud cheers from the itesh members, accompanied by
tin observation from Mr. Grattan, which was not neard
the gallery, but which created a titter from the opposition.)
Why should not the son of Grattan say—(hear the 'cheers and
lam /liter drowned the remainder of the sentence.) -The English
people, too, are auditors of your taunt. You tell us yon can
'command a majority. I say to von, in reply, carry your bribery
a little farther, and yen will really have a majority. (Question,
question.) More extensive bribery than you practised at the
last election never yet e as practised in this world, and the high-
est amongst you shrink from its investigation. (Loud cries of
"Question.") Ho the hon. gentlemen opposite wish to know
what the question is? It is how shall Ireland be governed, for
it is impossible to think that such a paltry motion as that which
the honobrable member thr Devon proposed and the hon. mem-
ber fur Warwickshire seconded is the rear question. That, I
admit, is nominally the qnestion. Is it so really? The resolu-
tion }on want .to rescind is this, and recollect that it is not only
the people of England and Ireland, but the people of the whole
civilized would that are attending to the question which, you have
this 'e vetting, raised. From the camp of Don Carlos to the throne
of Nicholas, the whole world is listening to your debates and
will overwhelm You with contempt when. they hear the mighty
reasons which are urged to prevent you from consolidalieg two
great nations intn one, and from .forming them into one united
empire. As to the good intentions ot Sir T. Adam, he totally
denied them. At all events, there was a proverb alluding to a
very hot place; said to he payed with geed intentions. Sir E.
Wilmot's emits, pleased hint no bettei. " Heaven preserve
us," piously ejaculated the learned member, "from these Eng-
lish baronets!" The property of flue church, added he, was
given originally for masses
,and other 'ore which you call supe,r-
siitious. The doctrine yen thought hod, but the mercy good.
Your protestant gentry have great compassion for West Indian
slaves—none for their Irish countrymen. I wish they were ne-
nrues, then they would have au advocate. To rescind the ap-

r':~C-o~dle'rrh: ~~r,:~•6~~_:: ~~* :caarra

THE LI \TARP(

propriation clause would be All it to them. • You off'r them
a capitulation; but • you prescrthe it as a conditmoif that they
shall walk under a yoke —a con:lition which is not to oe accepted.
or endured. In the course of his
speech the learned member
more than once repeated that the question to he settled was how
Ireland should he governed. To us it appeared that the ques-
tiou was not how she should be governed, but whether she was
not to he exempted from the irksome restraint of being goverued
at all."
Sir R. PEEL desired no ampler justification than the speech
of Mr. O'Connell. If to rescind these resolutions explicitly be
an earnest of severity towards Ireland, what must be interred
front the tacit abandonment of them, as proposed by ministers !-
If the appropriation of church property to secular purposes be
necessary to any final arrangement whatever, how could Mr.
O'Connell sanction an arrangement not involving it? Or (lid
Mr. O'Connell consider it involved in these resolutions? Was
the house, on this, point, to credit him or the ministers? Ihe
learned member in his pleading for peace never forgot to talk of
the Scotch way of working out a religious establishment with
the broadsword. Oh ! but no such extremity was proposed for
Irelaind, because the Irish cathodes repudiated the notion of
touching the property. And yet, since these resolutions were
published, the learned member had addressed the Irish recom-
mending that catholic pi les! s he endowed with the Protestant's
glebe—not with the tithe; tithe might he a precarious provi-
sion, but laud was a stable one. Sir Robert then reviewed the
history of the appropriation resolutions. On coining into office
at the end of 18.34, he had taken up the tithe bill of his prede-
cessors. Lie bad been encountered by these resolutions, and had
warned his opponents that their triumph would be short; that is,
as to the principle affirmed, not as to the tenure of office—for it
was very possible to hold office with little triumph. ( his just
apothegm was received with great applause.) On these reso-
lutions he had quitted the government in 1835. In the saute
year, on the-bill of these ministeis, Lord Stanley had proposed
a separation of the tithe enactments from. the appropriation
clauses, and the answer of the chancellor of the exchequer then
was, that it would have been better candidly to propose the re-
scinding of the resolutions-74he very course now pursued. In
1836 another tithe bill. passed the riouse of Com Mons, and was
sent back front the lords amended, by the omission of the appro-
priation clauses; but ministers refused to consider the amend-
ments at all with that omission. To omit the clauses, they ar-
gued, would' be to recant the principle. As to -1837, ministers
now said that the declarations of the conservatives in that year
had deceived them. Ile denied it in terms as peremptory as
would consist with courtesy and' parliamentary usage. When
Lord John intimated that ministers,would not be restrained by
false pride from doing; what they thought best, be (Sir Robert)
had said, that he would not taunt them for having turned him
out upon this . peint if they would consent to abandon a clause
weich caused so much of bitterness in Ireland; the more, be-
cause it was neither executed nor repealed. He must say now,
as he always had said, that he would not consent,to a settlement
on the basis of appropriation ; and he had never led ministers to
think otherwise. In this very session. when Lord John inquired
what course would be taken by the conservatives on the Irish
• corporation bill, he (Sir Robert) hail again referred to the ap-
propriation resolutions, and had declared he was willing to settle
the other Irish questions, but must insist un security for the
church. Ile had heard with deep regret the bitter tone of Lord
John, especially the sneer at the cler.„gy'. After all their sutrering,i,
and privations, it was too much for a minister to say, tnat because
the sum which they expressed their readinesS to forego for the
peace of Ireland was only 15 per cent instead of 30, therefore 15
per cent was the precise and outside value,which. they- put upou
their country's peace. It wont(' have beets difficult, no doubt, fur
ministers to agree to a solemn vote of- abrogation, which must
materially lower thew; but they might at least hare said they
would practically abandon the appropriation, and (10 their best to
make the settlement final. Very opposite to this had been the
tone of Lord John Russell's speech and the forum of the resolu-
tions indeed, even after the speech, the house hail been left as
completely in the dark as ever. It was not till the close of
. Monday evening that the house could collect whether appro.
priation were included in them or not. Was it not fit that when
this principle had been used as an instrument for heaving a
government from its base, the house should at least understand
whether this principle was now intended to be applied. A
letter had been pubtished by Mr. O'Connell, intimating, that
the arrangement now proposed involved the principle of appro-
priation, but that this arrangement was not likely to be a final
one. After protesting against- the purchase of a short respite
for the church by the sacrifice of £50,000 or £60,000 of her re-
venue, which would only let in a principle for absorbing in like
manner ail the rest of her income, Sir R. Peel observed, that
the church now rests upon firm grounds—on the act of Union,
which was au express guarantee to her, and the catholic relief
bill, which was "au implied one. On these grounds he would de-
fend her. Ile was willing to grant funds fur the education of
the catholics, but not at the exclusive expense of the protestant
church. They would desert their duty of protestant legislators,
as legislators, whatever their religious creed might be, if they
consented to adopt any principle by which the protestant esta-
blishment in Ireland would be weakened, whether by immedi-
ate, aggregate. or any other means which would ultimately lead
the way to its inevitable destruction. He, therefore, cordially
supported the proposition of his hon. friend, (Sir 'l'. Acland,)
and continued his adherence to that principle, to the mainten-
ance of which he had sacrificed the possession of otfice and to
which he again said, he adhered with equal fidelity. (I'he hon.
baronet sat down amidst loud cheering.)
Mr. Rica denied that the resolutions in 1835 had been got up
to turn out Sir Robert Peel. But he would not rescind them,
because that would involve the degradation of ministers, and
would be in opposition to his own opinions. In an angry strain
he charged the conservatives with having lost their tempers, and
deprived him of the hope, which he hail entertained some little
time before, of bringing the tithe question to an amicable termi-
nation; but, in his opinion, they had shown themselves only
conservatives of riot, confusion, and disorder. This figure of
speech, which would probably be called Hibernian if he had not
hiinself invented the happier terni—,West British, was received
by the conservatives with good humour, which fully acquitted
them' of the right hon. gentleman's charges of virulence and
asperity. -
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the house divid-
ed, when the numbers aepeared—
. For the original motion
Fur the amendment 298
—I9

The house, havinglresolved into committee,
pose tour tne cnatrinau torir stpulA tusk
leave to sit again on Monday next.
This motion being carried, the house resumed, and adjourned
at half-past one o'clock.