{JULY 10}

(Ireland).

98

volved existing claims, which deprived the parties of the means of recovering, and which, therefore, they must make good? But to compel a person, by the strong arm of power, to remit a debt that was due to him, involved a principle of such shameful injustice that he thought it impossible to consent to it. the eye of the law, had a positive claim Those men, in for the debts due to them, and they had a right to enforce that claim; but to step in by the aid of an Act of Parliament, and to throw such discredit on the old system, claims, without, at the same time, making as to make it impossible to recover these any compensation, was so monstrous, that he was sure, that nothing but the being accustomed to the injustice of the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition could have reconciled him to the enormity of the second.

up his arrears was gross injustice. The
right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had admitted, that, if his
proposal were adopted there might be
acts of inequality and injustice; but
he thought, that the Legislature ought to
take care not to commit crying acts of in-
dividual injustice. It was perfectly just
to say, that with respect to those who had
received part of the 640,000l. they should
not repay that advance, nor yet recover
the whole of the arrears; but those parties
who had never received any pecuniary
advance, who had been forbearing, who had
not pressed hard upon the tithe-payer, and
who had not yet recovered their tithes, to say
to them, "You owe nothing to the trea-
sury, and the tithe-payer owes you a great
deal; you shall remit the whole of your
arrears, but we shall not give you a far-
thing for the remission," was manifest
injustice. It was impossible, that the
House of Commons could sanction such a
proposition. This 640,000l. had not been
spread equally over the whole of the
clergy of Ireland. The benefit of the
640,000l. was confined to a certain par-
ticular class. They might ask those par-
ties to remit their arrears; but there was
no pretence for saying, that those who had
never received anything, and to whom a
great deal was due, should not be paid
their debts, because others had been paid
already. Again, they offered, in 1835,
the sum of 307,000l. to cover the arrears,
and now not only were they going to
take back that, but they were going to
punish the parties who had not taken it.
It was impossible for Parliament, which
protected the right of all classes, to take
a course which would involve the com-
mittal of such gross individual acts of
injustice. Then the right hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with
his ingenious way of conciliating the
clergy of Ireland to the adoption of his plan,
said, that they would not be making a great
sacrifice, that they could not get much of
the arrears that remained due, for that
the moment they passed this bill, which
transferred the obligation from the occu-
pier to the landlord, they would throw
such discredit on the old mode, that the
Occupying tenant would not pay the ar-
rears. Why, would not this be a very
good reason for indemnifying the parties?
Would it not be a good reason for saying,
that the motives of state necessity com-
pelled them to pass a measure which in-
VOL, XLIV. {eries

Gentleman, the clergy should consent to But, said the right hon. remit all these arrears, because they would have a better security for the payment of the rent-charge. What had the clergy given up the twenty-five per cent. for? Surely it was the hope, that they had a tolerably valid security for the payment by the landlord of the sums due to them. Why should the clergy be called upon, by the remission of an existing debt, to fortify their security for the payment of the seventy-five per cent? With respect to the course proposed to be taken for the remission of the 640,000l., if he thought that the remission of that sum, or of double that sum, would secure peace to Ireland, would confirm the rights of the Irish clergy, would prevent agitation, and facilitate the regular payment of tithes, he were prepared to make any reasonable was quite sure, that the British people sacrifice for bringing about the cessation of agitation, the acquiescence in just demands, and the wholesome operation of the laws. But the language of the right hon. Gentleman made him fear future concession. The right hon. Gentleman complained now of tithe agitation, and of those parties who encouraged that agitation, but did not place themselves in the front of the danger. He must say, that after the example of those whose influence in Ireland was very great, and who had withheld their tithes for five or six years, professedly on religious principles, it was not to be expected that the mere readiness tion. The hon. and learned Gentleman to pay off arrears would calm that agita

justice of the case did not require. It was on these grounds, and because it did not involve the principle of appropriation, that he consented that the reduction should be twenty-five per cent. But, although he was ready to consent to the reduction of twenty-five per ecnt. at the present period, he must remind the Houte and the noble Lord, that he was not to be bound, on any future occasion, by this admission. He was perfectly ready now, against the wishes of many of the Irish

opposite (Mr. Sheil) had so refused the payment of his tithes, and he must ask, if Gentlemen of his station and influence refused payment, what effect would such refusal produce on the ignorant? It was very well to throw the blame on the occupying tenants, and to complain of their meeting in large assemblies; but when they saw the hon. and learned Gentleman promoted to a civil office, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government must bear some share of the blame of tithe agitation. With respect to the ques-clergy, to consent to the reduction of tion of thirty and twenty-five per cent., twenty-five per cent., but he was not bound the hon. and learned Member for Dublin toconsent to that reduction hereafter in case said, that it was a miserable question of the proposal was now rejected. He said pounds, shillings, and pence. Now, he nothing about the future: all he meant to thought, that a great principle was in- say was, that his offer of reduction exvolved in it. He thought, that they had tended merely to the present period, and no right to make a greater pecuniary re- that offer was made in the hope of peace mission to the landlord than he was fairly and of procuring a final settlement of this entitled to. He knew it was impossible question. With respect to the important to follow out this principle fully, and that question of the existing arrears, he must some individuals must be benefitted to a say, that with his view of the injustice of greater extent than they ought, and that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exothers must fall short. But the reason chequer it was impossible for him to conwhy he required, that the remission should sent to it. The effect of that proposal not exceed twenty-five per cent. was, that would be, to inflict a penalty on those who he thought twenty-five per cent. a full had obeyed the law. If they meant to adindemnity for the burthen that was placed minister equal justice, they ought to return on the landlord. He did not think, that the money that had been paid to those who the landlord had a right to expect a paid it; but it was not only contrary to greater remission than was offered, as he justice, but an invasion of justice, to make thought the indemnity corresponded with no repayment to the man that had obeyed the burthen. They were throwing upon the law, and to remit to him who had disthe landlord the payment of tithe, and obeyed the law to the whole amount of his they were making him a liberal allowance obligations. At the same time he ad on that account. There were many who mitted, that if they allowed difficulties of thought the existing allowance of fifteen this kind to interpose insuperable obstacles, per cent. sufficient. He, however, thought, they would never effect a settlement of the that as they were about to place, by a tithe question. He must contend, for the law, an obligation on the landlord to sake of the peace of Ireland and the just which by law he was not subject, the rights of the clergy, that in any arrangeindemnity ought to be liberal. He was, ment for the remission of the arrears due therefore, willing to consent to the allow to the Irish clergy, independent of those ance of twenty-five per cent., but he could covered by the 640,000l., it was not the not consent to give thirty per cent., be- clergy of Ireland, but the public, who cause he thought, that that would be an ought to bear the chief part of the expense. unjust bonus, and he thought, also, that Whether they should abandon all the it was too much, and that it, therefore, arrears he was not prepared to say. The involved the question of the appropriation hon. and learned Member for Dublin proof church property to secular purposes, posed, that the clergy should abandon all and the very worst of secular purposes, claims to existing arrears upon receiving the benefit of the landlords of Ireland. seventy-five per cent. upon them. If the He, therefore, would certainly not consent hon. and learned Gentleman would guaran to any such reduction of the payment due tee seventy-five per cent. upon the existing on account of tithe, as it was one which arrears due to the clergy, he would venwould manifestly be for the peculiar bene-ture on behalf of the clergy to accept the fit of Irish landlords, and one which the proposal; and if the hon. and learned

Member for Dublin was empowered to make that proposal, and had the means of performing it, he should feel very much disposed to agree to it. But he could not consent to impose on the clergy the whole of the pecuniary penalty on account of those arrears. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) proposed, that part should be borne by the landlords. With the utmost respect for the opinions of his noble Friend, he doubted the justice of throwing upon the landlord part of the payment due on account of arrears. As far as the gentlemen of Ireland were concerned, upon whom this burden was thrown, he would not remit one shilling. He would recommend, that they should be all brought before the Court of Exchequer and compelled to pay. He was perfectly convinced that the Irish landlords, who had felt the inconvenience of encouraging agitation to resist a due legal demand would not give much trouble, if the clergy civilly enforced their demand. And as to remitting one shilling, nothing, in his opinion, could be more fatal. They had, therefore, to deal only with the occupying tenant. If the Treasury would advance to the clergy, out of the public funds, seventy-five per cent. upon the amount of their arrears and if they would be content to recover fifty per cent. from the tithe payer, he would consent to such an arrangement. The only evil attending it appeared to him to be the necessity of recovering it from the occupy-vernments, for the grant of the remainder ing tenants. But upon the whole he decidedly objected to making the clergy solely responsible for the amount of the arrears. He doubted the justice of imposing any part of the liability upon the landlords. And if he were sure that the bonus of twenty-five per cent. would insure the peaceable settlement of this question, he doubted whether it would not be the best course to meet the difficulties of the case. Mr. Sheil said, that the right hon. Baronet had, in the course of his speech, adverted to him in rather a pointed man

some spirit that appeared to prevail. It appeared to him to be agreed upon by all sides, in the first place, that the sum advanced to the clergy should be remitted to them, and that, to the extent of that remission, a remission by the clergy should be granted. The next point for consideration was, whether the surplus of the sum which had been originally granted for the pacification of Ireland, should be applied to the purpose for which it had been originally intended? The right hon. Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge), proposed, in 1835, that the surplus should be appropriated to the payment of all arrears, and when the Whigs came into office they adopted the proposition, not of remitting what had been advanced, but of giving up the surplus of the million, amounting to 307,000l. to the settlement of arrears. Thus were the Whigs and Conservatives agreed upon these two most important points, namely, the remission of the money that had been advanced and the further grant of 307,000l. He could not conceive why the Whig Government should recede from that point. No name had been suggested; not a single individual connected with the Government had ventured to state any reason for the difference in the course taken in 1835, and that proposed to be taken now. He thought he had made out a case, founded on the conduct of the Whig and Conservative Go

ner.

He should not be provoked in consequence of this, more than to suggest to the right hon. Baronet himself, that perhaps some appointments had been made, when he was in power, of Gentlemen as distinguished for the vehemence of their partisanship, at least, as he was, not perhaps upon the question of the Church, but upon others quite as exciting in Ireland. But he would not, by pursuing this subject, interfere with the just and whole

of the million; but as to the liquidation of the arrears that had accrued beyond this, he was not insensible to the difficulty of inducing English Members to agree to a further grant. He thought, that when they were applying this balance to the liquidation of arrears, they ought to distinguish between the various classes of arrears. He was of opinion, that the landlord who had received his rent, and with it the tithe, ought to be allowed no remission, not a single farthing. Supposing he let his land at 40s. the acre, and that 3s. were to be paid to the parson, and he received the 40s., only 37s. of it belonged to him, and he was bound to pay the balance to the clergyman. He thought this was but common justice, and he was not liable to the imputation which the right hon. Baronet had insinuated against him without the slightest foundation, namely, that he had refused to pay his tithes. He had been unable to recover his tithe, as was the case with other pro