300,000l. He proposed that in considera- | place only a few days ago; it had certion of this sum, the whole of the arrears tainly been represented to him, in a letter of tithe which now existed, should be at which he had received from the Lord-lieuonce abolished by this act, and that there tenant that morning, that he had received should be no claim for arrears of tithes information that not only were orange except such as were reserved by this act, flags exhibited upon many steeples, but It certainly appeared to him, with regard upon some of these steeples there was the to any arrears that accrued due before the firing of guns or muskets. He could not year 1836, that although attempts had believe, that it was not in the power of the been made to levy them, those attempts clergy, if they had taken pains, to have not having been successful for the last prevented such demonstrations, and he two years, it was not probable that such must say, that if under this act, or any attempts would be made now; and, in the other act, they were to look to the future second place, they could hardly be made peace and tranquillity of Ireland-if they after the passing of an act of this kind hoped to allay the hostile feelings that without exciting resistance and disturb- existed between the Protestant clergy ance. He had now, therefore, stated the and the Roman Catholic people-the proposition which he proposed to make Protestant clergy must refrain from deon this subject, namely, that the state monstrations which, by the great majority should grant the sum which he had men- of the people, were felt to be an insult. tioned for the extinction of the arrears of There would really be no chance for the tithe; and that in consideration of the future of restoring peace and harmony in grant of this sum they should extinguish Ireland unless some disposition were by law all claims to arrears of tithes shown by persons of both sides to forwhich persons might have. In making bearance from all party demonstrations. this proposition he had only to repeat Unaided by conduct of this sort, the exagain, that he did not think that he should penditure of ten times 30,000l. would be justified in withholding a proposition not effect the pacification of that country. from the House in favour of which there The noble Lord concluded by moving, seemed to be so general an opinion that that the House resolve itself into Commitit would tend still further to mitigate the tee upon the 3rd and 4th, William 4th, evils attending the collection of tithe com- (the Million Act), and the act for approposition in Ireland. He would not with- priating 100,000l. to the ecclesiastical hold his opinion that he did not think commissioners for Ireland. this proposition one which was so favourable to the Church in Ireland. The objections stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), upon a motion which arose under the Million Act-objections which at that time did not appear to him (Lord J. Russell) to have been well founded-had certainly since appeared to him to have much weight, namely, that the abolition by law of claims in favour of persons who had resisted the law did tend to a certain degree to weaken the power of those persons who held that particular species of property. He thought, certainly, that it would not be right in him to withhold this opinion, an opinion which evidently was not entertained by those who always in that House professed to be the preservers of all the rights of the Church. There was one thing more. With respect to the future harmony and peace of Ireland he could not but advert to a question which had been put by the hon. Member for Kilkenny concerning what had taken

Mr. Hume put it to the noble Lord and the House, whether the House of Commons had ever entered upon a vote of a million of public money without previous notice given?

Lord J. Russell said, that if the hon. Member persisted in objecting to the motion upon that ground, he might, perhaps, be strictly justified; but he thought, that the notice which he (Lord J. Russell) had given of the intention of Government on this subject had, for all useful purposes, been sufficient.

Mr. Hume said, it ought not to be him, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who should stand forward to protect the public purse; but when he saw that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of interfering, actually connived at the contemplated act of robbery, he was bound to stand forward. He was ready to make any sacrifice which might fairly be expected to lead to permanent peace in Ireland; but he was so convinced that the peace which would be purchased by this grant would

only be a truce of a very few months, that he could not for a moment think of consenting to it. It was not upon a mere matter of form that his objection was founded on the present occasion. It was manifestly against all the principles and practice of Parliamentary dealing, to be hurried into grants of this large description without due previous notice. From the statements of the noble Lord, it appeared that the whole of his proposition was in reality that of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and not of her Majesty's Ministers. His noble Friend had now thought proper to come into the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; but he totally differed from the noble Lord, as to the sufficiency of the grounds upon which he had done so. All he could say was, that if the two great bodies of Whigs and Tories now joined in thus attempting this act of robbery, they ought at least to give them sufficient notice of it. Under these circumstances, he threw himself upon the House, and begged the protection of its universal rule and practice on the present occasion.

Sir R. Peel said, that at this late period of the Session he was not disposed to throw any impediment in the way of this measure on a point of form. At the same time, whilst he should consent to the motion of the noble Lord for going into Committee, he begged it to be understood, that he did not pledge himself to the contemplated arrangement upon the first statement of the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had done an injustice both to the noble Lord and to himself, when the hon. Member said, that the Government had adopted his (Sir R. Peel's) proposition. Whether the noble Lord's proposition was better or worse than his, he would not pretend to say, but it was certainly not his proposition. His (Sir R. Peel's) proposition as he stated it the other day, was to the following effect, namely:-there was about 307,0001 remaining out of the million grant, which they had yet to deal with. This sum, or rather a larger sum, 500,000Z., he proposed to place in the hands of a commission, who would then proceed to take a review of the arrears due from occupying tenants for the last two years, and, having ascertained their amount, draw a proportion between that amount and the 500,0001 in their hands; and, according to that proportion, ascertain what rateable por

tion per cent. could be offered to the tithe-owners on account of their arrears. Supposing, that the commissioners found they would be able to offer 601. in the 100l., the tithe-owners would be offered this amount, to whom it would be quite optional either to accept the composition, or to resort to the law to recover their whole claim. Having thus explained the proposition which he was inclined to submit, he would not sit down without observing, that he had heard the latter part of the noble Lord's speech with some regret. He thought it would have been a great deal better if the noble Lord had abstained from mentioning the fact, that the Orange flag had floated from the steeples in some parts of Ireland. The noble Lord had frequently declined answering questions relating to Irish affairs, on the ground, that he was not at the moment fully informed on the subject; and he must say, that if the noble Lord had, in the present instance, stated, that he was not as yet informed whether the clergy had consented to these demonstrations, it would have been a sound exercise of discretion. He had no hesitation in frankly avowing, as he always had declared, that whether clergy or landowner, he thought both were alike bound to do all in their power to discourage such party demonstrations. But until it was ascertained, that the clergy had in the present instance acted otherwise, he felt bound to defend them from the general impeachment which the noble Lord had made of them.

Mr. Irvine had received a letter from a most respectable gentleman residing in the county of Antrim, assuring him, that no such manifestation as that to which the noble Lord had adverted had taken place in that county, and he thought it right to mention the fact, in order to show the House, that the proceedings of which the noble Lord hadcomplained were not so universal or general as he seemed to believe.

Mr. O'Connell wished to know from whence the letter to which the hon. Member alluded was dated? [Mr. Irvine: from Lisburne.] It was not a little singular, as Lisburne was near Belfast, where the troops had been actually called out to quell the rioters after they had broken the windows of the house of the Roman Catho lie bishop, and committed other nuttages,

Mr. Dunbar said, that the acconic which took place in Belfa, being deserving of

was nothing more than a momentary dis-
turbance which sprang up among a parcel
of boys while at play.

Captain Jones said, that the noble Lord
was not the only Member of that House
who entertained the belief, that such dis-
plays had taken place, but it was no more
than was due to the clergy of Ireland to
state, that so far from encouraging the
exhibition of hoisting flags on the day in
question, they did all in their power to
prevent it.

adopted it. The question now, however, was, how could the Government most conveniently put the House and the public in possession of their resolution, with a view to its being fully understood. The whole difficulty arose out of the want of notice, for if his noble Friend had, during the morning sitting, when this subject was last before the House, stated his intention of going into Committee on the resolution that night, the present objection could not exist. But what was the

Mr. Ward, as they seemed to be diver-object which the Government had in view ? ging from the real question before them, felt it his duty to recal their attention to the object which his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had in view. For his own part he did not believe, that the proposition of the noble Lord would lead to an adjustment of this question, and he must add, that he concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking, that it would prove nothing better than a delusion on the people of that country. It was true, that the Government plan was less objectionable than the plan of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, but still, when there was a million of money to be dealt with, he did not think they would be justified in departing from the rules of the House. They were not voting upon an abstract principle, but the application of the public money for church purposes; and as the Government had inverted the principle with which they set out, it was only right, that proper time should be given for the consideration of this new proposition. He hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny would persist in his motion, and if he did he should have his support.

Why, to give the House information, and this could only be done by enabling them to bring forward the clauses, with a view to their being printed and circulated, by which they meant to carry their intention into effect. For this purpose it was indispensable, that they should go into Committee on the resolution, and, then, when the clauses to be founded on it were brought in and printed, hon. Gentlemen would be able to see the whole scheme by which the Government intended to carry their proposition out. At the earliest, no discussion on the subject could take place before Thursday; and as that was the case, and as without knowing what the plan was, they could not decide upon it, he hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny would not persist in his opposition.

Mr. Lucas, on the part of his side of
the House, must disclaim the imputa-
tion which the noble Lord had thrown
out against them. He denied, that
they were desirous of encouraging re-
sistance to the payment of tithes, and,
for his own part, he would not concur in
any plan the object of which was not to
do justice to all parties. With respect to
the noble Lord's plan, he was not to be
considered as pledged in any way to it,
and should he have objections to it, he
should claim his right of urging them
lorettet.

The Chastellar of the Exchequer said,
Catelt des Ge
had con-
We of
on Friend,
y had not

Mr. Warburton said, that what his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, wished was, that the resolution should be proposed without pronouncing any opinion upon it at present. This could be done if the Chairman were, as soon as it had been proposed, to report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow. So far from there being unanimity of feeling on the part of the House with respect to this proposition, he believed, there were many hon. Members on both sides who strongly objected to it. Even the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, gave it only a qualified assent, for, though he concurred in the principle involved in it, he kept himself wholly unfettered as regarded the details. Such being the state of the case, he must express it as his opinion, that the course pursued by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, was a proper one.

Sir E. B. Sugden said, that the original resolution, with respect to compensation, was brought forward for the relief of the clergy of Ireland exclusively, and as he had some difficulty as to the extending

this principle to the other tithe-owners, he [ be labouring under some mistake, but it should like to see the point properly con- was, at all events, right that the House sidered. should know the amount of remission on which they could reckon.

Mr. Harvey said, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, did not seem to understand what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was clear, from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he had no wish, that any opinion should be pronounced at the present time on the Government proposition. It was, indeed, impossible, that the right hon. Gentleman could expect such a thing, and, therefore, what he said was, that when the resolution was brought in, the Government would allow that House and the country sufficient time to reflect upon it. Without having before them the resolution and the machinery by which it was to be carried into effect, it was impossible, that they could take the matter into consideration; but as regarded the proposition itself, all he could say was, that this country would be as much astonished at it as the Government themselves were, when they first heard of it on Friday night. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had dexterously led the Government into this plan, but now he as dexterously avoided pledging himself to it. He liked his own plan, but not that of the Government, and he predicted, that the only advantage which the Government would derive from the course which they had taken, would be an increase of unpopularity.

Lord J. Russell would not object to the course suggested of going into Committee, proposing the resolution, and taking the subject into consideration at a future period.

Lord Stanley said, that there was a point on which he was desirous of information. If he understood the noble Lord rightly, he proposed to remit the 640,0007. which had been advanced to the clergy where the clergy had abstained from levying from the landlord or occupying tenant any part of the arrears due to them. Did the noble Lord mean, that the Government might levy that amount only which was due to the clergy from the landlord, and not from the occupying tenant? By the Million Act under which the advance was made, the party liable was defined; but when that act did not come into operation until 1834, and in 1833 the liability for the tithe rested, not with the landlord, but with the occupying tenant. He might

Sir R. Peel said, that there was another subject of misapplication on which the noble Lord ought to obtain information. He would not ask any question at present relative to it, but merely say to the noble Lord, that he ought to obtain some information as to the 100,000l. which had been granted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Mr. Hume wished to know if it were intended to excuse those landlords who were occupiers from the repayment of the advances which had been made to them?

oppo

Lord J. Russell said, that they were not to be exempted. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Lord site, all he could say was, that in many cases, the landlord would be liable to the repayment of the instalments, and that in many others, the advances, for instance, to lay impropriators were not made recoverable. He should be very glad to find, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in a condition to refund the 100,000l. alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth.

House in Committee.

Lord J. Russell, having proposed the resolution, which was agreed to, and the House having resumed, moved, that the House should go into Committee on the Tithes (Ireland) Biil, for the purpose of considering the remaining clauses of the Bill. House in Committee.

On Clause 9,

Mr. Lefroy rose to propose the omission of clauses from 9 to 19, and to substitute for them one clause which he had prepared. These clauses proposed to open all compositions. He thought that any attempt to open these compositions would lead to great inconvenience and injustice. If they opened the compositions under Goulburn's Act they must go back to a period so remote as 1814. That act was passed in 1821, and the compositions were founded upon the average of the preceding seven years. Now if they re-opened these compositions they would be obliged to take the average over again, beginning at 1814. Now the Goulburn Act gave the right of appeal under proper restrictions, and wherever there had been ground of objectiona peals had been made. Under the f

Act a right of appeal was given in all cases of voluntary composition, and several appeals had taken place. This Bill, however, proposed to open all compositions, whether they had taken place under voluntary composition or by means of commissioners. Now it should be recollected that since those compositions had been originally made, several of the incumbents had died and had been succeeded by others. There was no record existing, in many instances, of the principle on which these compositions had taken place. There was no calculation by which to be guided, and it was easy to conceive the difficulty to which opening compositions that had so long ago taken place would now lead. But this Bill also proposed to open the compositions that had taken place under the Stanley Act. Now under the powers given by this act no less than 39 appeals had taken place, and of this number three only had been allowed. When such ample opportunity of appeal had been given, there was no ground to suppose, that these compositions had taken place on any extravagant valuation. He (Mr. Lefroy) proposed to exclude from the operation of the present Bill all the compositions which had been made under the Goulburn Act. He had no objection, in a limited manner, and under certain restrictions, to allow the more recent compositions under the Stanley Act to be renewed. He would conclude by moving the omission of the clauses from nine to nineteen, and he would move, to substitute instead, one clause providing for the review of the compositions in the limited way that he had stated.

Viscount Morpeth would not deny, that there was some force in the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to the inconvenience of opening compositions made at a period far back. These arguments had been submitted to the Committee in former sessions and notwithstanding the Committee felt, that it would be desirable to continue the power to re-open these compositions, he admitted, that there would be considerable inconvenience and anomaly in opening cases decided so long ago, and in which a power of appeal had been given. But then the anomaly did not affect any side of the question in particular. However, there were, he believed, several of great hardship, and with a viewing a permanently

the tithe question, he thought it would be for the advantage of all parties, that a power of appeal should be given. Now this view was not confined to one side of the House, but appeared to be felt by the Gentlemen opposite. In his amendment the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave the power of appeal in a certain class of cases under the Act that went by the name of Lord Stanley's Act. An objection had been made to allow appeals in cases where there had been voluntary composition, but he thought voluntary an erroneous term to apply to compositions where parties merely gave their consent that a composition should be made without any agreement as to the amount of the composition. These compositions had not been made with reference to any amount of payment that had been previously made, but with reference to sums agreed or adjudged to be paid, and besides this the commissioners were given a power at their own discretion to add one-fifth of the whole amount. Now, in many cases, they could not do substantial justice unless they allowed the compositions to be re-opened. The difficulty of going back to 1814 would not be so great as was imagined, as the averages would all be found published in the Dublin Gazette. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that he was willing to give an appeal in any case of fraud or concealment, but he said also, that he wished that the appeal should be limited to the Lord-lieutenant and Privy Council. Now he (Lord Morpeth) thought, that it would be a great advantage and convenience that the parties should go before a barrister, who would inquire upon the spot, with a facility of hearing evidence at both sides, and a great saving both of time and of expense to the parties. The Government had been anxious so to guard the bill, as that there would be no chance of any appeal which was not bona fide, and made upon the strongest grounds. The Government were more liable to the charge of having almost frittered away the power of appeal than of having unnecessarily enlarged it.

Mr. Goulburn urged upon the Committee the inconvenience and danger of disturbing engagements which existed under an act of the Legislature, and so far shaking the public confidence in the faith of an Act of Parliament, Nothing could be more dangerous than to introof duce such a principle. With respect to