it did not extend the elective franchise at the apartment in which the meeting was all. Before the Union there were 300,000 held, and had it all their own way. Had voters in Ireland. These had been cut the petition truly represented the feelings down to 15,000 or 16,000, and the Reform of the enlightened and respectable inhabitBill would not add more than 300 or 400 ants of the town of Leeds, he was sure to the number. He denied that the people that its prayer would have been for the imof Ireland were violating the law by their mediate introduction of a system of the opposition to the payment of tithes. There Poor-laws into Ireland without regard to was no law to prevent the evading the pay- the tithe question. He, however, was ready ment of tithes. Process might be served to admit, that the system of collecting tithes on those who were in arrear, and their pro- as it existed in Ireland ought to be done perty might be distrained and offered for away with. That was an opinion he had sale; the law authorised that as the means ever avowed, at the same time he would of recovering the tithes. But men might stand up for the right of the poor to supturn their backs on the auctioneer, and refuse port, and he would always advocate the to purchase the goods so taken in distress. just claims which the sick and the indigent That, however, was not breaking the law; in Ireland had to a legal provision for their and he defied that House to make any law relief. They had heard much about the to compel the people of Ireland to purchase great grievances that arose from tithes in what they did not fancy or did not want. Ireland, but was nothing to be said about At the same time he wished it to be under- the rack-rents which were enforced, and stood, that he desired to see the working the grinding oppressions that were in many Clergy of the Protestant Church fairly paid. instances practised, by the landlords in that He was sure that not a man in Ireland country? Abundant was the complaint as would object to a hard working curate get to the distresses levied for tithes, and the ting 2001. a year, but every man objected sale of the poor man's property to satisfy to a rector getting 1,800l. and giving his the demands of the tithe proctor; but were curate, who did all the duty, 751. The there not such things as the clearances of entire national will of Ireland was opposed estates in that country by the great landed to tithes; and he would ask of those who proprietors, and the turning adrift the potalked about the firmness of English Gen-pulation of a district? Were not the inhatlemen, what would be said to them, sup-bitants driven from their houses without posing the English people to be as unanimous upon any given point as the people of Ireland were with respect to tithes, if they stood up, and recommended that the very great majority of the community should be coerced to make their opinions agree with those of a small minority? Mr. John Weyland said, it was not very statesman-like in the hon. and learned member for Kerry to remark that the will of even a great majority of the people was to prevail over the law. shelter and provision, and doomed to perish, because some unfeeling landlord, perhaps an absentee, considered their numbers too redundant. That was the case, and the landlord, knowing that he should not be called upon to contribute a farthing to their relief, calculated upon an increase to his already, exorbitant and grinding rents by their expulsion. Not only did the suffering and houseless poor of Ireland demand the most prompt and efficient relief, but it was also due to the working population of England that they should obtain it. The desertion, oppression and expulsion of the Irish poor from their own houses compelled them to seek employment and food in Mr. Callaghan approved of the petition. other countries, hence they flocked into The distress in several parts of the south every market of labour, and by undertaking of Ireland, particularly in Cork, was such all sorts of employment at the lowest terms as to admit no longer of delay. The half-on which it was possible for human beings yearly assessments were expended, and the poor were in a state of starvation and extreme misery. Mr. Blackney said, he for one would by no means countenance the breaking of any law. He had merely made a simple statement of facts. Mr. Sadler said, he must deny that the meeting by which this petition had been adopted was so numerous as the noble Lord had represented. It was got up by the Political Union, who by previous concert, filled to subsist, they greatly injured and deteriorated the condition of the English labourers, cruelly diminished the value of their wages, and increased the difficulty of their finding employment. A poor law for Ireland, therefore, was equally required by the industrious classes of all parts of the empire, and, to render it effectual, it must fall upon all property by whomsoever | to a different subject, when up got the hon. possessed and especially, upon the property member for Middlesex and said, the busiof absentees. Ought the landed proprietors ness was all settled, people refused to pay of Ireland, to escape that impost which the tithes. He wished to God they could should be justly laid upon their property make the hon. Member prove his words for the support and maintenance of the suf- for then probably they should hear no more fering poor engendered on their estates be- of the business. As to the meeting itself cause there were evils connected with the at which this petition was adopted, it concollection of tithes which required redress? sisted of about 800 persons out of a popu One of the resolutions adopted by the lation of 180,000, and it was notoriously a meeting from which this petition had packed meeting, which did not fairly repreemanated, called for the refunding of all sent the people of Leeds. The man, who the Church property which had been formerly was the principal agent in getting up that appropriated to the support of the poor, meeting was Mr. Baines, the editor of a with a view to apply it to its original paper at Leeds, and he was assisted by a purpose. This retrospective resolution Mr. Smithson a notorious individual, who touched very deeply upon the vast estates he (Mr. Hunt) understood had roasted of many of the lay impropriators, who no the Bible and had written against every doubt would struggle to the last extremity species of religion. It was a little faction before they surrendered their property, and in the borough of Leeds that had got the persons who framed the resolution up this petition, and the design of it was, knew this fact as well as the House. not to promote any incasure for the reWithout entering upon that question at lief of the poor of Ireland, but merely to present, however, he would merely remark, thwart the benevolent objects and views of that if the introduction of Poor-laws into Ire- the hon. member for Aldborough. land was to be postponed until such an object as that should be effected, they might thus put off indefinitely that most salutary and much-called-for measure. The question of Irish Poor-laws was one that it was not possible now to overlook: it would force itself on the attention of the Legislature, and he would take that opportunity to give notice, that he intended, with the least possible delay, to again submit to the House the justice and expediency of making a legal provision for the support of the poor of Ireland. That was a question, he would repeat, which must be settled before they could enter upon such a large and interminable question as that of Irish tithes. Lord Morpeth, in moving that the petition should be printed, observed, that he would not follow the hon. member for Preston into the arcana of Leeds politics, but would only say as to the meeting being a packed one, that the petition was signed by 6,000 persons, and the only reason for the meeting not adjourning to the open air was, that the room was sufficiently capacious to hold the persons who attended. He was informed that the parties were most anxious to have another meeting in the open air, in order to satisfy the hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler) that the petition embodied the opinions of the majority of the inhabitants of Leeds. Sir John Brydges said, he hoped soon to see Sir Robert Peel was surprised that no a modified and improved arrangement of Poor member of his Majesty's Government bad laws introduced into Ireland, founded upon risen on this occasion to protest against the the English system, but leaving out the doctrine that had been promulgated by the parts which were most objectionable in prac-hon. member for Middlesex, with regard to tice. As to the remark made by the hon. member for Middlesex, that the tithe system was at an end in Ireland, he begged leave to tell that hon. Gentleman, he did not consider himself to have a seat in that House for the purpose of obeying the mandates of certain discontented people however numer ous. He, therefore, should strictly do his duty to all parties according to his conscience and the law of the land. Mr. Hunt said, there would be no peace in Ireland until Poor-laws were introduced into that country. The noble Lord who presented the petition considered that it related the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland. Looking at the present state of that country, the Government was imperatively called upon, for the sake of the peace of society, putting all other motives for the moment aside, at once to protest against the doctrine of that hon. Member. Though there was no doubt that each individual clergyman in Ireland had as just and legal a claim to the possession of his tithe as any man who heard him had to the possession of his landed property, yet did the hon. member for Middlesex assert, openly in that House, that such claim had been, Lord Althorp observed, that the right hon. Baronet, as well as every other Gentleman in that House, was fully aware already of the course that had been taken by his Majesty's Ministers with regard to the question of tithes in Ireland, and it was not fair, therefore, that he should consider them answerable for the statements or views which might proceed from the hon. member for Middlesex on that subject. It was, besides, so very inconvenient to get up long discussions on petitions, that he (Lord Althorp) did not feel called upon, whenever any hon. Member might rise on such occasions, and give expression to sentiments in which he did not concur, to state his dissent from such sentiments. The course which the Government intended to pursue on this subject was before the House, and his right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland, had already so clearly stated the grounds on which that course had been adopted, that he (Lord Althorp) did not think that there was the least occasion for his rising to protest against the sentiments that had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex. He would only observe, that any course of proceeding which tended to defeat the just claims of any man, whether he be clergyman or layman, if not opposed and put down, must lead to the destruction of the whole frame of society. Whether combinations for such a purpose were within or without the law, mattered nothing. The security of property in Ireland depended upon the putting an end to such proceedings. by the means of force and of combination,, either by force, or by any species of resistpractically and actually defeated. What auce, active or passive, to the law. chance, on that hon. Member's own reasoning, would he himself have of resuming the Church property in Ireland for the purposes of the State, if the existing right to the possession of it could be in this manner effectually defeated? The landlords and landowners of Ireland might depend upon it, that if they sanctioned such a mode of dealing with tithes-if they supported or countenanced the doctrine, that by such illegal combinations as had lately taken place in that country, a legal title could be defeated-an interval of two years would not elapse, before that doctrine would be visited on themselves, and their claims to their rents met and defeated by similar means. The course which had been followed in resisting the just claims of the clergyman would, if successful, be immediately tried in resisting the payment of rents. What was there to prevent great bodies of men from combining together in passive resistance, as it was called, to the claims of the landlords, as well as to the claims of the clergymen? If the landlords of Ireland at all countenanced such illegal combinations against the just claims of the clergy, they were miserably deceived if they imagined that they could themselves escape a spoliation not more unjust, and equally easy of execution. He trusted that, in whatever the Legislature should deem it right to do with regard to the adjustment of the question of tithes in Ireland, care would be taken, that no persons there should profit by their own wrong. God forbid that any party should succeed in appropriating the Church property in Ireland to the State; but even that would be a less evil til an the robbery of the Church for individual aggrandisement. If the State ever did confiscate to public uses the property of the Church-he apprehended that the landholders of Ireland would not, and he fervently hoped they might not, benefit by the change. It was said by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, that it was only by means of the military or the police they could enforce the payment of tithes in Ireland; but was it by such an argument as that that this great question was to be settled? It was for the Legislature to determine what modifications should be made in the tithe system; but as long as the law remained as it was, it was their duty, as legislators and as members of society, to take care that just and legal rights were not defeated Sir Robert Peel admitted, that the practice of raising discussions on petitions was a most inconvenient one; but he must be allowed to express his gratification at having elicited such an explanation from the noble Lord. Mr. Sheil acknowledged that, generally speaking, it was an inconvenient practice to get up discussions on the presentation of petitions; but the question to which this petition referred was one that pressed much on the public mind at present, and therefore, a discussion with regard to it, even in this incidental way, could not be avoided. There could be no doubt as to the right of the actual incumbent in Ireland to his tithe, under the existing law of the land; and he was ready to admit that, in abstract justice and right, his claim was equally well founded. But the Legislature ought, under the circumstances in which thi question now presented itself to them, to | consider not only what the law was, but what the law ought to be, and should seek to provide some remedy for a state of things that could no longer be suffered to continue. The right hon. Baronet opposite could not deny that an alteration was necessary in the tithe system, but then he had not given them the benefit of his advice on that point he had not told them in what way it appeared to him that a beneficial alteration might be effected in the law upon that subject. The landlords of Ireland would, no doubt, be obliged to the right hon. Baronet for his benevolent warnings; but he (Mr. Sheil) begged to assure the right hon. Baronet, that their case was, after all, not quite so deplorable as he seemed to imagine, and that he was mistaken in supposing that the payment of rents rested at all upon the same footing as the payment of tithes in Ireland. The parson had all the weapons which the landlord possessed, and out of the armoury of the law, he was provided with still more, for the purpose of recovering his tithes; but, against the tithe system, the public opinion in Ireland had revolted. Such a fact might be a deplorable one, but it was one that could not be denied; and such being the case, what was the remedy? Could they enforce the payment of tithes in Ireland? Was it a crime on the part of the peasant to refuse to buy the tithe-pig, or to go to the mart where the goods of his neighbour that had been seized for tithe were offered for sale? The right hon. Baronet had, to his eternal honour, in the instance of Catholic Emancipation, made a concession to public opinion. Shall there be no concession to public opinion in Ireland on the question of tithes? The policy of the Legislature was, to take measures on this subject in time. It was one that would not brook delay; and the only way to produce a good result was, to pass, as soon as possible, some measure on the subject that would satisfy the people of Ireland. Sir Robert Peel, in explanation, said, that he had merely risen to protest against the doctrine of the hon. member for Middlesex; and that it was not for him, on such an occasion, to go into a subject which was at present under the consideration of a Select Committee of that House. Mr. Hume said, that a great deal of unnecessary noise had been raised as to the expressions that had been used by him on this occasion. He utterly denied that a single word had fallen from his lips calcu lated to interfere with the rights of an actual incumbent. He had not said any thing that at all warranted the attack that had been made upon him by the right hon. member for Tamworth. He had merely called the attention of the Government to this petition; and, in so doing, he had said, that there were two evils in Ireland, the Tithes and the Church property; and that, with regard to the first of those evils, he might say nothing, as the people of Ireland had settled that question. He repeated that it was settled, and he would appeal, in proof of that assertion, to the statement of the hon. members for Carlow and Kerry, who had just come from Ireland, and who had told them that the people would pay no more tithes. There was nothing in what had fallen from him that at all warranted the insinuation that he would encourage the depriving any individual clergyman or landowner of his property. Mr. Blackney said, he had also been misunderstood. What he had stated was, that the people were prepared to make great sacrifices to defeat legal processes to recover the payment of tithes. The idea that rents would be endangered because of the opposition to the payment of tithes he considered ridiculous. He could take upon himself to assert that rents had not been better paid these fifteen years than at present. Petition to be referred to the Committee on Tithes. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-BILL FOR ENGLAND-COMMITTEE-SECOND DAY.] Upon the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into a Committee upon the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill. Upon the reading of the words in clause 2, "that each of the thirty boroughs--" Mr. Goulburn requested some reason would be given why the House was called upon to insert the word "thirty"? When the word "fifty-six" was objected to in the first clause of the Bill, and when it was asked, "Why pledge yourselves to fifty-six specific boroughs, when you give no opportunity of examining into the case of all the boroughs? the only answer given was, "Because the Lords rejected one Bill with fifty-six boroughs, therefore, the Bill is to be sent back again with the same number." He, for one, strongly objected to the partial disfranchisement of thirty of the most ancient boroughs of the kingdom, until some specific information had been given to the House relating to their par ticular cases; and time was given to examine and digest such information. But he should defer making any motion upon the subject, until he had heard from the noble Lord some explanation of the grounds upon which his Majesty's Government had determined upon the particular number of thirty as the quantum of boroughs that were to lose a moiety of their Representation. Lord Althorp: The right hon. Gentleman has stated only half the reasons which I gave for placing fifty-six boroughs in schedule A. I stated that the House of Lords having objected to the former Bill, which contained fifty-six boroughs in schedule A, the Government did not choose to place more than that number in the disfranchising clause of the present Bill. But I added, that we did not think it right to place less than fifty-six in the schedule, because that number had been approved of by this House and by the country generally. Therefore, in stating that the only ground upon which I justified the disfranchisement of fifty-six boroughs in the present Bill was, because the House of Lords had objected to that number in the last Bill, the right hon. Gentleman only stated half the reasons which I advanced as the ground upon which our determination was fixed. Having so far set myself right with respect to schedule A, I am now ready to explain why we propose to place thirty boroughs in schedule B of the present Bill, instead of forty-one, as proposed in the same schedule of the last Bill. Ministers, in reconsidering the Bill after it had been rejected by the House of Lords in the last Session, undoubtedly did wish, as far as they could do so consistently with the principle and efficiency of the Bill, to make such alterations and modifications as they thought best calculated to conciliate and to secure the approbation of those who were opposed to it. As one of the objections most strongly urged was the diminishing the number of the Members of the House, they did not think that they should affect the principle or diminish the efficiency of the measure, if they conceded that point; and therefore, in preparing the present Bill, they determined that the existing number of Members of the House should be kept up. Thus there were twenty-three Members to be disposed of; and in considering how they should be distributed, the Ministers thought that, if they threw the whole of them into schedule B, they might then be fairly and justly accused of acting partially towards twenty-three of the places enumerated in that schedule, and that, in fact, they should impair the efficiency of the measure at large. It appeared to them, therefore, that the fairest manner would be to give twelve Representatives to new constituent bodies, and not to take away the remaining eleven from schedule B. That was the original ground upon which we proposed to place thirty instead of forty-one boroughs in the partially disfranchising clause of the present Bill. To diminish the number of boroughs in schedule B to less than thirty would, in the opinion of Ministers, be to diminish the general efficiency of the Bill, and therefore it was, that, in preparing the present clause, they determined to fix upon that particular number. Mr. Goulburn thought, that the noble Lord's explanation had not, in the slightest degree, removed the grounds upon which the House had reason to complain of the course which Ministers had adopted. As regarded the first clause, the House had reason to complain, because it was called upon to vote before the necessary information was produced; and, as regarded the second clause, it had reason to complain, because, although certain information had been laid before the House, sufficient time had not been allowed for any Member to make himself acquainted with it. So that, in point of fact, Ministers, conscious of the support which they would receive from a majority of that House, were determined to carry clauses for the total or partial disfranchisement of eighty-six boroughs before it was possible for any man to form a correct opinion as to the place which any one of those boroughs should hold in the two destroying schedules of the Bill. He was of opinion that it was too much for any set of men to ask the House of Commons to proceed in such a manner. To call for the determination of questions-such important questions, too, as the disfranchisement of boroughs-while the House was yet in total ignorance of the facts upon which that disfranchisement was said to be founded, was, he did not hesitate to say, the most unfair proceeding ever attempted by any Administration that ever held the reins of Government in this country. Further, he must observe, that when the hon. and learned member for Louth was about to move that the number of boroughs in schedule A should be sixty-one instead of fiftysix, the noble Lord evaded the proposal by saying, that number being inserted would not prevent any more being placed therein, |