Chapter XLVI: {william IV. 1836—1837} (1)

_Meeting of Parliament..... The Question of Orange
Lodges..... Bill to Reform the Irish Municipal
Corporations..... Irish Tithe Bill..... Commutation of
Tithes in England..... Bill for Registration of Births,
Deaths, and Marriages, &c. Bill to alter the Revenues
and Territory of the different Sees..... Bill to abolish the
secular Jurisdiction of Bishops, &c. Bill to amend the
English Municipal Corporation Act..... Bill to Allow Felons
Counsel to Address the Jury, &c. Abolition of
Imprisonment for Debt, &c. Election Committees.....
New Houses of Parliament..... Motion for the Reduction of
Taxation on behalf of the Agriculturists..... The Budget,
&c. Discussions on the Colonies and our Foreign
Relations..... Prorogation of Parliament..... The Affairs
of Ireland..... State of the Continent_

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1836}

Parliament reassembled on the 14th of February. In his speech his majesty alluded to disputes between France and the United States, which he was endeavouring to allay; and to the civil contests in the northern province of Spain, for the termination of which he had also adopted measures which he hoped would succeed. His majesty also alluded to a treaty which he had concluded with the Queen of Spain for the suppression of the slave-trade. He expressed his regret that the agricultural interests in England still suffered, and recommended parliament to institute inquiry, with the view of ascertaining whether there were any measures which could be adopted for its alleviation. He then referred to the various measures affecting the united church of England and Ireland, and the state of the poor of Ireland. In the lords the address was moved by the Duke of Leinster, and seconded by the Earl of Burlington. The only part of it which gave rise to a discussion was a passage which repeated the hope, expressed in the speech from the throne, that the Irish municipal corporations would be subjected to a process of change, “founded upon the same principles as those of the acts which had already passed for England and Scotland.” These words raised a question of importance between the contending parties, for, as the municipal acts of England and Scotland established a £5 franchise in one country, and a £10 franchise in the other, to establish in Ireland a system of municipal government founded on a similar basis, was to transfer to the Papists that monopoly of municipal authority hitherto enjoyed by the Protestants. The Duke of Wellington objected to the house being required, in voting the address, to pledge itself to the principles of any measure before the measure itself had come regularly before the house. He moved to substitute the following amendment:—“We shall proceed without delay to the consideration of any defects or evils that may have been shown to exist in these institutions, for the purpose of applying such remedies as may obviate all just causes of complaint, and insure the impartial administration of justice.” Several peers supported this amendment, and the defeat of government was inevitable; but, on seeing this, the Marquis of Lansdowne intimated that ministers conceded the point as one of no particular moment, and the address was then agreed to. In the commons, however, government was stronger, and, therefore, did not exhibit the same spirit of concession. Sir Robert Peel moved the same amendment which the Duke of Wellington had moved in the lords. Lord John Russell defended the clause in the address. Lord Stanley supported the amendment. Lords Howick and Palmerston, and Mr. O’Connell spoke in favour of the address. Mr. O’Connell gave notice, that if Ireland got less than had been granted to England and Scotland, the cry of repeal would immediately be resumed. With an air of self-importance he cautioned the house to beware; if they excited that cry again, it would be at their peril. On a division the address was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-four against two hundred and forty-three.

THE QUESTION OF ORANGE LODGES.

On the reassembling of parliament, Mr. O’Connell and his friends lost no time in returning to the attack made last session on Orange lodges. On the 21st of February Mr. Finn moved this resolution:—“That Orangeism has been productive of the most baneful effects upon the character and administration of public justice in Ireland; that its presence in the constabulary and peace preservation force and yeomanry corps of that country has led individual members, as well as large bodies of the above description of force, to the gross neglect and violation of their public duty, and to open, daring, and lawless resistance to the authority of the magistracy and of the executive government, on various occasions; that the systematic and surreptitious introduction of Orangeism into every branch of the military service, in almost every part of the empire, in direct violation of orders issued in 1822 and 1829 by the commander-in-chief of his majesty’s forces, and the absolute power and control vested by its governing body, the grand Orange lodge of England and Ireland, in his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, together with the rank, station, influence, and numbers of that formidable and secret conspiracy, are well calculated to excite serious apprehensions in all his majesty’s loyal subjects, and imperatively call for the most energetic expression on the part of the representatives of the people of this empire, to secure the safe, peaceable, legal, and rightful succession to the throne of these realms.” In the speech with which Mr. Finn introduced this resolution, he treated the Orange system as one of deadly hostility to the great mass of the population, and asserted that it was established by the report of the secret committee, that the Orange society set all law, justice, and authority at defiance. Mr. E. Buller, who seconded the resolution, reiterated these sentiments. As notice had been given for the 23rd of February by Colonel Verner, to extend the inquiry to other existing societies in Ireland, and as Mr. Hume was to bring forward certain resolutions directed to the same object on that day, the house adjourned the further consideration of the motion to that day. On the 23rd of February Mr. Hume entered at considerable length into the evidence which had been given before the select committee of the previous session, which included documents laid before it by the office-bearers of the Orange association and private correspondence. Most of the evidence, it would appear, had indeed been derived from the officers of the institution themselves, which was by no means a proof of guilt. Nevertheless, Mr. Hume contrived to make out a case against the association from such evidence; and when he had laid it before the house, he moved this condemnatory resolution:—“That this house, taking into consideration the evidence given before the select committee appointed to inquire into the nature, extent, character, and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and of Orange institutions in Great Britain and the colonies; and seeing that the existence of Orange societies is highly detrimental to the peace of the community, by exciting discord among the several classes of his majesty’s subjects; and seeing that it is highly injurious to the due administration of justice that any judge, sheriff, magistrate, juryman, or any other person employed in maintaining the peace of the country, should be bound by any secret obligation to, or be in any combination with, any association unknown to the laws, and founded on principles of religious exclusion, that even if justice were impartially administered under such circumstances, which is in itself impossible, yet any connection with such societies would create suspicions and jealousies detrimental to the peace and good government of this country: that Orange societies, and all other political societies which have secret forms of initiation and secret signs, and are bound together by any religious ceremonies, are particularly deserving of the severest reprobation of the house, and should no longer be permitted to continue;—an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct measures to be taken to remove from the public service, at home and abroad, every judge, privy-councillor, lord-lieutenant, _custos rotulorum_, magistrate, militia officer, inspector, chief-constable of the constabulary and peace preservation force, every officer of police in Ireland, and every functionary employed in the administration of justice, and in maintaining the peace of the country, who shall attend the meeting of any Orange lodge, of any riband lodge, or of any other political club, institution, or association, whenever or wherever assembled, having secret forms of initiation, and being bound together by any religious ceremony, and with secret signs, and passwords, for recognition of members of such bodies, and who shall not withdraw from such societies or associations, on or before the expiration of one month after the publication of any proclamation which his majesty may be pleased to direct to be issued hereupon, forbidding their continuing to be members of such Orange lodges, societies, and associations.” This motion was supported by Sir William Molesworth, who endeavoured to prove that the societies against which it was directed had already been declared illegal; a position which should have simply led to an address to the crown to cause the statutes to be enforced. Lord John Russell agreed that it was desirable to suppress these institutions, and all similar societies; but he intimated that government could not approve of some of the modes of doing so which were now proposed. He thought that the effect of these societies, however good their motives might be, were injurious: by their existence, whether founded upon religion or not, a distinction was made between them and some other part of the king’s subjects, who formed! themselves into counter societies, with other names and distinctions; and thus a perpetual and ever-recurring source of disunion, disaffection, quarrels, and bloodshed was created. At the same time, though it might be clear that it was desirable to get rid of this and all other societies of the like nature, whether known as Orange or Riband societies, or by any other name, it was by no means so clear how that object was to be attained. The report of last year by the committee on Orange lodges, stated that the existing statutes, if put in execution, would be adequate for their suppression, as well as that of all other societies of the like nature. He had discussed this question with the attorney and solicitor-general; and they declared that, without looking most carefully into the subject, they could not venture absolutely to pronounce an opinion as to their legality or illegality. The government, therefore, were of opinion that if the several penal statutes already in force did not contain clear enactments against this offence, it was not proper for them to seek some meaning in the law, which would be construed by others into a straining of the provisions of the law, and make it doubtful whether they had not forced the meaning of an enactment, in order to procure a condemnation of the societies in question. Even if they could have discovered that, although the Orange societies had contrived to evade the law in some points, they had yet contravened it in others, and could have obtained a conviction against them, he thought it would be mischievous to the general liberty of the subject to attempt giving a strained interpretation. In 1822, it was held by Lord Gifford and other eminent lawyers, that Orange societies were not held to come within the meaning of the law; and, therefore, if they came at present within the terms of any act, it must be in consequence of some recent change in their constitution. He was, therefore, averse to putting the question on such narrow grounds. Government also had no thought of proposing any new law against them; for, although by such a proceeding the secret signs and distinctive marks presently in use might be made to disappear, they might be succeeded by some other evasion of the law. He thought, also, that a general address to the crown affecting all judges, without entering into the case of each individual, would be scarcely consistent with the independence of the bench. As to removing every magistrate and person in office belonging to the Orange societies—if they should be removed at once by an address of this kind—without any previous declaration either from the house of commons or the crown, they would conceive such a stigma affixed to them, that they would still remain banded together from a spirit of resentment, and would regard the measure only as an unfair and biassed transaction. His colleagues and himself thought that it would be better to adopt this course:—that where a person applied for any official situation of trust and responsibility under the crown, inquiry should be made whether he were an Orangeman, and if he meant to continue in that society, that his appointment should not take place. It was not only convenient to adopt measures of discouragement in respect to those societies, but he was prepared to add to these discouragements that of an address to his majesty by this house. In conclusion, his lordship moved:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased to take such measures as to his majesty seemed advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally all political societies excluding persons of different faith, using signs and symbols, and acting by associated branches.” The Orange societies of Ireland were defended by Mr. Maxwell. They refused, he said, to be tried by the report of the committee, for its proceedings had been partial and biassed, and the investigation had not been complete. Lord Stanley urged the omission of the specific mention of Orange lodges in the address, inasmuch as they were only part of the secret societies which existed in Ireland. Lord John Russell, however, insisted on retaining the words, denying that they implied any stigma; there was no opinion pronounced as to the legality of these societies, but merely that they, as well as other secret societies, should meet the disapprobation of the crown. His motion was agreed to without a division; and the address having been presented to the king, his majesty, on the 25th of February, returned this answer:—“I willingly assent to the prayer of the address of my faithful commons, that I Would be pleased to take such measures as may seem to me advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches. It is my firm intention to discourage all such societies in my dominions, and I rely with confidence on the fidelity of my loyal subjects to support me in this determination.” The home-secretary transmitted a copy of the address and the king’s answer to the Duke of Cumberland, as the official head of the Orange societies, and his royal highness replied, that before receiving the communication, he had recommended the dissolution of the Orange institutions in Ireland. The Orange societies immediately acquiesced in this recommendation, and from that time they were professedly dissolved; but it was soon discovered that the law and will of king and commons were only evaded, and that Orange lodges were as numerous as ever. The conduct of O’Connell and his Irish adherents in this discussion was as faithless as in their professions of the voluntary principle. They knew well that ribandism was far more extensively prevalent in Ireland than orangeism, and that, whatever might be the character of the latter, the objects and spirit of the former were utterly atrocious. The riband-men were banded for purposes subversive of all law and order—of all liberty, civil and religious—and they were utterly reckless as to the means by which they promoted their ends. Assassination and incendiarism were the common instruments of this diabolical association of fanaticism and bigotry. Yet O’Connell and his confederates glossed over the evils of this system, or denied their existence, while he and they pretended zeal for public justice and liberty in the destruction of the Orange confederation. The true policy would have been the suppression of all secret political societies.

BILL TO REFORM THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

A commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the corporations in Ireland, and the royal speech had intimated that the subject would be brought forward during this session. Acting upon this report and intimation, Mr. O’Loghlen, attorney-general for Ireland, introduced a bill for the better regulation of Irish municipal corporations. In doing so he entered into many details to show the limited and exclusive nature of the corporations, and the abuses to which this had led. He proposed to remedy the abuses which had crept into the system, by a bill similar to those already adopted for England and Scotland. In regard to the seven largest towns—Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Belfast, Galway, and Waterford—it was proposed that every inhabitant possessing the £10 franchise under the provisions of the Irish reform act, should be entitled to vote in the election of municipal offices. As regarded all boroughs containing a population of less than 20,000 inhabitants, it was farther proposed that every occupier of a £5 house should be entitled to vote in the election of municipal officers. With regard to councillors, the qualification in the seven large boroughs was to consist in having property worth £1000, and in the other towns, property worth £5000. In the seven large boroughs, and likewise in Londonderry, Sligo, Dungannon, and Drogheda, where the population exceeded 15,000, there would be a division of wards. Aldermen, likewise, were to be elected by the inhabitants, and were to consist of the councillors who had the greatest number of votes at the election. One half of the councillors and aldermen were to retire every three years; and in the seven large boroughs, the council was to have the power of electing sheriffs, subject to the approval of the lord-lieutenant. The bill further declared that a commission of the peace might be granted in any large borough if the lord-lieutenant thought fit, and in other towns the mayor for the time being would be the magistrate of the borough. It was likewise intended to preserve to the inhabitants of the Irish corporate towns the right of proceeding summarily by petition in cases of misapplication of public funds, instead of leaving them to the ordinary tedious process of the law, and to retain the courts in the nature of courts of conscience, and the right of their suitors to proceed by attachment. It was further proposed that government should have the power of obliging the council, if either or both the persons first chosen were not approved of, to proceed to the election of some other persons, and not, as in the case of Dublin, re-elect the same person. All the other provisions were similar to those comprised in the English bill. The bill was allowed to be read a second time on the 29th of February without opposition; but Sir Robert Peel took occasion to state the views taken of this particular mode of reforming Irish corporations by himself and the party to which he adhered. He avowed that it was not possible to defend the corporation system which existed in Ireland; but he contended that the bill would not be a remedy for the evils. Although the views of the Conservatives, as explained by Sir Robert Peel, did not allow them to oppose the second reading of the bill, yet when the motion was made that the house should go into committee, Lord Francis Egerton moved that the committee should be empowered to make provision for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition, for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in Ireland. His lordship said, that in substituting abolition for the process of restoration proposed by ministers, he was not withholding from Ireland any of the benefits intended to be conferred on the other parts of the kingdom by their new municipal institutions; and lie argued generally that there was much in the situation of that country, and in the state of its society, which distinguished it from England and other nations, and which might render it, in certain cases, an unfit recipient for institutions not essential in themselves to good government, and only valuable as being machinery for that purpose. His motion was seconded by Mr. Lefroy. The bill was defended by Lords John Russell, Morpeth, and Hawick, Mr. O’Connell, and other members; and was attacked by Lord Stanley, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and Sirs Henry Hardinge and James Graham. Mr. O’Connell insisted that Ireland must have justice; and she would not have it if she was not treated as England and Scotland had been treated. Lord Stanley said, that he felt some hesitation in receiving Mr. O’Connell as the plenipotentiary of the people of Ireland to treat with the British parliament. Lord John Russell closed the debate on Lord Francis Egerton’s motion. On a division the motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty-three. In the committee none of the provisions of the bill underwent any important alteration, except the allowing of sheriff’s in the large boroughs to be chosen by the town-councils. Ministers listened to the objections urged against this, and retained the nomination of these officers in the power of the crown. The bill was finally passed on the 28th of March, after another debate, by a majority of two hundred and sixty to one hundred and ninety-nine.

A harder battle was, however, to be fought in the lords. On the second reading Lord Lyndhurst expressed his willingness to go into committee, but not with the intention of preserving the bill in all its present features. He did not deny that evils existed in the Irish corporations, but he wished to see some scheme adopted which would not only remove those evils, but prevent the recurrence of others of a similar kind. The present bill, however, was a bill to extend the system of exclusion, and to aggravate all the violations to which justice was now exposed. The town-councils would not consist of persons anxious for the preservation of peace and the security of property, but would be filled with men of the anti-church and Catholic party, advocates of the repeal of the union, and of the separation of British and Irish interests. His lordship argued that the five-pound qualification would increase agitation, would aggrandise radical interests. If excitement, he said, prevailed in Ireland at the election of members of parliament, how far more prevalent would be the excitement which would attend the elections of this bill. His lordship looked also, with alarm, at the formidable power which the priesthood would gain by this bill; and the town-councils, he contended, would be confined to a party of inflammatory demagogues: justice itself would be poisoned at its source, and corporate property devoted to anything but its legitimate purposes. He concluded by sketching a plan similar to that which had been proposed in the commons by Sir Robert Peel, and which he, or some of those with whom he acted, would propose should be inserted in the bill in place of the clauses containing the new corporations. The house went into committee on the 26th of April, when Lord Fitzgerald moved, as had been done in the commons, “That it be an instruction to the committee to make provision for the abolition of such corporations, and for such arrangements as may be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in Ireland.” The lord-chancellor and Lords Holland and Melbourne spoke against this motion; and Lords Abinger and Lyndhurst supported it.. The motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and three against one hundred and nineteen. The committee proceeded on the 9th of May, and the first clause, repealing “all acts, charters, and customs inconsistent with this act,” was agreed to; and the existing corporations were thus abolished. Lord Lyndhurst moved certain amendments on the second clause, which reserved the rights of freemen; and after some debate these were carried by a majority of one hundred and seven against fifty-three. Another debate and division took place on the 22nd clause, which enacted that the boroughs should have a mayor, and a certain number of councillors and aldermen, as they were arranged in the schedules. This was struck out. And on the third reading of the bill, the Duke of Richmond proposed limiting the bill to seven of the largest towns. This motion, it was said, was not made by any arrangement or communication with the ministry. Government had never intended to preclude itself from inquiring to what towns corporate powers should be extended. What they were most anxious to preserve was, the corporation principle in Ireland. If that were maintained, the Marquis of Lansdowne said, he should not argue that corporations ought to be continued in the small towns: if any difference was to be made, it ought to be in favour of the large towns, because it was there that corporations must be useful if they were good for anything. The motion, however, was negatived; and the bill, having thus been brought into the form which the minority in the lower house had endeavoured to give it, was sent down on the 19th of May to the commons.

In moving that the lords’ amendments should be printed, Lord John Russell stated that, however willing he might be to come to some arrangement in regard to the constitution of the franchise, he would never consent to deprive Ireland of municipal government altogether, thereby stigmatising and degrading its people. The Radicals were very violent, boldly maintaining that there required an “organic change” in the house of lords. The amendments were moved, by Lord John Russell, to be taken into consideration on the 9th of June. The bill, he said, as amended, contained little or nothing of the bill which had been sent up to the lords. Out of one hundred and forty clauses, one hundred and six had been in substance omitted, while eighteen others had been introduced. A bill had been put up for regulating and renewing corporations in Ireland on the same conditions as in England and Scotland; they had received back a bill which abolished them entirely, but which preserved to many of the persons who held office in these bodies all the power and profit of their situations. In order to meet the concurrence of the lords, however, instead of abolishing the whole of the corporations, it was proposed that the larger towns, originally divided between schedules A and B should be placed in one, and that all the clauses for the government of corporate towns should be restored to the bill, with the view of applying them to these particular towns. These towns would be Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Gal way, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry, Sligo, and Carrickfergus. In regard to the other towns, he would not give them corporations; but at the same time he would not leave them subject to the provisions of the lords’ bill. He proposed rather, that the provisions of the act of 1828 should be applied immediately to twenty-two of the towns in schedule C, and that so soon as the five-pound householders in these towns had chosen commissioners, the corporate property, and the right of appointing to the necessary offices should vest in the commissioners. There would be commissioners elected by the inhabitants, instead of being appointed by the lord-lieutenant. In regard to the remaining boroughs of schedule C, as they possessed but little property, he would neither subject them to the expense of a corporation, nor compel them to elect commissioners under the act of 1828; but would leave it to them to have recourse to the latter, if they thought fit. The lords had made other alterations in other clauses of the bill, regarding the granting of quarter-sessions, &c.; but these alterations did not impair the spirit of the original bill, and therefore he would not quarrel with them. The difference which still remained between them was one of principle—should there be municipal governments or not? He thought that municipal government, placed on a popular basis, and under popular control, was excellent and useful in itself; and that in Ireland it would tend to public tranquillity, by assuaging jealousies, and removing causes of discontent. His lordship concluded by moving the rejection of the amendment of the lords on the fourth clause, which implied the continuance of corporations, and which the peers had therefore expunged. This motion led to another debate of two days’ duration, in which all the topics previously discussed were again brought forward; superadded to which were many reflections on the house of lords, and on Lord Lyndhurst in particular. On a division, the motion to reject the amendment on the lords was carried by three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and twenty-eight; and on the 13th and 14th of June, the bill was brought back to the shape proposed by ministers in so far as regarded corporations being limited to the twelve towns mentioned by Lord John Russell. Subsequently, a committee was appointed to draw up the reasons of the house for not agreeing to the amendment of the peers; and the amended bill was delivered to the lords at a conference on the 17th of June. On the 27th, Lord Melbourne moved that the amendments of the commons should be agreed to, which motion was met by a direct negative by Lord Lyndhurst. The motion was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and twenty-one; and the bill was then sent back to the commons, with the reasons of the lords for adhering to their own amendments. Finally, on the 30th of June, Lord John Russell moved, and the house agreed, that the amendment should be taken into consideration that day three months, and thus the bill was dropped.

THE IRISH TITHE-BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another great party measure was the Irish tithe-bill. Ministers reintroduced this measure on the 25th of April. It was brought forward by Lord Morpeth, the Irish secretary, who moved this resolution:—“That it is expedient to commute the composition of tithes in Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the estate, and to make further provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical dues and revenues.” In opening the scheme which ministers intended to incorporate in their bill, Lord Morpeth announced that the principle of appropriation would still be declared and acted on. The bill, he said, would follow the uniform precedent of three previous bills, and he believed of four successive administrations, in converting the tithe-composition into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first estate of inheritance, as it was termed. The bill would also preserve those terms of commutation which, in the bill of last year, had been adopted by both houses of parliament, by conferring a deduction of thirty per cent, upon those subject to the payment of the tithe-composition. He would not propose any contribution from the national funds towards payment of the arrears of former years; and, on the other hand, he would abandon all claims for repayment of the sums which had been advanced to tithe-owners under the million act, and which amounted to £637,000. Ministers proposed, he said, to entrust the collection of rent-charges to the board of woods and forests for a period of seven years, and thereafter until parliament should otherwise determine. The bill would also contain the provisions for allowing a revaluation of the present tithe-composition in the cases and under the limitations specified in the bill of last year. These were the arrangements to be enacted in regard to existing incumbents. As regarded the future regulation of the church revenues, government felt that they could not abandon those declarations and principles with which they entered upon office; that they could not shake off the engagement under which they conceived themselves to stand, of doing justice to the Irish nation; and the terms of that virtual and most honourable compact they conceived to be that if, in the future disposition of the revenues of the Irish church, something superfluous for its legitimate and becoming uses should arise, they should, after the satisfaction of all existing interests, apply that superfluity to the religious and moral education of the people. He felt that he might consider the principle as established and conceded, that parliament had a right to deal with the revenues of the church, if it should think them superfluous for church purposes; so long as the resolution adopted by the present parliament stood upon their books unrepealed, he had a right to think that that principle was admitted. It was now proposed by government, he continued, that on any future vacancy of a benefice, providing, as before, compensation for the patronage of private individuals in possession of the avowson, the lord-lieutenant should direct the board of ecclesiastical commissioners, now sitting in Dublin, to submit to the privy-council a report containing all particulars concerning such benefice; and a committee of the privy-council would be established with a view to this especial purpose, consisting exclusively of members of the established church, and named by his majesty. Power would be given to this committee to alter the boundaries of vacant benefices, subject to such modifications as subsequent vacancies of contiguous benefices might render advisable to carry into effect. Since the year 1718 the lord-lieutenant and the privy-council had united two hundred and eighty-nine parishes, consisting of the union of two or more parishes. The committee, after fixing the boundaries, were to apportion such income as they might think proper relative to the duties of the future incumbents, but within certain limitations. Where the number of the members of the established church varied from 500 to 1000, the income would be £300; and where the number varied from 1000 to 3000, the income would be £400. Where the number of Protestants amounted to 3000 and upwards, the income would be raised to £500; but wherever the number was below 50, it was proposed to assign to the incumbent an income not exceeding £100. After thus providing for the Protestant establishment, his lordship said that there would still be a considerable surplus of ecclesiastical revenue. The tithes payable to the clergy at present were £511,000, which, remitting thirty per cent, left a rent-charge of £353,000. The ministers’ money might be stated at £10,000, without the expenses of collection; the private bounty fund, £5000; glebe-lands, clear revenue, £86,500; total, £459,550. There were 1385 benefices in Ireland, a considerable number of which were sinecures, not merely from the circumstance of having no members of the church of England within their locality, but also from the fact that they were in the hands of the dignitaries of the church, who performed little or no service in them. There were also many which had been suppressed by the church-temporalities act, divine service not having been performed in them for three years. Perhaps the number necessary to keep up would be about 1250. It was intended, indeed, under this bill, to give power to the privy-council to constitute new benefices in Ireland, of which they were likely to avail themselves to some extent. The whole payment to be made to the clergy of the 1250 benefices he calculated at £361,928, thus leaving a surplus of £97,612. This was a larger surplus than he had hoped for last year; but as the committee of the privy-council would, in certain cases, have the power to constitute new benefices, this surplus would be likely to undergo some alteration. It would also be remembered that no part of the surplus could be expected to be realised for some time to come, from the necessity of satisfying vested interests, and of making other important arrangements. After satisfying all the charges that must be met, it was proposed to have the remainder paid into the consolidated fund, upon which a charge of £50,000 per annum was to be fixed, for the purpose of supplying religious and moral education to the people of Ireland. The second reading was delayed till the 1st of June, when Lord Stanley, who had previously given notice of his intention, moved this amendment:—“That leave be given to bring in a bill for the conversion of tithe into a rent-charge, and for the redemption thereof, and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland.” In reply, Lord John Eussell reminded the house that he had expressed his willingness to allow Lord Stanley to bring in his bill as a substantive measure; but when it was moved as an amendment on the original motion before them, it was merely a new form of opposing the second reading of the government bill, and raising the question on the principle of that bill. They had been appealed to as gentlemen, but he hoped they were something more; that they were representatives of popular feelings and popular interests—representatives, not of local bodies, but of the whole empire, including the six millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland. In conclusion, Lord John Russell said that it had been asked, whether he meant the income of the glebe-lands generally, or in part, to go towards giving glebe to the Roman Catholic church? He gave a distinct answer in the negative; government had no intention of providing, out of any surplus of glebe-lands in Ireland, glebe-lands for the Roman Catholic church. The debate continued by adjournment on the 2nd and 3rd of June, the ministerial measure being defended by Lord Morpeth, the chancellor of the exchequer, Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, Ward, and others; and that of Lord Stanley being supported by Sergeant Jackson, Sirs James Graham, and E. Peel, and Mr. Lefroy, and others. The most remarkable speeches delivered in this debate were those of Mr. O’Connell and Sir Robert Peel. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who complained that the opposition fixed upon ministers all the opinions of those who supported the bill. On a division, ministers had a majority of thirty-nine; the votes for the second reading being three hundred, and for Lord Stanley’s amendment, two hundred and sixty-one. A motion was made on the 1st of July for going into committee on the bill, on which day the ultimate designs and the real wishes of the Papists were disclosed by Mr. Crawford, who moved the following resolutions:—“1. That it is expedient that tithes, and all compositions for tithes in Ireland should cease, and be for ever extinguished, compensations being first made for all existing interests, whether lay or ecclesiastical; and that it is also expedient that measures should be adopted to render the revenues of the church lands more productive, and more available for the support of the working clergy of the establishment; and that all persons not in communion with the established church of Ireland should be relieved from all assessment for its support. 2. That it is expedient that the moneys necessary for the aforesaid compensation (estimated at £2,500,000) should be advanced out of the public revenue, and afterwards repaid by instalments from the proceeds of a tax to be imposed on profit-rents; such tax to cease and determine as soon as the said debt shall be paid.” These resolutions, however, were rejected by a majority of fifty-one against eighteen. In the committee the Irish leader betrayed his conviction that it would be impossible either to pass the bill, or to make it the means of raising any popular excitement against the house of lords. On the discussion of the first clause, he said, that to discuss anything was only waste of time; for it was clear that no measure for the pacification of Ireland, whether respecting tithes or anything else, was likely to pass. Any bill containing solid relief was sure to be destroyed; they were legislating in despair. He himself intended to have proposed several amendments; but he should not do so, as there could be no doubt the lords would throw out the bill. The only debate which took place in the committee arose on the question, whether the appropriation clause should stand part of the bill. The arguments adopted were a repetition of all that had been formerly urged, diversified with a few new illustrations, and some acrimony of expression. The clause was retained on a division by a majority of two hundred and ninety against two hundred and sixty-four. The bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 15th of July.

The second reading was moved in the lords on the 22nd of July. Lord Melbourne briefly explained its provisions, observing that it was not necessary for him to go into any lengthened argument on the subject. It was read a second time without opposition, the Duke of Wellington declaring that he was prepared to consider it in committee, with a view to make such amendments as might render it consistent with the interests of the church and the people. The house went into committee on the 25th, and the bill was passed on the 28th. When passed, however, all the provisions for what was called appropriation were struck out, and all the other important arrangements in the bill were modified. By the bill the clergy were only to receive seventy per cent.; the lords raised it to seventy-five; they raised also the minimum stipend to be paid in any benefice to £300. In this shape the bill was sent down to the commons.

Lord John Russell brought the amendments of the lords before that house on the 2nd of August, when he started a question of privilege, as if the lords had interfered with a money-bill, thereby leaving the commons no other choice than to reject it, independently of the merits or demerits of the alterations which had been introduced. He entered subsequently into the merits of the amendments at large; and having explained them, he said, it was for the house to say whether, after having solemnly affirmed certain principles, it would, because the lords had rejected them, yield them up, and then endeavour to agree with the lords in the alterations of this bill, or in the provisions of a new measure. For himself, he would say, that if the members of the house of commons were to go up to the bar of the house of lords in such humble guise, admitting that they had been in error, and that the wisdom of the house of lords had taught them a lesson of policy they had never learned before, he, for one, would not accompany the commons on such a message. Sir Robert Peel, who followed the home-secretary, moved as an amendment that the lords’ amendments should now be taken into consideration; but, after a brief debate, the motion for rejecting the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty against two hundred and thirty-one.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND.