omission of the redemption clauses; to the having recourse to the consolidated fund, and the perpetuity fund, which would be unnecessary if four-fifths were substituted for three-fifths; and to the deduction of twenty per cent to be given to the landlords, a sum which must come essentially out of the pockets of the clergy, while no attempt had been made to show how the landlords, a class more interested than any other in the welfare of Ireland, came to be entitled to this increase of their incomes. The duke of Richmond was strongly influenced by dread of the misery which the clergy would have to undergo, abandoned to be persecuted by the agitators who, with religious liberty on their lips, hated the Protestant religion, and particularly the parochial clergymen, because, by their preaching and example, they had great influence in extending that religion. -The earl of Ripon, on the other hand, while he admitted that the condition of the clergy would be sufficiently painful, said, there might be circumstances in which it would become still worse; and he did not think those persons reasoned justly who proceeded on the miserable plight to which the rejection of the bill would reduce the clergy, looking to the sufferings and privations which they were compelled to endure, and the dangers with which they were surrounded, even to the loss of life, under the present system. In proportion to what they suffered, was it binding on the honour and common charity of the house, to deal tenderly with their interests, and not aggravate their distress, by laying hold of their VOL. LXXVI.

property for the mere sake of giving twenty per cent to the landlords, a boon which, it appeared, they had, if not suggested, at least voted in their own favour.

On the division, the bill was thrown out by a majority of sixtyseven, there being for the second reading, 122, consisting of 51 peers present, and 71 proxies; and against it 189, consisting of 85 peers present, and 104 proxies.

Besides these measures, a bill was brought in and passed, to amend and extend the Irish temporalities act of the preceding session. Under that act, the church cess was to be done away with, and the purposes to which it had been applied were to be provided for by the ecclesiastical commissioners, from the monies which the act placed at their disposal. The act, however, had not passed before Easter; and it contained no clause, making it retrospective in relation to vestry cess. The consequence was, that the vestry cess for 1833 remained unpaid, and the commissioners were unable to meet the demands of the present and previous year, amounting to 80,000l. or 90,0001. It was expected, however, that in the course of the present year, they would be in possession of upwards of 107,000l.; and it was, therefore, proposed that the treasury should, in the mean time, advance to the ecclesiastical commissioners a loan of 100,000l. on the security of the church property. Lord Althorp, having stated that he was more confident than ever that the money already advanced to the Irish clergy would be repaid, Mr. O'Connell expressed his regret at

[M]

such a declaration, for that repayment could not be effected without violence, and they would get more blood than money, if they attempted to enforce it. In his hatred of every thing which had the appearance of a payment into the hands of dignitaries of the established church, even though for the benefit of all religions, he seemed to disregard the plainest

claims of charity and decorum; at least, he was reported on this occasion to have said, that he objected to parishes being taxed for the purpose of putting into a coffin the remains of a person who had gone naked all his life, and to the provision for destitute children, as being merely another form of the system of foundling hospitals.

man to give up forty per cent of his income, continuing to have the same persons for his debtors, and holding already for the whole of his income, the same security that he was to have in future for a portion of it. The effect on the landlords, again, would be most unequal. The occupying tenantry were no longer to have anything to do with the payment of tithes. Where, then, the lands were let on tenancies at will, the landlord might gain the whole of the proposed bounty by raising the tenant's rent in the same proportion in which the latter was relieved of tithe. Where, again, the lands were let on long leases, the landlord might actually be a loser of twenty per cent on the sum he had to pay. The bill, therefore, must be rejected altogether. The measure might, in fact, be regarded as a money bill; but, setting that aside, what were they to do by going into committee? They could do so only with the intention of altering, omitting, and inserting clauses, and this on the 11th of August, with the view of establishing a new system of tithes for Ireland. The thing was utterly impossible. Even if they were not defeated by time, they were sure to be defeated by the house of Commons, who would declare, as they had done before, that the measure was too important to be decided by a single vote of their lordships. Even the government should not be unwilling to have the means of a more deliberate examination; for the measure, as it stood, was one which had been concocted in three weeks, by a number of different persons, and was very unlike that which had

been the result of their deliberate judgment after a consideration of three years. He, therefore, moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months.

The Marquis of Lansdowne contended, that the bill ought to be supported, because this, or some measure of a similar kind must of necessity soon be passed, and because, at a future period, they might not be able to gain the same advantages which the house of Commons now tendered to them. He admitted that a conversion of the tithes into land would be very desirable, but there were so many persons who disliked the idea, and the notion of converting land into mortmain had been so long unpopular in England, that he could not think of supporting any measure having this for its object. Yet lord Lansdowne must have been aware that the resolution of the 20th of February, moved by Mr. Littleton as the organ of the government, contemplated such a conversion, and was intended to effect it. He further denied, that the bill had been changed in principle, though it had been changed in form. By administering a large degree of compulsion, what would have been paid in five years was now to be paid in one. As a landlord he disliked this; but he cordially supported it, when he saw what would be its effect on the tranquillity of Ireland. That it would contribute to the restoration of that tranquillity he could not doubt, for it was in vain to say, that collection of tithe by the landlord, and by the Protestant clergyman, would lead to the same consequences. Was it to be

thought that, because the landlord, in the exercise of his sound discretion, could recover from the tenant what he had advanced for him at a time when the tenant might find it difficult to raise the money, the same feeling would be in action when the receiver stood in a totally different relation to the tenant, and his proceedings were of a very different kind? Even if the same irritation were to follow, it would not be directed against the clergyman, for to him the tenant would not have to pay a farthing. If compulsion was applied to the church, it was applied to the landlord also, and parliament, too, with great liberality, had taken part of the burthen upon itself. In doing so, the house of Commons had offered a boon, which, if rejected now, might not again be offered. Lord Duncannon, the new home secretary, was equally clear that the bill ought to pass, as being the only one of the measures hitherto proposed, in which the real interests of the peasantry and tenantry were truly consulted. The clergy were no losers by sacrificing twenty per cent; for every clergyman examined before the committees of either house of parliament had stated, that the collection of his tithes cost him, at least, twenty per cent, and he himself knew cases in which it had cost much more. If the bill did not pass, he felt confident that all exertions, which could be made in favour of the clergy to assert the law, and to support their just claims, would entirely fail, and that by means of passive resistance,nothing would be found by the clergy upon which to distrain; thus, after incurring considerable ex

pense in fruitless efforts, they would not recover one shilling of their tithes. He admitted, that, in its first shape, and before the amendment was carried, the law at present existing had been asserted; but when the amendment came to the other house proposed by the Irish landlords, a very different question presented itself. The amendment was not of Mr. O'Connell's proposition, though he thought that gentleman had very wisely adopted it; it was the result of a resolution, to which the Irish landlords resident in London had come, and would have been brought forward, even if Mr. O'Connell had not embraced it. It was true it had been opposed by lord Althorp, because his lordship, as a minister, was bound to support the bill propounded by the government; but when he obtained the sentiments of the Irish landlords upon it, he was justified in giving way. He himself rejoiced that the chancellor of the exchequer had done so; for he was quite satisfied, that if the original bill had passed, though it might have asserted the law, it would have effected that object amidst bloodshed and conflict with the peasantry. Lord Duncannon, however, did not explain how it happened that he, entertaining such opinions regarding the effect of the proposed measure, had joined the cabinet at a time when the government contemplated no such change,-a government, moreover, that, confessedly, would never have thought of such a change, essential as lord Duncannon deemed it, if bloodshed and civil conflict were to be avoided, unless the amendment had been