presented a Petition from Joseph Harrington, a Suitor in the Court of Chancery, complaining of the practice and proceedings in the Master's Office. The hon. Member stated, that the petitioner was interested in a will which was the subject of a dispute in the Court of Chancery. The result of the suit, was an Attorney's bill for costs to the amount of no less a sum than 7,000l. The petitioner had paid a part of this bill, which part he considered the whole amount fairly due: but he had been advised that, if he objected to the amount charged, his only remedy was to have the bill of costs taxed. Upon inquiry, however, the petitioner discovered that the costs of taxation would amount to no less a sum than 1,500l.; and the petition set forth the various items which went to make up that sum. Unfortunately this case was not altogether unparalleled in the annals of the Court of Chancery. Only a short time since, a case came before the Master of the Rolls, in which the Brewers' Company were parties. The bill was filed to recover 500l., and the question afterwards arose, who was to pay the costs amounting to 900l. He (Mr. Spence) should consider himself called upon to dwell more on cases of so much enormity, but that he knew there was now the prospect of a speedy and effectual reform of those crying abuses. He was authorised to state, and indeed might state from his own knowledge, that one or more bills would be introduced shortly after the recess, either in that or the other House of Parliament, which he believed would effectually remedy the abuses in the Master's Office. Under these circumstances he did not consider himself called upon to dwell longer on the case detailed in the petition.

congratulated the House on the information just communicated, that a remedy was contemplated for the crying abuses of the Court of Chancery. He suggested that the taxation of costs in that Court should not be left to the Masters, who were Judges with salaries, amounting to 4,000l. or 5,000l. a-year, and ought to be better employed, but that an officer should be appointed, with a salary of 1,000l. whose exclusive duty it should be, to tax the Solicitors' costs. There was another point well worthy of consideration. At least forty per cent, or 3,000l. out of the bill of costs of 7,000l. referred to in the petition, he had no doubt, was expended by the Solicitor in fees to Counsel. Now, if a Solicitor was overpaid, upon the taxation he was compelled to return the amount so overpaid; but, according to the practice of the profession, the Counsel kept whatever they were paid, and were generally paid before they worked. In his opinion, the party ought to be enabled to demand and enforce restitution of all fees improperly paid to Counsel, upon the certificate of the taxing officer. He was happy, however, to believe that the subject was now in the hands of those who would remedy it, and no greater benefit could be conferred on the public, than to make the Courts of Equity equitable themselves.

said, the remedy for the abuse of which the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey) complained, was, to a certain extent, in the hands of that branch of the profession to which the hon. Member belonged. He admitted, however, that the practice of disallowing the fees paid to Counsel on consultations was excessively ridiculous, and called for some remedy, which he had no doubt would now be applied to it.

was happy to be able to corroborate the statement of his hon. and learned friend, that one or more bills would shortly be introduced, for the purpose of remedying the abuse of the Court of Chancery. The question of costs required, and had obtained, the most attentive consideration. He agreed with the hon. member for Colchester, that the Masters' time ought not to be wasted in taxing costs.

said, that the House had just heard a Counsel, a Solicitor, and a Master in Chancery, but he hoped none of these had any thing to do with drawing up the bills which were about to be introduced; for if they had, he (Mr. Hunt) feared the poor client would remain where he was.

presented a Petition from the Operatives engaged in the Glove Trade in the city of Worcester. The Petition stated, that the Glove Trade of Worcester was never in so distressed a state as at present. Upon the face of the Returns the importation of French gloves appeared to have been diminished since 1828; but he should be prepared to contend, that in reality the quantity imported had increased, but not in a legitimate way. In fact the mischief was occasioned by the operations of the smugglers. There was no less than 40,000 persons employed in this trade, and they comprehended a large number of industrious and honest people. It was his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the subject. Some apprehended that nothing short of prohibition would protect the home manufacture, and should that be found to be the case, he would vote for prohibition rather than see the present melancholy distress. While the trade was permitted, any quantity of gloves could be disposed of, however obtained. The petitioners prayed for relief, and attributed their distress to the importation of French gloves.

said, he had a similar Petition to present from Yeovil. If, after the recess, his hon. and gallant friend moved for inquiry, that motion should have his cordial support.

assured the House, that the petitioners had not appealed to it for relief until they had tried every means within their reach to assist themselves. He was ready to declare, that if some means were not devised to sustain the glove trade, the country would have to support by charity a large proportion of the persons hitherto usefully engaged in that trade. When his hon. and gallant friend (Colonel Davies) brought forward the subject regularly, he should be prepared to prove, that the principles of free trade, as applied to the glove trade, had not been wisely applied, and ought to be reconsidered. The principles of free trade might have been wisely applied, if, when they were embraced by this country, they had been followed by other governments; but, as other countries had rejected these principles, he greatly doubted whether they could be persevered in by this country without great and increasing injury to the labouring classes. He had no wish to see prohibitions, but he was prepared to consent to that extreme measure, if nothing short of it could be devised, so as to give a just and fair protection to the home manufacturer.

thought it was too much the fashion to prefer the manufactures of other countries to our own.

observed, that measures of prohibition, would infallibly throw more people out of employment than the present system. Those who now exported goods would find no sale for their commodities, and ruin would ensue to them.

said, that the abstract principles of political economy would never satisfy the starving people. The situation of the working classes was gradually deteriorating since the introduction of the system of free trade. He gave his warmest support to the prayer of the petition.

should be prepared to state the views of his Majesty's Government on this subject when it was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Davies) after the recess. He should simply confine himself now to stating, that the petition just presented should receive the most anxious attention.

thought it was impossible to make such extensive alterations as had been made in different branches of our trade, without producing great distress. He supported the prayer of the petition.

felt it necessary to say a few words in favour of the petitioners. He must contend, that the arguments in favour of free trade in general, did not apply to particular trades in detail: there were exceptions to these doctrines, and the manufacture of gloves was one.

said, the arrangements which had been made were the best that circumstances permitted; except that the duties were rather too high, and this permitted smugglers to run contraband goods, while, under the old system, they had full opportunity to carry on an illicit trade with impunity.

said, there ought to be a free trade in corn, if there was to be one in silks. It was idle to talk of stopping smuggling with a duty of thirty per cent. He knew and the Secretary for the Treasury must know, that the smugglers could insure the delivery of French goods into any warehouse in London, at a charge of nine per cent above the market prices without duty. The distress of the poor must be relieved. In Huddersfield there were 13,000 persons who did not receive more than 1s. per week.

observed, that the distress was not confined to the glove trade. If the present system was to be persevered in, it was utterly impossible that the silk manufacturer could much longer exist in this country. He believed a similar statement would apply to the glove trade.

hoped, that the measure would meet with complete success, as there was no one subject in any point of view more important.

confirmed what the hon. Mover had said, as to the feelings of his Majesty's Government with respect to the proposed measure. There was no objection to the introduction of the Bill, although it would be necessary that it should receive the most mature consideration. But he begged it to be understood, that his Majesty's Ministers were by no means pledged either to support or not to oppose the Bill, as they should deem it expedient when its provisions should be known to them; there would be full opportunity for the discussion at a future period.

expressed his hope, that if the Bill extended to the silk trade, the hon. Gentleman would have no objection to its being referred to a Select Committee, because there was a prevailing impression amongst the silk trade, that their case had not been fully heard by the last Committee, although the woollen and the cotton manufactures had been amply examined into. Therefore, if the Bill were intended to include the silk trade, he hoped there would be no objection to a Committee up-stairs.

had no hesitation in declaring, that the proposition was so founded in humanity and in policy, that no objection could justly be made to it in respect to any particular trade. He hoped the House would spare the operatives the expense of making good their case before Parliament. He was sure that what he proposed would be found unobjectionable, and not requiring an exception on account of any one trade. He embraced every branch of manufactures in it, because he was sure that the operatives, with their children, now gave up as much of their labour as the human constitution could afford.

begged the hon. Gentleman would not suppose that he meant to give it as his opinion, or that of the silk trade in general, that that trade ought not to be included in the Bill; but the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that the silk trade was different from others, and he thought it would be hard upon the silk manufacturers, if they should be included without having been heard.

begged to ask a noble Lord opposite, whom he saw at that moment in his place, a question relating to the Reform Bill. In bringing in that Bill, the noble Lord had stated, that it was formed upon a new principle, and that that principle was now found in a list of 150 boroughs, which had the lowest amount of houses, and paid the smallest share of assessed taxes. The noble Lord further said, that he was prepared to lay that list before the House, together with a letter from Lieutenant Drummond, explanatory of the grounds on which the list was formed. The noble Lord spoke of other information also, which he proposed to lay upon the Table, and which had not been, he believed, yet produced. But the question which he was desirous to put, did not so much relate to information respecting the details of the Bill, as respecting the principle which was said to be its basis. There could not possibly be any difficulty in giving that information immediately, as the noble Lord must have been in possession of it before the Bill was drawn up. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord did not mean to propose that the House should go to the second reading without having those documents produced upon the Table a sufficient time to enable the hon. Members to examine them. He begged to ask, therefore, whether they were presented, as had been promised, yesterday morning, for he had looked into the votes, and he found no mention of such a return?

replied, that the documents respecting which the right hon. Gentleman inquired, did not arrive last night until the House was up. They would be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen in the morning.

would use his best diligence, as soon as he could get the papers, to examine them, so as to be prepared for the debate. Indeed, he had given the new Bill his best attention, by looking into those papers which had been presented, and from all that he could understand about it, he had no hesitation in saying, that the Bill of this Session was liable to more suspicions even than that of last Session.

asked, whether the debate was to be adjourned to the following week?

wished to commence the debate on Friday, and to conclude it on Saturday.

trusted, that the debate on the second reading would not be taken so early as Friday, as the papers to which he had alluded could not possibly be placed in the hands of hon. Members in sufficient time to enable them to become acquainted with the details. It was to be remembered, that the documents must have been a long time in the hands of the noble Lords who introduced the Bill. It must be so, for it was on the statements contained in those papers they formed the present Bill; unless, perhaps, they made it without the materials, as they made their former Bill. But, as he had understood, the noble Lord had stated, that the Bill was founded on the information contained in the list and the letter of Lieutenant Drummond, and the House, of course, must wish to have an opportunity, previous to the second reading, of making itself acquainted with the principles and details which had been received from that gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman chooses to say, that the Bill was founded on those documents; no such thing. The schedule was founded on them. So far from saying, that they furnished the principle of the Bill, my noble friend actually stated, that the information came so late, that he was not certain but that one or two boroughs had been inserted incorrectly.

thought, that he could confute the noble Lord, even by his own assertion. The House would please to observe that, contrary to the five other Reform Bills of his Majesty's Ministers, the new Bill had—instead of a blank to be afterwards filled up with the number of the boroughs to be disfranchised—the words "fifty-six" printed in the Bill. Now that proved, that the exact state of all the boroughs had been examined by the noble Lords, and that, in their judgments, there were fifty-six boroughs which fell exactly within the rule, whatever it should turn out to be, that they had adopted. The information upon which that rule and that number of fifty-sis had been thus adopted, and made an integral and vital part of the Bill, must therefore have been, for some time, in possession of Ministers, and he (Mr. Croker) complained that the House was to be called upon to pledge itself to the most important provisions of the whole Bill, while the information on which they were founded was wilfully, as it seemed to him, kept from its knowledge.

then said:—In rising, in obedience to the recommendation in the most gracious Speech from the Throne, which has just been read, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the law relating to Tithes in Ireland, and to ascertain whether such legislative enactments can be framed as shall combine security to the property of the Established Church, with the removal of those grievances which may be considered to exist under the present system, I am undertaking, I am well aware, a task of no ordinary responsibility. I know that I shall be told, on the one hand, by those who inflexibly adhere to the support of whatever exists, that we are introducing unnecessary innovations—that we are creating needless agitation upon subjects which would be better left in quiet—that we are lending the sanction of official authority to idle clamour and unfounded complaints—that we are originating measures which will invade the very foundations of the vested rights of property, and giving encouragement to unprofitable and dangerous divisions. I am also convinced that, on the other hand, some Gentlemen will tell us, that we see the existing evils clearly, but shrink from applying the remedy which alone can be efficient; that our judgment is warped by our prejudice; that we dare not look at the question as we ought, and that nothing less than what would amount to a sweeping demolition of existing institutions, and an extensive spoliation of property and subversion of right, is sufficient to remove the causes of those grievances which have spread to so wide an extent, and produce such ruinous consequences. But, Sir, as I should hold it to be unworthy of his Majesty's Government to shrink before the magnitude of the difficulty or delicacy of the task, so in the particular situation in which I find myself—honoured with a place in that Administration, and charged in particular with the superintendence of affairs which, at this moment, involve questions of not less deep interest and importance than at any former period of the history of this empire—I should deem myself unworthy of the trust which is confided to me, were I to refuse to offer myself, however inadequately, as the organ of his Majesty's Government, in bringing before the House our view as to the existing evils, and those points to which we conceive, most especially, legislative interference ought to be directed. But, Sir, I own that I feel more than a common responsibility on this account, that it is not alone as a Minister of the Crown, and, therefore, anxious for the security and tranquillity of Ireland, which, in my conscience, I believe cannot be effected by any other means than we propose—it is not only in that character that I present myself on this occasion, but it is, indeed, the higher responsibility of a Christian and a sincere Protestant—an ardent supporter of that Church to which I belong, anxious for its respectability, its security, and its very existence, but still more anxious for the support of the religion which that Church is calculated to maintain and to propagate—that I now call upon the House of Commons, a large proportion of whom belong to that Church, seriously and earnestly to consider what is the state in which that Church and our common religion are at present placed. A right hon. Baronet opposite, the member for Tamworth, in commenting upon some observations which I made the other day upon this passage of the King's Speech, expressed the greatest alarm at the notion of a Committee of Inquiry, and argued, with no inconsiderable plausibility, that so long as this question should be pending before the House of Commons, so long as it should be known, that the attention of Parliament was turned to the question, the foundation of the compact between the Clergy and their parishioners would be broken up, the payment of tithes would cease, and a complete anarchy would take place, as respected the Clergy and the people. But let the right hon. Gentleman recollect, that tithes are not a case in which payments from week to week, or from day to day, are going on. They are not one of the ordinary transactions of trade or commerce, in which, whenever any uncertainty arises, a stagnation of business necessarily takes place, and a consequent depression is felt. Tithes are paid half-yearly, for the most part; and let it be recollected, that one of those periods of payment has but recently elapsed, and no further demand can be made until after the Easter recess. Therefore I say, that, if there ever was a time when it was safe to enter upon the consideration of the subject, the present is the time, as we have a longer period for the discussion, without that difficulty arising, than we could have at any other time. But the right hon. Baronet objects to our proceeding by Committee, and says, that it would have been better to have taken upon ourselves the responsibility of placing before the House a bill for the remedy of the grievances which we consider to exist. Now let me put it to the right hon. Baronet himself, if we had pursued that course—if, without notice in the King's Speech, or even with notice, we had brought in a bill to make such alterations as we conceived necessary in the existing laws—would not the right hon. Baronet have been the first man to call upon us to act with great caution—well and deeply to consider what we were going to do not—to hurry ourselves or the House of Commons into a decision—but to lay before the House all the information which we might possess, but of which it was not in possession, and neither to act ourselves, nor to urge the House to act, without the fullest investigation and the most minute inquiry? The right hon. Baronet would have used all those arguments which he, as a political opponent, so well knows how to apply. [Sir Robert Peel said, across the Table, that the right hon. Secretary was mistaken as to his feelings on the occasion]. I am, surely, not mistaken in saying, that the right hon. Baronet objected to our not taking the responsibility upon ourselves, but asking for a Committee; and I am endeavouring to show, that we should have been liable, from the same quarter, to an opposite accusation. [Sir Robert Peel said, you should not assume, that I mean to oppose the Motion]. I am sorry if I annoy the right hon. Baronet by my observations; I had not an opportunity of answering the right hon. Baronet's remarks the other day, when they were made; and I had hopes, that he would not object to my taking notice of them now, when he will have an ample opportunity of replying. [Sir Robert Peel again objected to the right hon. Gentleman's arguing upon the inference that he meant to oppose the Motion.] Then, if the right hon. Baronet will allow me, I will argue as if the opposition might come from some other quarter. I will suppose it might be possible, that an objection might be taken in some quarter to the mode we are pursuing, and that objection I am anxious to answer, before I proceed further with the subject. I will suppose it might be objected that we ought not upon a question of this importance, to have taken notice of the subject in the Speech from the Throne, unless we were prepared to follow it up immediately by a bill for the remedy of the existing evils. I will suppose it might be argued by some, that we are only unnecessarily protracting agitation, which ought to he kept still and quiet—that we ought not to have alluded to the subject which is now distracting one-half of Ireland, but that we should have postponed the matter till after Christmas, leaving the Recess to be a period of unanswered observations, the Government not having had an opportunity of stating their views, and taking no notice of the subject during that interval. I say, that if we had done so, we should have been trifling with the feelings of the people of Ireland, and disregarding the evils which prevail in that country; and I for one felt, that we best discharged our duty, by advising his Majesty to notice the subject in his Speech from the Throne, and by taking the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to it. It may be said—and this the right hon. Baronet did not say—but it may be said, and it will be said, that the present tithe system is working well—that no complaint can be made—that nothing ever exceeded the harmony between the Protestant clergyman and his Catholic parishioners—that all we have to do is strictly and vigorously to enforce the rights of the Protestant Clergy, and to support the violated authority of the law. If that be the case, the Government certainly is without excuse, because, in that case, we should have introduced an unnecessary subject of agitation, and proceeded to make changes where none were called for. But if I can show, that the question is one which, whether it be discussed here or not, must be agitated elsewhere—if I can show, that the state of Ireland on this subject is such, that the law can hardly, if at all, be enforced, and, if enforced, that your very success will ruin your own cause, and produce redoubled mischief—that your triumph will only engender fresh discontent and in- creased discussion—if I can show, that the tithe laws, as they stand at present, place the clergy in the painful situation of being exposed, on the one hand, to the danger of absolute penury, beggary, and exile, or of being liable, on the other, to the charge of avarice, extortion, and oppression,—if I can show, that the system is injurious to those who ought to receive the tithes, and not less oppressive in its effect on those who are bound to pay them; if, I say, I can make out this case, I shall have a fair ground for calling on the House, without any further delay, to take into its serious consideration, the law which produces such disastrous consequences, and to apply a remedy to the evil, both as regards those who are to receive, and those who are to pay tithes. But we are told, in some quarters, that we are yielding to clamour—that we are giving way to an unjust call, which has been repeated over and over again, and over and over again put down by strong measures. I do not mean to deny, that if the question had been earlier taken up—if former Governments had not abstained from meeting it—we might now have entered upon it with a better prospect of success; or, rather, with a greater certainty of arriving at a satisfactory adjustment. But are we to be blamed for a delay which we did not occasion? or, because others have increased the magnitude of the danger by delay, will it be said, that we ought to delay in our times, and leave to our successors the remedy of an evil which will then have become all but insuperable? But if we do not yield to the clamour, as it is called—if we acknowledge that the cry has been raised over and over again, and over and over again suppressed—is that a proof that your strong laws and rigorous enactments, however effective—that the exercise of the power obtained from complaisant Parliaments—has remedied the evil? or is not rather a proof that the evil still remains and cannot be remedied, unless you remove the cause which has produced the excitement? It may be pardoned me, although I do not say, that his Majesty's Government is driven by clamour to this measure, although I repudiate such an assertion—I may be permitted to state, however painful the inquiry may be, what is at present the condition of that country, and what has been its condition for nearly twelve months, only differing in the increasing intensity of the evil, and the consequent difficulty of the remedy, what are the feelings and opinions of the people, resulting from the system which now exists with regard to tithes. The House will recollect, that in the course of last winter, when various attempts were made to excite tumult and discord, and to violate the laws and settled institutions of the country, amongst the different modes and descriptions of agitators, men went about the country under the pretext of playing at certain games. Parties calling themselves hurlers, assembled for the purpose, as they denominated it, of hurling against tithes. They denounced both the incumbents who presume to exact, and the people who presume to pay tithes. I do not charge them with having originally produced the spirit of discontent; but they succeeded in spreading it. Those bodies were put down. The ordinary operations of the law were found sufficient for that purpose. The hurlers ceased to go round; but the spirit which incited them did not cease when they ceased to assemble. The discontent began in the county of Kilkenny, and has proceeded through the counties of Carlow, the Queen's County, a considerable part of Wicklow, Wexford, Tipperary, the King's County, Longford, and Westmeath. Through the whole of these counties the system has been more or less in operation of tacitly, but determinedly, resisting the payment of tithes, and of intimidating those who claimed them. We are told, that we should have rigorously enforced the exercise of the law—that police and military were at our disposal—that we might have protected the persons of those who were engaged in enforcing the claim, and have secured the payment of all that was due, and put down this wide-spread conspiracy. My answer to this is, that if this House should think fit to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject, I shall be ready to lay before it the fullest information as to the means which have been in the power of his Majesty's Government, the course which we have pursued, and the results which that course has produced. But let the House remember, that, in this case, there has been, in many instances, no disturbance—nothing that the law could take hold of—no resistance to established authority; but, at the same time, as I have said, a tacit and determined resolution to avail themselves of all means in their power, without rendering themselves liable to any risk. The right hon. Baronet told us, the other day, that we were in this dilemma—either, that the claims of the clergy are legal or they are not; that if they are legal they ought to be enforced; and all opposition to them is illegal, and ought to be put down. I fully acknowledge to the right lion. Baronet that the claims of the clergy are strictly legal. I never denied it—I always supported that opinion. But I will take the liberty of saying, that there may be, on the one hand, a strictly legal exercise of a right, and, on the other hand, an equally legal opposition to the enforcement of that right. With regard to tithes, I say, that the case stands precisely in that situation. The Clergy are entitled to tithe as their property, surrounded by certain restrictions, subject to certain outgoings and conditions; and the same law which enforces the exercise of that right, and acknowledges it to be legal, gives also to those who are subject to that claim a legal protection against exorbitant or oppressive demands. If any man is possessed of a landed estate producing a gross income of 1,000l. a-year, and if the expenses of management, or the risk or difficulty of collection, reduce its amount to 700l. a-year instead of 1,000l., he has no right to call upon the Legislature to remove those restrictions to which he is liable, and cannot complain of the operation of the law, which leaves him but 700l. a-year, although the value of his land is reduced by 300l. This, then, I say, is precisely the case in the instance of tithes. The Clergy have a right to protection against any resistance to their claims, except such as is sanctioned and authorized by the law. But, amongst the various accusations which have been made against his Majesty's Government, there is one which I confess I heard with some surprise, because it came from a quarter from which more than any other, I did not expect such an attack. Whatever I might have expected from some other Members of this House, I certainly did not think that the right hon. member for Harwich would have charged us with neglecting the interests of the Clergy, or failing to protect their rights; because, at the moment when the right hon. Gentleman made that charge, he might have known, and I cannot but think he did know, that if there be a single clergyman who, in the strict and rigid enforcement of his rights, met with ampler support from the Government than others, that clergyman is the Dean of St. Patrick's the brother of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension: he had made no such charge—on the contrary, he distinctly exculpated the Government on the occasion to which he alluded.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Government of not having used the power which they had in their hands. If the hon. Gentleman did not say so, then I shall abstain from stating the full and ample assistance which the Government gave in the case to which I was alluding. I will only say, that not only were those who went to collect tithes protected by the police and military, but in many instances the cattle seized under distraint for tithes were led, guarded by an escort of police and military, to the seaside, in order to be transported to this country to be sold. I know that we are now exposed to the most opposite imputations, and that it is difficult to avoid the charge of negligence on the one hand, and, on the other, of acting with needless severity. In speaking of the state of those districts, especially of Kilkenny, Carlow, and the Queen's County, I do not mean to say, that in some instances there was not violence: but the general system of opposition was such that it was extremely difficult to deal with it. When a distraint was appointed, the cattle were kept shut up in the houses in the day, and only turned out to pasture at night, when a seizure could not legally be made; and, on the approach of the Proctor with the military and police, signals were sent round to have the cattle put out of the way. If the seizure was effected, there was usually no resistance. When the cattle were brought to sale in due time, no man would expose himself to the consequences of violating the silent compact that they were not to be purchased. The collector then bought them in himself. They were taken from the spot and carried to the sea-side. On the road no man would sell provender for their support, and at night no man would admit them to be sheltered in his stables. They were brought over to this country, and here a similar determination has been acted on, so that no man will buy cattle that is branded as having been seized for Irish tithes. In this state of affairs, I will only say, that there must be some alteration in the law. What the remedy may be is not the subject for discussion now, but may best be considered in the Committee. According to the present system (I fear that I am fatiguing the attention of the House with these details), according to the present system, the clergyman has three modes for enforcing payment of his tithes. When the sum is under 10l. he may issue a summons by process against the tythe-payer, returnable before two Magistrates, on whose order he is able to distrain for the amount due; but in this mode the litigation may not be so speedily at an end, for the tithe-payer has no difficulty in offering a sham plea before the Magistrates, without the smallest foundation in fact; but which at once takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the Magistrates, and transfers it to a higher tribunal. The second mode is by summons to the officer of the Ecclesiastical Court; but that court is one of extreme vexation, and when the clergyman has succeeded in it, he has obtained nothing more than a monition, which is only evidence of a sum being due, and then process issues, under which he may resort to the civil jurisdiction. But here again the defendant may put in a sham plea; and, if so, the superior Court will, upon that, although it may be, as in the other case, utterly without foundation, issue a prohibition. If the case itself should be removed into the Superior Court, which it may be, then both parties will be subject to a most inordinate expense. I believe I am correct in saying, that no costs are received or paid by either party to the other, so that if the clergyman, on each individual case, should be successful, and obtain the right he demands, he will subject himself to ten times the expense of the sum he is seeking to recover. There is a third mode, but it is one of a most harassing, vexatious, and oppressive kind; and, to the honour of the Clergy I may mention, that, I believe very few indeed among them have ever resorted to it. It is, to file a bill in Equity. In that case, the greatest part of the difficulty which in the other modes presents itself in the way of the clergyman, is removed; for, by thus proceeding in Equity, the clergyman may combine all the different parties in one suit; but even there, should he ultimately be successful, the result will be, that the clergyman, though a gainer on the suit, will be a loser in his pocket. I will not trespass on the time of the House by making general observations on the evils of the system of tithes, with which every man in England and Ireland must be practically conversant. There is no man who is not aware, that tithes act as a burthen on improvements, and on the skill of the farmer; they check pro tanto, successful industry; and above all, there is no clergyman, in this country particularly, who does not feel that they are a source of litigation and of ill-will between the parson and the tenant; that they place both in a situation, and on a footing towards each other, from which both must equally wish to be relieved; that they destroy that mutual kindness, and suspend that mutual exercise of spiritual duties, and those mutual acts of friendship, which it would be the happiness of the one to give, and of the other to receive, if clergymen and parishioners were as they ought to be—united and living in harmony together. But if that is the case in England, I ask how much more must it be the case in Ireland? I entreat English Members and Protestant Members to consider this—I do not ask Irish Members (for I know the terms they would use, in speaking on this subject); I say I do not ask Irish Members to state the feelings that are engendered in Ireland by this system, between the Clergy of the Irish Church and their Roman Catholic parishioners. I will not introduce here any remarks about that endless vexation—that system of harassing, petty grievances—by which extortion is practised by the tithe collectors unknown and unsanctioned by the clergyman, who, in the necessary execution of his duty, can know nothing of them, but in whose name they are perpetually practised by the Tithe-proctor. I will now leave this part of the subject, and go to a more pleasant part of my duty: and giving every credit to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the member for the University of Cambridge) for the bill which he introduced, I am bound in honour and fairness to say, that that bill remedied a great portion of the real evils and abuses that had existed in the Irish tithe system. That bill removed in a great measure the bad effects of a tax proportioned in its pressure to the success of the individual in life, but it left the tithes, or an equivalent, assessed upon the whole parish as a burthen, which the landlord, when he took the land, and the tenant, when he took the lease, equally covenanted and understood he was bound to pay. So far, however, as removing particular local grievances goes the greatest possible benefit has resulted from the Tithe Composition Act wherever that measure has been, as in many instances, adopted. It has been I admit, of great advantage; but even under the bill of the right hon. Gentleman there are many grievances still subsisting which want redressing, and in which the evils of the old system are still felt, though the Protestant Clergy, instead of possessing only the remedies I have already described as belonging to the old system, are now in possession of the rights and remedies of landlords. Even, however, under this new system, there are evils to which I may be allowed to refer, and they are mentioned in a letter from Archdeacon Cotton, the Rector of Thirles, who states in language in which I can make no improvement, some of the prominent difficulties which the Clergy have still to contend with:—"I am not asking payment for any tithes of this last harvest, but am merely suing for arrears of former years, and suing in the only way which the law provides—namely, by civil bill process at the Quarter Sessions, for notes voluntarily passed by the tithe-payers, which notes ought to have been paid long ago, but which the parties uniformly decline paying, until compelled to it by course of law. More than 1,000l. is now due to me on such notes; and as these sums are owing by about 500 persons, the law requires that each person at his house, shall he served with a process before he is brought into Court: how great a difficulty, if resistance be made, presents itself even in this first stage! Yet this is far from the whole; for even if these processes be served by means of extraordinary military succour, the presence of the person who served them, and is oath to that effect will be required at the Sessions: should he be prevented by violence or deterred by threats (a very likely matter in the present state of things), the whole of these, accomplished with so much difficulty, becomes as mere waste paper. Again, if the person who witnessed the promissory notes be deterred in the same way from appearing, the notes become useless; and the clergyman is not only defrauded of his rights, long and painfully sought for, and acknowledged even by the parties themselves, but moreover is put to considerable expense in legal proceedings, all of which will then fall upon himself. Still further, if these obstructions are surmounted, and the assistant barrister is satisfied as to the justice of the claims, and grants all the decrees, is the end now gained? Far from it. Another stage of difficulty is yet to be passed, and the same brute force will be brought forward to resist execution of the Court's judgment; and who will dare, in the present state of that district, to execute a single decree? In the mean time, for every one of these I must have advanced 7s. 6d., the whole 500 of which may possibly be entirely useless." That, Sir, is the statement of a Protestant clergyman of the circumstances attending his endeavour to enforce claims, not denied to him as a matter of right by any man, but denied to him in fact by the process to which, by the law, he was obliged to have recourse in order to enforce them. Of the state to which clergymen are reduced under this system—of the state in which they are placed, it is difficult to conceive that any man in this House, who has not been in Ireland, can have an adequate idea. Many are in a state bordering on destitution, if not in absolute want. They have been compelled to part, not only with the luxuries, but in many cases, with the comforts to obtain the necessaries of life, and, I may add, that sometimes even, the necessaries of life have scarcely been obtained. If I wished to place their condition in a strong light before the House, I could not do better than give to the House, the statement made by a clergyman of the Established Church, a Mr. Butler, of the parish of Burnchurch, exhibiting the state in which he and his family are existing. With the permission of the House I will read his statement and I shall have nothing more to do than to repeat in his very words the description which he has given—"You are aware that a meeting of hurlers, persons unconnected with the parish, assembled at my house, and that I would not submit to their intimidation. Since that day one of my proctors was most cruelly murdered. The other has been obliged, privately, to leave the country. An unfortunate server of latitats was taken by force from twenty-five police, and by a miracle escaped death. The most foul and false calumnies have been published concerning me in the Kilkenny Journal, and myself and two of my sons have finally been obliged to fly the country: and after a residence of more than thirty-six years, during which time my sole endeavour was to benefit my parishioners, I have been banished from my home and my duty, a starving exile. The income of the parish is above 2,000l. a year: the sums payable out of that income amount to more than 600l. a year, to wit, interest on money borrowed for building the glebe-house; quit rent; Crown rent; instalment to the Board of First Fruits; rent of glebe; schoolmaster's sa- lary rent of school-house; four curates' proxies; and exhibits; insurance of house and offices which the law requires to be paid, and the charge for management. The money to pay these demands must be provided and paid. I have sold my horses, advertised my carriage, parted with all my labourers and servants, and broken up my entire establishment. I have now but one woman servant; and I believe that I am not the only clergyman in the same situation—reduced from comfort to absolute poverty. No remuneration could tempt any person to view the parish—no process-server appointed by the assistant-barrister will serve a tithe process—no bailiff dare make his appearance; and if legal decrees were obtained, they could not be executed. The farmers say, that they have completely abolished tithes; and that they never will pay, until they know what Parliament will do." Under these circumstances, if only for the sake of the Protestant Church of Ireland, I have felt it my duty to come before Parliament, and to call on Parliament to examine, what are the laws which leave the clergy in this destitute condition—for their sake alone, I say, I might ask this. But if, besides what I have already stated, I am able to show, that the same causes which have created this distress among the clergy, have been the occasion of vexation to the tithe-payers, I think I shall have made out a case, both on the one side and the other, to justify me in calling on you to relieve the Clergy, and by doing so, at the same time to remedy the evils under which the peasantry are suffering. You will thus dry up the sources of oppression, injurious alike to both parties, and place both in that situation which both ought to occupy, while you will destroy those causes of complaint which, not for years, but for centuries, have afflicted Ireland, arising out of the system of her tithes. I believe, that there are but few cases in which there are charges against the Clergy for extortion or oppression: that there are some, I am aware; but, for the honour of the Clergy, I believe they are but few, and I believe, too, that the Clergy would have a right to demand, that on going into this investigation, you should see what is the acreable rate of charges in Ireland, compared with that which is really charged upon the land, by the clergy of the Church of England. I have at this moment in my hand, a complaint of certain parishioners, in answer to which the clergyman states the rate of the acreable tax. The com- plaint is in the form of a petition. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following statement:—

"The Petition of the Landholders of the Union of Kells,

"Humbly showeth,—That your Petitioners, from the depression of the times, the exorbitant rents and taxations with which they are encumbered, and unable to discharge much longer, are under the necessity of applying to your Reverence for reduction in the amount of the tithes which are levied on them, and your Petitioners humbly hope that your Reverence will take their state of destitution into consideration, and comply with their earnest and reasonable request; and Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."

In reply to this petition the clergyman made the following statement:

"The Union contains by the applotment book, 9,585021 acres; is set for 1,075l. late currency, which amounts to 992l. 6s. 2d. Of this sum a lay impropriator receives 200l. per annum. The average amount per acre is not quite 2s. 2d. It is almost all tillage, and produced before the composition was entered into 1,600l. per annum. It was reduced to what the Union paid fifty years ago when the composition was effected. The parishioners do not complain of the amount, but say they are forbid to pay. I have two curates to pay out of my income, and have been compelled to build a glebe out of my own pocket, which has cost upwards of 2,000l."

I will not, Sir, make further extracts from this statement; I only mention this, for the sake of showing, that I believe in many cases, as in this, it is not the amount of the tithes that is felt as a grievance, but the mode of exacting them under the old system, by the conduct of the tithe-proctor. Under the new system, the process-server has taken the place of the tithe-proctor, and the peasantry are still harassed with the constant and vexing applications for petty sums; and, above all, they are irritated by the notion that the Catholic peasantry are paying a Church, the doctrines of which they are taught not to believe in. I have heard the case argued, but I have never heard it argued in a way to convince me, that the tithes, except in consequence of the uncertainty in the old forms, fall upon the occupying tenant; for, whatever may be the amount of that charge, I believe that that charge falls not on the tenant, but on the landlord. If I had any doubt whatever on the subject, that doubt would have been removed by the Tithe Composition Act, which enacts that all lessees, after the passing of that Act, shall set-off the payments they make of tithes as and for a certain portion of rent, and the tenant shall be entitled to this set-off on exhibiting the clergyman's receipt for tithes. Does it not follow from that, as the tithes are allowed as a deduction from the rent, that if they were not paid to the clergyman, they would be paid to the landlord, who would have the right to demand them? So that I believe, that if the right to demand these tithes were removed to-morrow from the clergyman, and were vested in the landlord, the peasantry would reap no benefit, for they would be exacted with more rigour by the Protestant landlord than they are now by the members of the Protestant Church. But, then comes the positive grievance, which is felt throughout the country—namely, that it is a direct payment made by a Catholic population to a Protestant Church, which is even more objected to than if made to an absentee landlord. But if it is argued, as it has been, that the competition among the farmers is such, that the landlord has only to take what sum he pleases, and put it on the land he lets, in order to induce the tenant, not to pay, but to promise to pay, it is right that that fact to which I have already alluded, should be known—and that it should be known where the pressure really does come from; and if the pressure is from the exorbitant demand of the landlord, it should not, as it cannot in justice, be charged on the moderate demand of the clergyman. I have confined myself almost exclusively to the vexation to which the tenant and the tithe-payer are liable, under certain circumstances. I will not tempt Irish eloquence to describe what the peasantry suffer under other circumstances—that eloquence which is the true Irish power, as it is founded upon Irish feeling and Irish experience of the injuries felt by the peasantry of Ireland, but which, I must say, cannot fairly be charged upon the Irish Church. I will quote from a letter I have received on this subject, the circumstances to which I allude. It is a letter from a clergyman, a most active Magistrate, residing in one of the disturbed districts of the country. He states circumstances of such a nature, that I believe every man of feeling will agree with me, are enough to rouse the indignation of the most torpid, so that it would be almost impossible for the peasantry, or for any human being, to submit to them in silence. He states his experience of what the circumstances of the peasantry were before the Tithe Composition Act was passed. "There are a vast number of instances in my own parish, where one poor man, whose whole tithes annually do not amount to more than 1s. 8d. per annum, and yet subject him to have his cow, sheep, pig, or horse, taken and driven to pound six times in the year for tithes, and liable upon each and every driving to a charge of 2s. 6d. driver's fees, besides the expense of impounding and waste of time from his labour in seeking the person duly authorised to give him a receipt. He is liable to be summoned, moreover, and decreed for vestry cess once in the year, making annually seven calls on account of the Church, to his little plot of one acre: besides, his little holding is liable to two calls in the year for Grand Jury public money, and frequently to two calls more for Crown and quit-rent. Thus eleven calls are made upon his small holding in the year, besides his landlord's rent, and for sums trifling in themselves, but perplexing and ruinous in the costs which attend them. Surely such are hardships that ought to be removed." On each of these occasions of a distress being levied, an exorbitant fee also is payable. Is it possible then, I say, for any peasantry under such circumstances, not to be roused into excitement by such a system; or is it possible to believe, that such a system can be for the benefit of the Protestant Church; or that it can receive anything but injury from these exactions? The clergyman, indeed, has nothing to do with them. In the first instance, he often pays 2s. 6d. in the pound to a person to collect the tithes; that person pays something less to another to undertake that duty, and so the matter goes on till it gets into the hands of the very lowest class of men, who almost live in the whiskey shops, and who eke out the remuneration by means which the Protestant clergyman, if he knew how the payment of the tithes was enforced, would shudder with abhorrence at the instruments he unknowingly employs. What I conceive is the cause of the great grievances that the clergy suffer in the pursuit of their legal rights, and of the claims which the law gives them a right to demand, is, that they are compelled to obtain payment of their tithes from a number of occupants for small amounts, which subjects them to most vexatious expenses, and which, in the ordinary mode of levying the tithes, compels him to put the other parties to great expense. It seems to me that this is a grievance that renders it impossible for the clergy to substantiate their rights—it is a source of great vexation—it is most harassing equally to those who have to receive, and to those who have to pay. Then, again, the persons who are subject to pay this small tax are generally persons in the lowest situation of life. There is a difference, too, between the landlord and the clergy. The landlord may subdivide his property as much as he pleases—he knows, from the amount of his property, how much he expects to obtain from each of his tenants. He has certain modes of enforcing his claims, which are also definite and settled by mutual agreement. The clergyman has the same remedies, but he can exercise no power over the sort of persons who shall become liable to him—he can exercise no choice, whether they shall be a pauper tenantry or not, but must take them as the landlord chooses to make them. These persons, too, are often not able to pay, and even when they are most willing to pay, they are most liable to be intimidated. If in the parish there are a small number of persons who consent to defraud the clergyman of his rights, those persons who are willing to pay have no protection afforded them against midnight violence, against intimidation, and against threats; and I could show numerous instances in which the tenants have been perfectly willing to pay, but they dared not, for they would have been placed, if they had consented to pay, under the ban of an anonymous assailant, who generally is able to enforce his arbitrary decrees. The Tithe Composition Act having effected so much good, it becomes necessary to look to those causes which have prevented it from having a more general extension. There are two or three causes permanently acting, which prevent its coming into universal operation. The Composition Act divides over the whole of the parish those tithes that were originally raised from the tillage of the land alone. Those, therefore, who possess grazing land, have a strong inducement to resist the application of the Act, and their opposition has been one of the causes which have prevented the Act from coming into general operation. Another cause arises from the opposition which the Bishops have, in many cases not improperly, offered to the terms agreed on between the clergy and their parishioners. In many cases, the incumbents have been willing to agree to a reduction of what they had legally a right to demand; but as every agreement of this sort was necessarily submitted to the Bishop, for his approval, the Bishop, in many cases, refused his consent, as he thought that these agreements were sometimes of such a nature, that, if established, the permanent interests of the Church would be endangered by them. There is another cause, which, to a great extent, has interposed to prevent the adoption of the Tithe Composition Act—I mean where the tithes have been divided among several proprietors, and where some of these proprietors have been trustees for charities or hospitals. In such cases the resident incumbents have often been willing to compound for a smaller sum than they were legally entitled to demand, but the trustees have, from a sense of duty, refused to accept any composition that was one farthing below that which by law they were entitled to. They thought that by the nature of their trust, they were bound to demand the utmost farthing that the law guaranteed to them. Another, and the last cause of the evils of the existing system is, that in the collection of the tithes, in the ascertaining of their amount, in the driving and in the process-serving, the clergyman becomes the most prominent person with his parishioners. With regard to most of them, this is the only point of view in which he is brought into contact with them. I say, therefore, that it is not possible to conceive a system more hostile to the interests of the Church, than one in which the clergyman is seen chaffering with his parishioners on pecuniary matters. There are various modes in which the existing system might be altered. In the first place, it is said, that the Government ought to take into their own hands the whole revenues of the Church, and that out of these revenues the Clergy ought; to be paid. I think there are strong objections in principle to that course, and that, if adopted, it would be found very inconvenient in practice. In the first place, it would afford no relief to the persons who pay the tithes; for it would be the duty of the Government to enforce the payment of them more strictly than the clergy do now. The clergy, too, would be put in a situation of less permanent security of their income, and from the circumstance of their having a fixed income, they would not have the interest they now have in the improvement and increasing value of the land. Another plan to remedy the evils of the present system has been, to adopt a perpetual corn- rent, but in that case the clergy, as it seems to me, would not have the same security, nor would obtain the same relief, as in a complete change of system. In bringing forward this Motion, I do not wish to pledge the House to adopt any particular system; but there is one mode in which, as it seems to me, all the grievances might be remedied, and all the necessary securities obtained, and all the evils to the parishioners and to the clergy avoided, so that hardly even the pretence of complaint would be left to either party, I look, as to the ulterior object of this Motion, to a commutation of tithes for landed property, That commutation does not seem to me impossible. It will be our duty to take those rules which will produce a mutual benefit to clergy and parishioners, that will increase the amount of good will between them, which alone will be productive of great advantage to the clergy, and these objects, I think, can be obtained by making a general and extensive, if not an entire, commutation of tithes for land. I am fatiguing the patience of the House in thus going at length into this subject, which, in some of its details, is necessarily very dry. When I have proved, as I think I have done, that the present system is vexatious—is prejudicial to all parties, and actually ruinous to the Church; that it is, and always has been, and will be, a ready handle to agitators—to those who wish to disturb the peace of the country—I think I have said enough to induce the House to grant a Committee to examine into the state of that law which produces such consequences. I call upon hon. Members, as they value the tranquillity of Ireland, the peace and prosperity of her people, the advantage of the Church, the happiness of her peasantry, and of the lower, aye, and of the higher orders of her ministers of religion—nay, as they value religion itself—I entreat them to consent to the inquiry; and, in the terms of his Majesty's Speech, to adopt such legislative "improvements in the laws respecting this subject as may afford the necessary protection to the Established Church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint." I beg to move, that a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of the law relating thereto, and to report their observations thereupon to the House.

said, that from the manner in which the right hon. Secretary had alluded to him, he (the right hon. Secretary) must have supposed that he had come down to the House to give his most strenuous opposition to the present Motion. Now there was nothing in the expressions used by him on the first night of the session, which could justify the right hon. Secretary in entertaining such a notion; and he never recollected an occasion on which the propriety of abiding by the rule of not referring to what had fallen from hon. Members in former debates, was more forcibly illustrated than it had been that evening. A great part of the speech the House had just heard, turned upon expressions which the right hon. Secretary had imputed to him, but which, in point of fact, he had never employed. Although he was not prepared to offer any opposition to the present Motion, he must be pardoned if he said a few words upon it. He was too deeply impressed with a sense of the melancholy condition to which Ireland was reduced by agitation, to lend himself to the views of any persons who thought that they could forward their party or personal objects, by opposing the Government on this question. He could not imagine any thing more wicked than an attempt on the part of individuals to obtain benefit for themselves from embroiling the politics of Ireland. Wherever else they fought the battles of party, let not Ireland be the arena selected for them. Entertaining these sentiments, he could not at the same time, help declaring it to be his opinion, that though the importance of the subject might require notice in the King's Speech, it was impolitic to make a reference to it there, if the Government were not prepared with a distinct plan for remedying the grievances of which they admitted the existence. The evil would be considerably aggravated, in case the interval were long between the mention of the subject in the Speech, and the introduction of the remedial measure contemplated by Government. He hoped, that when the Committee was appointed, it would not lose a day in inquiring whether the Government had properly enforced the existing laws relative to the payment of tithes. He had not heard any charge made against the Government, for having neglected its duty in this respect. He had not preferred, nor did he intend to prefer, any such charge himself; and if such a charge were preferred, he trusted, that not this, but another Committee would be appointed to examine into the truth of it. He had hoped, that the right hon. Secretary would have explained his plan more in detail than he had done on the present occasion. He fully admitted the existence of the evils of which the right hon. Secretary complained. He could not know what he did know of the Protestant Church of Ireland, without feeling the necessity of relieving its ministers from a condition the most deplorable that could be imagined. He believed, that the right hon. Secretary had not at all exaggerated the melancholy situation in which they were placed. If a plan for the alteration of the present system of Tithe-laws had been regularly laid before the House, he could suppose the necessity for appointing a Select Committee to examine its details. But the intimation of the existence of any such plan was very vague. The suggestion of the right hon. Secretary, that some mode might be devised of commuting tithes for land, even if it could be acted upon, would provide no immediate remedy. It might be proper to adopt such a measure, however remote its operation, but he thought the policy of it at least questionable, and that it would avail little, if it were the only measure in contemplation. They were now on the point of separating for the recess, and as nothing explicit had been stated that evening by the right hon. Secretary, all Ireland would he at a loss to know what was meant by the allusion to it in the King's Speech. He had before stated, that the declaration of the right hon. Secretary, that in any measure which he might introduce on this subject, he should pay respect to the property of the Church, gave him great satisfaction and encouragement. He lamented, however, the necessity for appointing a Committee to examine into the state of the Church of Ireland, apart from the Church of England. The two Churches were united Churches, with interests inseparably interwoven. At the same time, the melancholy picture which the right hon. Secretary had drawn of the condition of the clergy of the Church of Ireland, rendered it impossible for him to press any objection on that score to the present Motion. Every day increased his apprehension; and he cordially concurred with the right hon. Secretary, in hoping that the House would do nothing either to inflame the public mind, or to increase a peril which was now too palpable to be denied. It was with a view to the example which so humble an individual as himself might set, that he now refrained from entering into topics which might lead to an angry and acrimonious discussion. He should, therefore, offer no objection to the appointment of a Committee. He hoped, however, that the Committee would proceed at once to the examination of any plan to be submitted to it; for, whatever importance the House might attach to the question of Reform, he thought, that hon. Gentlemen would see, that the present was a vital question, affecting the peace and prosperity of the empire, and that the consideration of no other question should interfere with the settlement of one which, having been once agitated at the instance of the Crown, pressed with peculiar urgency for immediate, and, if possible, final adjustment.

expressed his regret, that the right hon. Secretary, did not enlarge the ground to which the attention of the Committee was directed, or that he had thought it right to limit its inquiries to the question of tithes alone. He did not think that, was an unimportant question in itself, but it formed only a part of the subject to which he should wish to see the attention of the Committee directed, which was nothing less than the consideration of the general condition of the Established Church in Ireland. He must, however, rejoice that even the question of tithes was to be submitted to the investigation of both Houses of Parliament, and the only regret which he had with respect to that question was, that it had not at a much earlier period excited a larger share of the attention of those who, from their official connexion with Ireland, must have been aware of the intolerable evils which that system had entailed on that country. He spoke chiefly with reference to the right hon. Gentleman, formerly Secretary for Ireland, and those with whom he was connected in the government of that country, who had the best opportunities of knowing how the system worked. It was also a matter of regret to him, that the subject had been brought forward in the absence of one who had paid the greatest attention to it, and who had collected a mass of the most important information respecting it; but his chief regret was, that the right hon. Secretary had not referred the whole question of the Established Church in Ireland to the Committee. When hon. Members considered the immense—he would say the extravagant—revenue drawn by the Established Church in Ireland from the resources of that country, they would be impressed with the necessity of extending the inquiry into the whole subject of that Establishment. The amount of its revenues was now not a matter of uncertain calculation. They had it from official returns, which could not be denied. From these it appeared, that from tithes alone, the Church of Ireland derived an income of 780,384l. a-year. Besides this, several sees of Ireland were in possession of 550,280 acres; added to which, there belonged to Corporations and other ecclesiastical bodies, in glebe and other lands, property amounting in value to about 250,000l. a-year. So that in land and tithes it was now ascertained, by official returns, that the Established Church of Ireland derived a revenue from that country of 1,785,000l. a-year; and this, let it be remembered, was paid for the religious instruction of comparatively a very small portion of the inhabitants of that country. He was one of those who thought, and indeed no one of those who objected to the tithe system in Ireland disputed the proposition, that the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland should be well paid for the services they performed; but when it was known, that nearly 2,000,000l. a-year were drawn from the country by the religious instructors of about one-sixth or one-seventh of the population, it must be admitted, that the continuance of such a system could never give satisfaction to those of a different religion, by whom so large a portion of that revenue was paid, and who had, in addition, to support their own clergy, to whom they were devotedly attached. The case was very different in England, where the great body of the people belonged and were attached to the Church which they were called upon to maintain. The tithe system here, therefore, though in many instances it was found to be vexatious in its operation, was looked upon with different feelings from those which were entertained respecting it by the great mass of the population in Ireland. Those feelings were such, that no law which could be devised would be able to reconcile the people to the support of such an immense establishment, which seemed to be kept up, not for the instruction of the many, but for the aggrandizement of a few. In the answers of some of the Bishops of the Established Church in Ireland, to queries put to them, the House would find still stronger proof—if proof were necessary—of the enormous magnitude of the Church revenues compared with the Protestant population for whose religious instruction it was kept up. From these answers it appeared, that in the southern and western districts of Ireland the number of Protestants was very small, and in some extensive districts there was scarcely any. In the counties of Sligo, Roscommon, Leitrim, Mayo, and Galway, the proportion of Catholics to Protestants was as twenty to one; in Clare they were twenty-five to one; in Kerry fourteen to one; in Limerick nineteen to one; in Cork twenty to one, and in some others of the southern and western counties in nearly the same proportion. It farther appeared from the official sources to which he had alluded, that there were 6,000,000 of acres, with a population of nearly 3,000,000, which were almost exclusively Catholic, and yet that portion of the country paid to the Protestant establishment nearly 1,000,000l. a-year. Could peace or content be expected in a country where such a disproportion existed, or could it be expected that a system of this kind could continue? It was impossible, and therefore, some system of commutation, some other and some fairer mode of payment was absolutely necessary, not more for the peace of the country, than for the quiet and comfortable subsistence of the Protestant clergy themselves. He had not risen to enter into the whole question on this occasion, as a more fit opportunity would occur hereafter for that purpose. His chief object in rising was, to express the regret he felt, in common with many other Irish Members, that the Government had not thought proper to refer the whole subject of the Established Church in Ireland to the investigation of the Committee From one part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement he differed. He thought he had understated the means which the Protestant clergyman had of recovering his tithes by legal means. He might, do so by a summons before two Magistrates, or by civil bill, or by application to the ecclesiastical courts; or, if he did not choose to avail himself of any of these, the courts of common-law were open to him; or a court of equity would attend to his claim. But it would be said, that all these had been tried, and in many instances had failed. He admitted the fact, and the cause of the failure had been, and would continue to be, the aversion of the Catholic population, to be taxed in that manner for the support of the Protestant Church. He lamented, as much as any man, the unfortunate disputes which had recently taken place in some parts of Ireland; but it was a mis- take to suppose, that these were caused by the question of tithes alone. There were other and deep causes for the distress and consequent discontent which existed in so many parts of that country. Since the year 1800, the state of Ireland was becoming worse. He spoke not now with reference to the removal of the local legislature, for into that he would not then enter. For a time after the Union the loss of the local government was supplied in a great degree by a resident gentry, but of late years these had gradually disappeared from Ireland. Not only those who had large incomes from land had become absentees, but that system had extended to large numbers of men with incomes of from 1,000l. to 500l. a-year, who now resided either in this country or on the Continent, and there spent the whole of that which ought to be circulated amongst those by whom it was raised. Besides these, Ireland had to regret the removal from her of those army, naval, and ordnance establishments which had been the means of circulating millions of money in that country, but which had within a few years been transferred to England. Besides these, she had lost nearly the whole of her linen trade, and thus, with the loss of a local legislature—of her resident gentry,—of large naval and military establishments—of civil boards—of the bounties on her fisheries and coarse linens, she was now reduced to a state of almost hopeless misery. Let these facts be considered, and it would be seen, that the evils of Ireland lay, not in the tithe system, though that was bad enough, but in a variety of other causes, which an attempt to remedy that system only would leave untouched. If hon. Members would bear in mind the drains which were constantly made on Ireland, they would see that it was impossible she could go on as she was at present. She had to pay 4,000,000l. a-year to the Government, 3,000,000l. to absentees, nearly 2,000,000l. to the Church. If to these were added the extravagant amount of Grand Jury Assessments, it would be found, that the country was charged with about 14,000,000l. a-year on a produce that was some millions below that amount. It was evident, then, that some of the charges must go unpaid—either the landlord or the Grand Jury rate, or the tithe proctor, for she could not pay them all; she could not pay 14,000,000l. a-year out of a produce of 8,000,000l. If there had been an increase in the agricultural exports of Ireland, they were more than counterbalanced by the decay of her trade. Were not these all subjects which required investigation as well as the tithe system? He could tell hon. Gentlemen, that they much deceived themselves who thought that an inquiry into that system would remedy the other evils to which he had referred. An inquiry into the great incumbrance of the Church would do much, but the whole subject should be gone into. He knew that there were difficulties in the way of such an inquiry; but they must be met, for the evils of the system would not cease to press on them until they were met by some plan for commutating tithes altogether, and providing some other mode of paying the Clergy. He would not go into that at present, but would take an early opportunity of moving an instruction to the Committee to take the whole of the Church Establishment in Ireland into its consideration. He must express an earnest hope, that the subject would be considered dispassionately when brought forward, for he was convinced, that nothing but a commutation would place the Protestant Clergy on a comfortable footing. His only object in bringing these matters under the consideration of the House was that which alone had induced him to desire a seat in it—namely, a most anxious wish to improve the condition of Ireland, for by that means would the peace and prosperity of the United Kingdoms be most effectually secured and strengthened.

had always been of opinion, that the payment of tithes was more vexatious than oppressive, because he thought that if the tithes were taken off by the Clergy, they would be put on in another way by the landlord; but the real point was, that the Roman Catholics felt most vexatiously their having to pay the pastors of another religion for the performance of services in the benefit of which they did not in any way participate. It was for this reason that he was afraid that the evils would not be got rid of by commutation. In his opinion the only proper way of settling the question would be, by causing a general valuation to take place, and when that was effected to have the tithes publicly sold, as in the case of the land-tax redeemed. For this purpose the Government ought to take the matter into its own hands, and when the sale was effected the money might be converted into a sort of Consolidated Fund, out of which the Clergy of Ireland ought to be paid. He did not say this because he was friendly to the maintenance of the Established Church, in its present extensive ramifications; for he had always been of opinion, that if it was the wish of the Legislature to preserve Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, it was absolutely necessary to reduce the Established Church of Ireland to a size that should be in proportion to the Protestant population of that country. He was a sincere Protestant himself, and no one could be a greater enemy than he was to reducing that Establishment below its proper level. That appeared to him to be the real footing on which the matter ought to be placed: they had now, for 300 years, been endeavouring to make the population of Ireland Protestant in their faith—but in vain. But though he should, for these reasons, be friendly to a great alteration in the present arrangement of Church property in Ireland, he was perfectly willing to look upon the claims of the actual incumbents of livings as intangible; but their right being respected, it was the duty, as well as within the power of Parliament, to sell all the tithe and Church lands, and to make a new modification altogether. He was not prepared to go the length of supporting the instruction to the Committee mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last; but if he (Mr. Leader) would propose a separate Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the Church of Ireland, he should have his best support. Still he would rather that nothing should interfere to interrupt the great object in which they were engaged, for he was firmly convinced, that they only wanted a Reformed Parliament in order to have full justice done to Ireland.

spoke nearly as follows:—As I have been accused of having an unfriendly feeling towards the present Government, I am the more anxious to pay my tribute of praise to the manner in which this subject has been introduced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland; and I can assure him that I have great pleasure in doing justice where justice is due. I therefore beg leave to say, that in my opinion, there never was a more clear, or a more able statement in this House, or one better calculated to illustrate the subject which drew it forth. As the right hon. Gentleman, however, has thought proper to accuse me of stating what was unfriendly with respect to the present proposition of the Government, I hope that he will allow me to have the pleasure of undeceiving him, and I can assure him, that I am not able to recal to my recollection one single expression used by me, that could be construed into a reflection against the Government, for having been indifferent to the difficulties under which the clergy of Ireland have lately been labouring, or conniving in any way at the progress of those difficulties. I therefore was certainly surprised at the statement that fell this evening from the right hon. Gentleman; and got up to express that surprise on the spur of the moment. Since then I have referred to those records of the proceedings of Parliament which we fortunately possess in this country, and on looking into them, I am unable to find any allusion, even the slightest, to those expressions which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me; and I think that if he will allow me to put the passage into his hands, he will perceive that it contains any thing rather than a charge against the Government for neglect towards the Church of Ireland in its present difficulties. The reason why I derived so much pleasure from the right hon. Gentleman's speech was, because I saw in it (and I trust that in this it will prove but an echo of the intention of the Government) a firm determination of upholding the property of the Church of Ireland—a determination which appeared to me to be in full accordance with the Speech of his Majesty on the opening of the present Session, where he declared—"In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the Established Church, and at the same time remove, the present causes of complaint. But in this and every other question affecting Ireland, it is above all things necessary to look to the best means of securing internal peace and order, which alone seem wanting to raise a country, blessed by Providence with so many natural advantages, to a state of the greatest prosperity." These words the speech of the right hon. Gentleman appears to me entirely to uphold and justify; and as I have ever been firmly and warmly attached to the interests of the Church of Ireland, it was with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction that I listened to his address. I can assure the right hon. Secretary, that I received with exceeding comfort and consolation his declaration, as announcing the resolution of the King's present Ministers to uphold against all its enemies—whether they be open or concealed—the property, the privileges, and the rights, of the Established Church of England and Ireland. For the same reasons that the right hon. Gentleman's speech gave me satisfaction, it was with regret that I listened to the address of the hon. member for Kilkenny, and with still more, that I heard him announce his intention of moving an instruction to the Committee, concerning the state of the Church of Ireland. As to my hon. friends' (Mr. Dominick Browne's) opinions, I have long been acquainted with them, and have often lamented his hostility to the Established Church of Ireland; but I must confess that my sorrow on that head is much mitigated when I recollect the authority with which those opinions have been opposed by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. With such aid as that—with the aid of the good sense of the country, and its attachment to the Established Church—with the aid of the firmness and zealous support of the Protestants of Ireland—I think we may, after the declaration that we have heard this night, be prepared to meet the enemies of that Church, wherever they may appear whether among the Members of this House, or among those of the Political Unions, either in England or in Ireland. I am convinced that this report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be the source of as much pleasure and satisfaction to the Protestants of that latter country, as of dismay to those who have hitherto been in the habit of raising their voice, and of late, I am afraid, with increased violence, because they have imagined that they had more friends in this country than I trust they will be able to count, should a day for reckoning them arrive. In full confidence of the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity, I beg to say, that though I differ from him in many parts of the picture which he has given to the House, I am ready to afford him my most complete support for going into a Committee. At the same time I must observe, that many portions of his Representation appear to me to be highly exaggerated. He did not, however, in his description, refer to that part of the country with which I am connected; but though we may not agree altogether as to the degree, still it cannot be denied that a sufficient quantity of mischief exists to justify the Government in making the call for a Committee which has this evening been made. I do not, however, think that the appointment of this Committee can be made with any view to the finding of an ultimate remedy for the evil, or one that shall prove satisfactory to the people of Ireland. In the north of Ireland, as has already been observed, the same irritation on this subject does not exist; and the cause of this has been very properly stated by the hon. member for Kilkenny to be, because the inhabitants of the north have a more friendly feeling towards the clergy, when they are called upon to pay, owing to their being for the most part Protestants, though it is true that many of them are Protestant Dissenters. The real cause of the discontent of the Roman Catholic population to the payment of tithes is, because those to whom they are required to make the payment are of a different religion to themselves. We may beat about the bush as long as we please—we may look at this side of the picture or at that—we may endeavour to find a remedy in corn-rents or in the commutation of tithes, but the real solution of the discontent that exists is, that the Roman Catholics do not like to pay tithes to the Protestant clergy. I trust, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has said enough to convince the Roman Catholic tenants that the burthen of tithes is really a burthen on the land of the country, and not on them individually; and, at the same time, that it is a burthen from which they have no right to claim to be relieved, because they profess a different religion from those who have the claim upon the land. The Protestant religion is a portion of the law of Ireland, and whether the number of Protestants in any particular district be ten or 10,000, that religion must be maintained by virtue of that law—by virtue of the constitution of the Parliament—by virtue of the King's Oath itself. It is for these reasons that I apprehend that the right hon. Gentleman will never be able to relieve the Government from its dilemma, by proposing a commutation of tithes. I shall not, however, as I said before, oppose the appointment of the Committee, but I trust that one of its first results will be, the unquestionable acknowledgment of all the rights and all the privileges of the Established Church of Ireland.

disclaimed having said anything which could warrant the right hon. Gentleman in asserting, that he was inimical to the Established Church. On the contrary he was a great friend to that Church, but he was sure, that a great change must be made in the law of tithes to save it from ruin.

said, if he were not restrained by higher motives from entering into this discussion at any length, it was not because several observations which he had heard from many of the preceding speakers had not furnished him with sufficient materials. But as he fully appreciated what had fallen from his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel), he must say, that upon an occasion like the present, when they were called upon to go into a Committee of Inquiry, that was not the time to enter into any discussion which might lead to irritation. When he had the honour of filling the situation in Ireland now held by the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, he had occasion to contend with some of the grievances which were complained of as growing out of the tithe system, and he then felt it his duty to pursue a different course from that now sought to be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. He found great grievances to exist in Ireland, especially as to tithes, which were made the handle of every agitator, and in order to deprive them of that source of irritation he proposed the direct measure of the Composition Act. For a considerable period that Act appeared to him to have a most tranquillizing effect, without causing the violation of any right as to tithes or property of any other description. What fate had attended that Act since he left Ireland he could not take upon himself to say, and he would not have adverted to it if he did not think it necessary to shew, that as it had been stated not to have worked so well as he had expected, he was fully justified in supporting the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Although he thus far supported the Motion, he owned he should have been much better pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had come down with some legislative measure, rather than leave the subject open to that acrimonious discussion which he feared would elsewhere take place while it was under the deliberation of the Committee of that House. And yet, so anxious was he upon all occasions to remedy any of the evils under which the Protestant clergy of Ireland laboured—so highly did he value their pious labours—so anxious was he to co-operate in any measures which would relieve them, and restore them to their rights, that he would certainly support the Motion now before the House.

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had offered incense to the Secretary for Ireland in return for that which had been wafted to him, and had then proceeded to expatiate on his own merits in the construction of the Tithe Composition Act. It had been always understood that it was the production of Lord Wellesley. This, however, had not been confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman; and it was to be taken for granted, that he would not dress himself in feathers borrowed from the splendid plumage of that illustrious person. It was, however, rather remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should take credit for this master-piece of legislation, when the Secretary for Ireland had announced that it had failed to produce the good results anticipated from it. The Secretary for Ireland had stated, that its provisions were inadequate to its objects, and that the most dreadful disturbances had taken place in the parts of the country to which it had been applied. He would not follow that topic any further, but advert with some distinctness to the malevolent encomiums pronounced upon Government by the right hon. member for Harwich (Mr. George Dawson). That right hon. Gentleman was in the habit of using a quotation, which was peculiarly apposite in this instance—

—"Ulla putetis. Dona carere dolis Danaum?"

To paraphrase the celebrated interrogatory he should say, can the praise of such a man be destitute of design? Is there not evil in his commendation, and poison in his honeyed sentences? The right hon. Gentleman affected to speak of the Established Church as the model of ecclesiastical perfection; yet that right hon. Gentleman had once allowed his moral sense (strange to say), to overcome his political predilections; and when an application was made for money to repair the Cathedral of Derry, he burst forth into an exclamation against the monstrous revenues of the Bishop, and presented to the House a very picturesque description of the episcopal territories. Now the right hon. Gentleman was not only contented with passing the most unqualified panegyric on the entire Church, but he insisted on involving the Government in a most inauspicious participation in his sentiments. But against his praises he would set up the acts of the Government, and the declaration of the Prime Minister. The Secretary for Ireland might entertain what opinions he thought proper; but what said Earl Grey? Had not Earl Grey denounced, since he was Minister, the enormous anomalies of the Irish establishment, drawn a distinct line of separation between it and the English Church, and stated that it must be adapted to the condition of the country, and to the feelings of the vast majority of the English people. He therefore would rescue the Government from the political embraces of the Gentlemen on the opposite side. But did the matter stop there? When the see of Derry (that prodigious see!) became vacant, the hon. member for Middlesex, whose absence was to be lamented on so many accounts, but especially for its cause, gave notice that he should move an Address to the Crown, praying the King not to fill up the see. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down, after Dr. Ponsonby had been appointed, and announced on the part of the whole Cabinet, that Dr. Ponsonby had been promoted on the express condition that he should take the see, subject to such diminutions and regulations as should afterwards be introduced. He had not yet done. The hon. member for Waterford moved a Resolution respecting First Fruits, and was supported by the Government, which declared, that the clergy should, if possible, be taxed to the full amount. The House resolved, that the opinion of the Irish Law Officers should be taken. The Irish Attorney General—a friend of the Church—the Solicitor General who is not, at all events, its enemy—gave an opinion adverse to that of another lawyer who had been consulted by the Remembrancer of the Board, and said that no valuation could be made. But did the matter rest there? No: the Government was bound, in consistency and upon the principle of political integrity, to bring in an Act of Parliament to redress the gross abuse, by which, in place of 132,000l., the Bishops pay about 1,2001., and out of nearly a million of money, the clergy pay only about 3,000l. Still he had not done. Where was the Vestry Bill, which the Secretary for Ireland was to bring in, in its amended and more reasonable shape? Was not Government also pledged to put an end to that iniquitous and exasperating system, by which a few Protestants could assemble in a conclave of village ascendancy, and mulct the Catholics at their caprice? Thus, therefore, the imputations on the Government, conveyed in the damning praise of the member for Harwich, were utterly unfounded. He trusted, that the Government would take an early opportunity of disabusing the Irish people, and divest them of that fierce and determined resentment, which would be the result of even a suspicion that it was intended to betray the interests of the country. For his part, he must say, in reference to the power of the Government to remedy the evils of Ireland, that he utterly repudiated the idea that Church property was not under the control of the Legislature. What had the English Government done in Canada? The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had been there, and he saw, that while a Catholic was subject to tithes, a Protestant was exempt; and if the latter bought the property of the former, he held it discharged from tithes. Did principles depend on the latitude and longitude, and did the Secretary for Ireland consider that to be robbery on the banks of the Shannon, which was only simple justice on the banks of the St. Lawrence? But suppose, that the application of tithes could not be legitimately changed—what followed? The Church had plundered the poor—what had become of the poor man's quarta pars? It was not so obsolete a right. It was recognized by the 1st George 1st in Ireland. While the dis- tressed clergy excited the sympathy of the Irish Secretary, had he no compassion for the hundreds of thousands of famished, houseless, and homeless peasants, to whom, even on the principles of Churchmen, restitution should be made? Let the Committee look to this, and let Government remember, that it was folly to think of pacifying Ireland without an utter change in the ecclesiastical system. The axe must be laid to the root. Take down the golden domes of the Establishment in time, or they would fall in under the shocks of the moral earthquake with which the country was threatened, and bury the whole edifice in ruin.

, feeling deeply interested in the welfare of the Established Church of Ireland, believing that with its fate were identified the best interests of that country, begged permission to offer a few observations on the question which the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had introduced to the notice of the House. He was ready to acknowledge, with those hon. Gentlemen who had already spoken from this side of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman had brought it forward with much ability and good taste—in a spirit of kindness to the Protestant clergy, and with a desire to do justice to their exemplary conduct; but still, whatever might be the opinion of others, he could not conceal his own—that the right hon. Gentleman was now endeavouring to provide a remedy for a disease which had been produced by the weak and vacillating conduct of the Irish government. He could not but consider it a part of that system of yielding to clamour, and making concession to violence, which commenced by permitting that law to expire which had been found effectual in the suppression of unconstitutional associations, now revived with increased vigour—which was acted on by the Government in repudiating the scriptural education of the poor, and substituting a plan, in which, he believed, no conscientious Protestant, who ever evinced an interest in their instruction, would take a part. Again, in reference to the Yeomanry, the Arms Bill, and the appointment of Lord-lieutenants of counties, the same principle of intimidation was successful, the same deference was shewn to idle outcry, and thus arose that systematic opposition to the payment of tithes alluded to in his Majesty's Speech; those who had to pay them being beyond the control, and those who were entitled to receive them without the protection, of the laws, executed by a responsible and rigorous government. This clearly appeared from the documents referred to, and the admissions made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. In Archdeacon Cotton's letter, what was complained of but an obstruction of the law by brute force? So in Dr. Butler's—in that from Kells it appeared, that the people were forbidden to pay tithes; and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to countenance the objection to pay them to the Protestant Church, although his argument, was, at the same time, quite conclusive, that the burthen rested not upon the tenant but the land, and that he would rather lose than gain by its transfer, either to his landlord or the State; and did not the right hon. Gentleman, by giving weight to such a prejudice, while he admitted there was no just ground to support it, hold out encouragement to those who had forbidden the poor deluded peasantry to satisfy the legal claim on them? and did not the right hon. Gentleman well know, that persons high in authority in the Roman Catholic Church, and equally high in the confidence of the Irish government, had issued their mandates, that tithes should be resisted by all the wit and talent of the Irish people, and hated with "a hatred as intense as was their love of justice?" Could the right hon. Gentleman then be surprised at the condition of the Irish clergy, which he had so feelingly and truly portrayed that night; and when he said the late Government should have proposed measures of the kind he then suggested, to meet the evil when first any symptoms of opposition appeared, did not his reasoning impose upon himself a similar duty with respect to rent and taxes, and all other legal dues?—for there was already an incipient opposition manifesting itself to every payment of the kind, and it was not by thus yielding to intimidation that such a spirit would be suppressed. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in some of his observations on the nature of tithe in the abstract; while he held, that the title to it was as good in the Established Church, as that of any Member of that House to his estate, he thought the mode of payment of a certain proportion of the produce, operated as a tax upon industry in the same manner as rent would do, if reserved according to a proportion of the produce of the soil, instead of being a sum certain, and for that reason he approved of the principle of the Tithe Composition Act, and would willingly support its extension. He would, however, refer those persons who made so light of the security of Church property, and maintained, that in England and Ireland it stood upon wholly different grounds, to the Act of Union; the fifth Article of which provided, that the Churches of England and Ireland, as then by law established, should be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, and that they should remain in full force for ever, and that the continuance and preservation of the said united Church should be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps feel, that, in touching any article of the legislative Union, he was on very tender ground, inasmuch as the Irish government had violated the feelings, sacrificed the interests, and feigned to despise the support of those, the whole tenor of whose lives and conduct had ever been to strengthen and consolidate that Union, and preserve and promote the connexion between the two countries; while those whom the Government were vainly endeavouring to conciliate, and who, by the evidence of the hon. and learned member for Louth, appeared very desirous of still holding them in their trammels, were becoming so impatient, that they would not even brook the delay of the certain means, which, in his conscience, he believed the Government were preparing, in the Irish Reform Bill, for carrying a Repeal of the Union; and the leaders of that party had already proclaimed their determination to pull down the standard of Reform and raise that of Repeal. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not make these observations in any factious spirit, but in all the sincerity of truth, under a serious conviction, that Ireland was fast approaching some calamitous convulsion, and with as deep and ardent feelings of affection for that country, as were possessed by those of his countrymen who would fain monopolize all patriotism to themselves: his sentiments on the subject might be mistaken—he hoped they were, but, at least, he entertained them honestly, and he felt it his duty to express them openly. He should not oppose the appointment of the Committee, but should deal with the question in its progress through that House, without bias or prejudice, and give to it that full and calm consideration which its vast importance demanded.

would not have said a word, but for an observation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. The systematic opposition which that hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of, and attributed to the present Government, had existed long before they came into office, and even long before the Union. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman forget the Tithe Composition Act, brought in by the right hon. Gentleman sitting behind him, in 1823, and brought in under the pressure of the same necessity as that which now compelled the Government to touch the subject? The hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten all history, or he must know that the same opposition to the collection of tithes existed long before the Union between the two kingdoms. He admitted, that the Protestant Clergy were at present in a very low condition, and he admitted the necessity which existed of providing for them; but he hoped that all compassion would not be thrown away upon them, and that, in any arrangement that might be made of the tithes, the poor would not be forgotten. He was sure that nothing good could be done for Ireland if they were overlooked. The question seemed of more importance to him than other Gentlemen apprehended, for he thought it was a question between the tithes and the Protestant religion. If the tithes were preserved, the Protestant religion must be sacrificed; they ought to take all possible care to attach the Catholic population to the Protestant Church, and without they did that, he should be afraid for Ireland. He could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman had unfolded his plans more, for he had not understood what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do. He seemed to have given up every other plan, but that of commuting tithes for land; but that plan would be too slow in its operation, and it was a great evil that the Clergy of Ireland had already too much land. He apprehended that some other system must be proposed in the committee; the state of the Church property in Ireland was such, that it must be examined into freely. For his part, he wished much, being a Protestant himself, that the Protestant Clergy should be provided for; but the temper and disposition of the people in Ireland were such, that it would be quite impossible to provide for them by the existing system.

in seconding the Motion, complained that a compromise should have been allowed. When the seizure was first made, he mentioned the subject in the House, and obtained, as he supposed, a pledge from the Government that the parties guilty of the offence alluded to should not be suffered to compromise the matter. It was high time, that examples and exposures should be made, since it was almost an ascertained fact, that three times as much foreign silk was smuggled into this country as was subjected to the duty. He conceived that, instead of coast blockades or preventive guards, the best means of preventing this extensive and injurious system of smuggling would be, to place a watch upon three or four of the great houses in the city of London.

would not object to the production of the papers for which the hon. Alderman had moved. Indeed, if any other information upon the subject were necessary, he should be ready to produce it, solely excepting the brief of the Attorney General, which he thought every one would feel need not be produced. The Government had no other wish than that the whole of the circumstances connected with the case should be properly understood. From the observations which had been made by the hon. member for Preston, he feared that what he had stated on a former occasion had been misunderstood; he had never given a pledge on the part of the Government that no compromise should be allowed to take place. All he pledged himself to was, that the case should be carried into Court; when once there, it was, in fact, transferred from the hands of the Government to those of the Attorney General, whose duty it was to deal with it as, in his opinion, justice, and a regard to the interests of the State most demanded. The case was carried into Court, and settled as the Attorney General deemed best and wisest. He certainly felt some regret, in consequence of the impression which had been made upon the public mind, that the prosecution was not carried further, but in justice to his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General, he was bound to say, that he believed the compromise which had been made was most advantageous to the Crown. There were many difficulties connected with the case which would have made it extremely difficult of proof in a Court of Law. The whole penalty that could be recovered amounted to 24,800l., and composition had been agreed to for 20,000l.—that made a deficiency of 4,800l., independent of the goods. The honest tradesman, however, might rest satisfied that the law officers of the Crown had come to the determination of agreeing to the compensations for reasons which they considered sufficient, and that it was their most anxious wish to do every thing in their power to put down smuggling.

had no objection to make to the compromise, being well aware that such a sum was seldom recovered by taking the full course of the law in such cases. But it was said that, besides the parties against whom the proceedings were immediately taken, there were other large houses implicated, and that would have been exposed by a public trial, which he thought most desirable, as such an exposure would be a more effectual means of preventing smuggling than the exaction of a fine.

said, that the papers now moved for would, of course, implicate all parties concerned as much as the trial could have done; and if the other houses alluded to had done any thing which brought them within the reach of the law, they would gain no advantage from the compromise, but could still be proceeded against. He thought he had nothing to defend or vindicate in the manner in which he had discharged his duty.

hoped that the fullest explanations and inquiry would take place.

expressed his hope, that every thing would be done to protect the home manufacturer from the ruinous consequences of frauds of this description.

was glad to hear that the amount of the penalties compromised was no greater, as it had been very generally believed to be much higher.

was confident it would appear from the papers, that the parties had been concerned, not only in this transaction, but in a systematic course of smuggling carried on to an enormous extent.

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Schools of Anatomy, of which he had given notice, would take that opportunity of informing those Members who were not present in former Parliaments, that a Committee had been appointed in 1828 to make inquiry on the best mode of remedying the present defective system, and that, in 1829, he introduced a Bill, emanating from that Committee, which passed the Commons, and was thrown out by the Lords. The political changes which had taken place so frequently since that period, had prevented him from renewing the Bill, and would best explain the delay which had occurred. The Bill which he proposed to introduce on the present occasion, if permitted so to do, would differ, in some respects, from the measure he formerly brought forward. In the former Bill he proposed that all persons practising anatomy should take out licenses. That proposition was objected to by the profession generally; and after deliberately considering the subject, he was induced to believe, that it would be sufficient if inspectors were to be appointed by the Home Secretary, by whom reports should be made as to what passed in the different schools. He thought, if this were done, and if these officers were authorized, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to inspect the anatomical schools, it would be a sufficient precaution. With regard to the particular manner in which these schools were to be supplied, the present Bill would differ in many respects from the former one. It was urged as an objection to the former Bill, that it subjected the poor to considerable hardships, inasmuch as its operation was, in a great degree, confined to them. He intended to introduce a clause into the measure which should be equally applicable to all classes of society; and he hoped, more particu- larly when he reflected upon the dreadful enormities which had recently been committed, the results of the law requiring one thing, and necessity demanding another—that this Bill would have the effect of supplying the different schools of anatomy with the subjects necessary for their purposes, and of reducing the price which they were now obliged to give for them. He knew, that human beings were always, more or less, governed by their feelings or their prejudices; and he was also aware, that any Legislator who could disregard the feelings and sympathies of mankind, would have no claim to the satisfaction of the people or to their ready concurrence and approbation. However deeply impressed he might be with that feeling, yet he must not lose sight of the necessity of affording proper facilities for the study of anatomy. He would put it to the House, whether it was not also impressed with the importance of the subject. He would venture to say, that there was not one individual in that House who, if it were necessary that he himself should undergo a severe surgical operation, would not be anxious to have, as his attendant, a thorough anatomist. They must recollect, too, that there were cases, in which the feelings and wishes of mankind were made to succumb to the service of the state. What could be more savage than war? And yet when the service of the State, the preservation of the nation, and the welfare of the people were at stake, we set aside private feelings, and scenes of bloodshed and suffering-were the consequence. Again, in Courts of Justice, stern necessity required to doom fellow creatures to banishment and death. In such cases, in such instances, the wishes and feelings of individuals were held as nothing, when compared with the interests of the nation at large. Why, then, should they hesitate to make some sacrifice when a question was at issue which so materially affected the welfare of every human being? Having said thus much, and having reminded the House, that on a former occasion it passed a Bill which he had the honour of introducing—admitting that, but for the necessity of the case it would be most desirable that there should be no further legislation on the subject—he would not trouble the House with any further observations, but begging the House to consider the urgency and necessity of the case, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating Schools of Anatomy.

regretted to hear the hon. Gentleman say, that the present Bill was, in some respects, similar to the measure which he introduced before on the same subject. [Mr. Warburton said, it differed from that Bill.] He was glad of it, for if it resembled the former Bill, he should evince his hostility towards it, to the utmost extent of the powers given him as a Member of that House. The last Bill enacted that men and women, males and females, who died in workhouses, or who had the misfortune to die in hospitals without being claimed within a certain time after death, should be sold to the anatomist for the purpose of being placed under the dissecting-knife. He had said before, that when that Bill was brought in he should move an amendment, at all events, to the effect, in the first instance, that the anatomical schools should be licensed; and, in the next place, that no young surgeon should enter a school of anatomy, or be allowed to touch a dissecting-knife, unless he chose to register his name as an individual willing to give up his body for dissection. This would be the best way of getting rid of that vulgar prejudice of which they heard so much. Other hon. Members might oppose the Bill on different grounds;—some might do so on the score of Christian burial; but he should leave that to the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, and some others. He trusted that the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) would introduce a clause into his Bill, empowering any person to sell his body before he died. He understood that, as the law at present existed, a person could not dispose of his body, because it belonged to his executors. He thought that if this practice were legalized, and if dissecting-rooms were placed under the inspection of the Secretary of State, subjects might be procured with much greater facility, and without outraging the natural feelings of mankind. Yes, he said natural. Look at the case of Dr. Hunter; it was wished to dissect him; but he who had dissected so many himself, up to the very last moment of his life declared that he objected to the operation being performed on him. He had heard the anecdote from one of Dr. Hunter's best pupils, Mr. Brown, a surgeon, who lived in Stamford-street, Blackfriars. He was sorry to mention private names, but the hon. Gentleman obliged him to do so. Something must be done to put an end to the dreadful practices which had recently occurred. Could any thing be more horrible than the exposure of dead bodies which took place? The cutting up and mangling of the bodies of human beings was done with as little concern in those human shambles, as the bodies of beasts were cut up in Newgate, Smithfield, or any other market. He hoped and trusted the hon. Member would be very cautious what clauses he introduced into his Bill.

said, the natural objection to the exposure and dissection of the remains of one who was dear to the survivor, might be denominated a prejudice; but it was a feeling which had existed in every age of the world and in every country. It was one which had survived every form of religion, and so far from being a prejudice, it was a principle of such a nature, and one which was so deeply planted in the human mind, that it could not be uprooted without tearing from the heart some of the best feelings of human nature. The assertion made by the hon. member, with respect to Dr. Hunter, might be equally well applied to some of the most eminent individuals in the medical profession at the present moment. He knew an instance of an individual of high rank and great eminence in his profession, who had invariably affected to despise the feelings to which he had just adverted—who considered them as prejudices—but, when it came to his turn to have the test applied to himself, when a beloved member of his family circle died, under circumstances of considerable distress—when great doubts were entertained as to the nature of her disease, and when it was proposed to him, that that individual should be subjected to surgical examination, he shrunk with horror from the proposal. He recollected the moment himself, and he remembered well the shudder which crept over that man at the bare idea of submitting a being whom he had so fondly loved—who had been to him a source of so much solicitude—to such an exposure. That sentiment would survive while there was feeling or virtue extant in society. If it be called a prejudice, let those deal with it who were above it—let the Bill which was to be brought forward, merely refer to that class of society who were superior to so gross and degrading a prejudice. It was well known, that the lower classes had the greatest possible objection to this mutilation of the remains of their friends—and to pass a law to claim the bodies of the unprotected poor, would be to close the doors of all hospitals and houses of mercy, and to drive the man, whose crime was poverty and whose fault was prejudice, to perish in the streets. He agreed so far with the hon. Member below him, as to think that the French schools of anatomy were better conducted: let such be the case here; but let them not be carried on at the expense of those feelings which he had endeavoured to describe—feelings which might lie dormant in a man's breast, but which one breath of affection for the memory of a departed friend or affectionate relative would fan into a flame. If our neighbours were so entirely free from these prejudices, he would beg to ask, why might not the principles of free trade, which were so liberally applied to other matters, be applied to this? By adopting this mode, they might have subjects supplied from abroad. As long as a traffic at a high price for human bodies after death was carried on, such atrocities as had been committed on the living subject must be expected. The poor of England would not bear any proposition which would fix upon them the supplying of the anatomical schools. How stood the law on the subject at present? It was objectionable in some points of view, certainly, but still, in one, it answered a valuable purpose. The man who violated the sanctuary of the grave, was not placed in a very perilous position, but the law of common decency compelled him to proceed on his illicit career in secret: the body of the dead could not suffer, and the feelings of the survivors were spared by the necessity of secresy. He repeated once more, that the Bill which the hon. Gentleman formerly introduced, was one which the poor of the country would never bear. If there were any mode of subjecting the different classes of society equally to the operation of such a law, for the benefit of the living, well and good; but justice and common feeling alike prohibited the adoption of any measure which weighed peculiarly heavily on the poor, while it spared the better classes of society.

observed, he was sorry that the hon. member for Bridport had not thought it prudent to postpone the consideration of the measure before the House, to a more convenient period; and although it was not his intention to make any remarks on it at that moment, yet, after what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, and from other hon. Members, as to the cruelty exercised by the surgeons in their schools, he could not refrain from making a few observations. To begin; there was wanting in the last bill a clause which made it so objectionable, that he was compelled to oppose it, and he hoped the omission would be supplied in any bill which the hon. member for Bridport might then introduce. By law, those who were convicted of murder were delivered over for dissection, and a clause repealing that Act would be absolutely necessary, before the people would feel indifferent about being treated after death in the same manner as murderers. It was evident, that an advantage could not be derived from those feelings on both sides of the question. If it was intended to deter men from crime by adding to capital punishment the dissection of the body, the feeling of abhorrence which was entertained against that operation would be cherished; but if, on the contrary, to further the ends of science, the prejudices that exist against dissection are to be allayed, that, feeling of degradation which was now associated with it in the public mind must be removed. He quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Aldborough, as to the feelings which were experienced by the relations of the dead on the subject of dissection, and he also agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that it would be well if those who spoke so strongly against the prejudices of others, and more especially those of the poor, would set the example of self-devotion to the cause of science, and would shew to the public, that they were ready to abjure their prejudices, and to give up their bodies for the general good. Was there any man of philosophy or of religion, who believed, that anything could affect the body after death, whether it were deposited in the silent tomb, or cast into the sea, or were made the subject of scientific investigation? To persons who entertained such feelings, it would matter very little in what way their bodies were disposed of when life was extinct. Although he deprecated the discussion of the question at the present moment, and blamed the hon. member for Bridport for bringing it forward, calculated as he conceived it to be to inflict considerable pain on the minds of the people, yet he wholly exonerated the hon. Member from entertaining any such intention, and he (Sir R. Vyvyan) was convinced, that in his conduct he was actuated by the best and purest motives. He differed altogether from what had been said by the hon. member for Preston, upon the inutility of the science of anatomy, and of the discoveries which were made in early times by the anatomists. What had been the discoveries made by the aid of that science during the last two centuries? Even that grand discovery, the circulation of the blood, would not have been known had it not been for dissection. He believed, that if any hon. Member would take the trouble to look over the evidence which was given to the House last Session on that subject, he would find, that in consequence of not allowing bodies to be dissected, or by making it half criminal to do so (for such was in reality the situation of every anatomist), in consequence of these penal laws, a set of men in this metropolis and in other parts of the kingdom, had sprung up, dead to all those feelings which human nature would seem most dearly to cherish. A melancholy proof of this had been afforded by the trials which had lately taken place. He hoped, therefore, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, that the hon. Gentleman would insert nothing in it to hurt the feelings of the poor. Those who died in the poor-house, or in the hospital, were as much entitled to the protection of the law as those who died in palaces. He did not, however, mean to say, that he would repeal all the laws that existed against violating the church-yards. He was of opinion that some law must and ought to exist against taking bodies in general; but he would have the law so altered as to render it less penal to dissect bodies, though, at the same time, he would not remove that barrier which the laws now threw around the receptacles for the dead. At the same time, he would do all he could to remove the prejudice that existed in the minds of the people on the subject. He knew they had to deal with a paradox; and it was hard to plead at one and the same time the cause of feeling and of philosophy. Yet, if it had not been for the discoveries made by the anatomist, what would have been our progress in the science of physiology? The poor had, indeed, been the greatest gainers by those discoveries; for were it not for dissection, those able and experienced surgeons who were now to be met with in all walks of society could not have existed, and whose numbers, before anatomy was generally studied, were so few that it was with the greatest difficulty even the rich were able to obtain the advantage of their skill.

thought he had distinctly stated, that there would be a clause in his Bill which would make it clearly unobjectionable, and that that clause would provide, that the measure should equally apply to rich and poor. The clause was to this effect, that neither against the consent of the party himself while living, nor against the consent of the relations when dead, should the body be given up for dissection. He had hoped, and still did hope, that that clause would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. Something had been said about the subject of religion. He knew that the fathers of the Church were not in such repute as they were in former ages; yet there were many passages to be found in their works which went to the full extent of the doctrines which the hon. Member had laid down. He did not think, that it mattered at all to the person who was dead what was done with his body; and as to the burial service of the Church, he considered that to be said rather for the benefit of the living than the dead. He would read a passage from one of the fathers of the Church, which was applicable to that part of the subject. It was from St. Augustin, in his work on Genesis.

"Quasi vero quidquam intersit ad nostram utilitatem, istar caro jam examinis in naturæ profunda secreta per quos transitus eat!"

St. Augustin called the anxiety that men evinced for the manner in which their bodies should be treated after death, "inanes curas examinatorum corporum suorum." In many other passages that author alluded to the same subject, and taught us not to care what became of our bodies after death, for that could have nothing to do with our spiritual well-being. He trusted that, with this explanation of the nature of the Bill, and of its impartial application both to the rich and poor, the hon. Member would give it his support.

only wished to state, that what he was anxious to see was, an equal course taken by the hon. Gentleman in this measure with regard to the poor and the rich. It would be most unfair if that and the other House of Parliament should make a law of such a nature apply to that class of society who regarded dissection as a great punishment, and at the same time exempt those from its operation who had so largely benefitted by it. He was in a great degree reconciled to the principles of the Bill since the explanation that had been given.

had been long desirous of moving for certain papers relating to the Cholera Morbus, and would take that opportunity of doing it. He did not know, that he should move specifically for all the papers on the subject, because a right hon. Gentleman had told him they could not be produced without inconvenience. The papers he intended to move for were these:—first, he understood that the Government were in possession of an important document, namely, the Report of the Deputy Adjutant-general to the emperor of Russia, stating the progress of the disease. If they really were in possession of that document he should like to see it. There was another document, containing all the cases of cholera which had occurred on board all the vessels sailing from Hamburgh to England, taking an account of all the accidents (the technical phrase) under which death had occurred, and stating how many of these deaths had occurred from cholera on board the said ships. That document would enable him to place before the House the knowledge Government had obtained of the various instances of infection. He should like to know also what became of all such vessels after they were released from quarantine. He must also express a wish to know when Government were first in possession of the knowledge of danger arising from these vessels, and how many days they were under quarantine, together with the report respecting each ship. This information would throw light on what he considered highly important: he alluded to the expression in his Majesty's Speech which had been treated with contempt by medical men. He was sure the College of Physicians would have a curious discussion on that expression. His object was, to ascertain distinctly from what source the infection had reached this country. He wished future historians to be able to report correctly whether this disease was indigenous or not. They had traced it from Astracan to Hamburgh, and to persons who came from Hamburgh to this kingdom. Although it was surrounded with so much mystery in the Speech from the Throne, he believed it had been introduced to this country in the same manner it was carried to Astracan and Hamburgh. He should have thought, after the knowledge which Government possessed of the means to prevent the spreading of contagion, by cutting off any connection with the diseased, they must have seen that the cholera was communicated from person to person, and that measures might have been taken to prevent communication. He would have surrounded the house or houses where it was first discovered with a cordon. The unfortunate persons might have been treated with kindness and humanity, and if that had been done he believed the cholera would not have extended. It was the duty of his Majesty's Government not to sit quiet with Turkish indolence. They ought to stop communication as the only means of preventing the spread of the disease. He called on his Majesty's Government to adopt that mode of arresting it. The expense was nothing compared with the good effect such a system would have produced. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for further papers on the subject of the cholera.

could assure the hon. member for Bridport, that there was every inclination to grant all the papers that were in the possession of his Majesty's Government, relating to the subject of the Cholera Morbus; and that the only reason why it was proposed to the hon. Gentleman, that he should select those papers which he might consider most desirable to have produced, was one connected with a consideration of the expense. As there were a great many papers in all, there would necessarily be considerable expense incurred if they were to be all produced. It was, therefore, very expedient that the hon. Gentleman should make a selection; and if his hon. friend would come to his office, every document should be produced, with one or two exceptions—for copies of which he might wish to call. Those exceptions were with regard to some documents which might have been communicated by foreign governments, confidentially; and which therefore, it would not be advisable to produce. He should be very glad, that the other papers should be submitted to the public, and that they should be informed of the steps adopted by the Government in respect to the progress of this disease. Although he was satisfied that the public would not join in the censure of the hon. Member, yet he was most anxious, that the whole of the documents should be well understood, and all the steps that had been taken be thoroughly inquired into, because he felt assured that the whole would be approved of when all that had been done by the Government was sufficiently known. The charges tion brought by his hon. friend against the Government were, principally, having made a mystery of the existence and nature of the disease; and not taken sufficient precautions to oppose its introduction or to check its progress. His hon. friend had characterized that part of his Majesty's Speech which referred to this disease, as "mysterious;" and had stated, that the different members of the College of Physicians to whom he had spoken on the subject had treated that passage with contempt. He did not know whom his hon. friend alluded to; but he was quite certain that those with whom the Government had had any communication, had not been able to agree either as to the specific nature of the disease, or as to the way in which it came into this country. It was not possible to state in the Speech, whether the disease was one which had come into this country from abroad, or whether it had sprung up in Sunderland. Indeed, it was, for some time doubted among the physicians, whether the Sunderland distemper was the Cholera. One day it was declared to be so; another day it was said that it was not; and for five or six days after the disease had appeared there, the physicians of Sunderland declared it was not the Cholera; and even when two physicians went down thither, one of the medical gentlemen of that place was still of opinion that it was not the Cholera. But supposing it was the Cholera, still they had strong evidence as to the great difficulty of determining whether or no it was brought into this country, or, at least, of ascertaining by what means, or through what channel, it had been imported. It was, however, at all events, a question of great difficulty to determine whether this disease was the true Cholera or not. There were two ships which came to Sunderland from Hamburgh; and the question entirely turned upon the point of, whether these ships brought with them the disease. It was difficult to ascertain whether any communication had been had with these ships. But there was one point which admitted of easy solution—and that was, whether any person on board these ships had been affected by the Cholera? From the information which they had received, it appeared that of the crew of these two ships (for there were no passengers), every one seemed, at the time of leaving Hamburgh, and had been ever since, in a state of perfect health, and had never been affected at all. Certainly this created great difficulty in supposing that the disease was communicated by these vessels, unless it was believed (which was the opinion, it seemed, of some gentlemen), that the "miasma," or infected atmosphere, favourable to its propagation, might continue to pervade the cabins or other confined part of a vessel, and may thus communicate the disease upon being entered or opened. He only mentioned this theory, without giving an opinion upon it one way or the other, not being himself in possession of the necessary knowledge to do so. He only meant to state, that there was a degree of doubt upon the subject which was the cause of, and, he apprehended, fully justified the caution observed in his Majesty's Speech, in respect of any statement as to whether the Cholera was introduced from abroad, or rose up in Sunderland. He now came to the only other charge which had been made—namely, that the Government did not take the necessary steps, after those cases had appeared, to prevent the spreading of the disease. He had already stated, that the physicians disagreed entirely among themselves on the subject; it would have been, therefore, very difficult for the Government to justify themselves in having recourse to the measure which the hon. Gentleman had suggested—the attempting to surround Sunderland with a cordon sanitaire. But, admitting that Government had been even justified in doing so, still he was prepared to contend, that such an attempt could have been made only with the most injurious and vexatious consequences to the town and neighbourhood; and would have proved utterly ineffectual, at the same time, for the purpose required. His hon. friend must know, that in towns on the Continent where military cordons were at the disposal of the government, such practices had been adopted; and that they had been invariably found to fail. In Russia, for example, with the exception of the Emperor's palace in the vicinity of St. Petersburg (where the cordon was in a degree successful), these military cordons had uniformly resulted in disappointment. Around Vienna, Berlin, Riga, and at other places, large military cordons had been established, and at all those positions such means had completely failed of their end; and this, moreover, to such a degree, that he had not read of one single town or district, in which they had been planted, where they had not dissatisfied the inhabitants. He could refer his hon. friend to many publications in which the authorities had expressed their regret at having resorted to such means. In Germany, the people had declared, that, instead of good, these precautionary measures had been attended with the most disastrous consequences to the trade and commerce of the countries where they had been introduced. But to carry them into effect in such a country as this was impossible. He would put it to any Gentleman, whether he thought, that considering the habits of the British people, they would submit to such a system for one week? But the hon. Gentleman said, that if a cordon had been attempted around the town of Sunderland, it would have checked the disease. He begged to inform that hon. Gentleman, that such a cordon would have required 25,000 or 30,000 men to enforce it; and where, he asked, could such a force have been obtained? But what had been said by the physicians on the subject appeared to him perfectly just. In placing a cordon around the town, they were not building a wall of stone, but surrounding the place with thousands of human beings, who were all liable to the very infection which they would hedge in. Instead, therefore, of decreasing the disease, they were ensuring its extended communication to all parts of the kingdom. He came now to the other subject of charge, namely, as to the Government's not having taken other measures for preventing the spread of the disease. "Why," asked his hon. friend, "has Government not adopted a forced separation of the sick from the healthy?' To this he must give to his hon. friend the same answer which he had already done to his other charge; which was, that they acted from experience, and only from experience, and on that principle those measures were taken. His hon. friend said, that the physicians complained that their regulations had not been enforced; and he went further, and demanded, "Why, when your physicians, who were sent to St. Petersburg and Riga, say that the physicians at Petersburg adopted, with effect, the principle of forced separation—why do you not follow their counsel?" If the hon. Gentleman had attended to the opinions of Dr. Barry and Dr. Russell (the persons who were sent abroad by Government to inquire into the nature of the disease, and of its mode of treatment), he would have found, that no such effect as he imagines was produced by the enforced regulations at Petersburg. It was their decided opinion, supported by observation, that wherever these regulations had been in- troduced, they had never done any good, but had invariably been productive of evil. These Gentlemen said, in their Report published by the Board of Health after their return, and which Report was written by the Board's direction, and published under their authority—that "With regard to precautions as to intercourse with suspected or really infected persons or places, the Board are confident, that good sense and good feeling will not only point out, but morally establish, as far as may be practicable, the necessity of avoiding such communication as may endanger the lives of thousands. But they strongly deprecate all measures of coercion for this purpose, which, when tried upon the Continent, invariably have been productive of evil. The best inducements to a prompt acknowledgment of the disease having entered a family, as well as to an early and voluntary separation of the sick from the healthy, will always be found in the readiness and efficiency with which public charitable institutions attend to the objects noticed in S. 3. It is with much satisfaction that the Board feel themselves authorized to declare, and it will no doubt be highly consolatory to the public to learn, that under proper observances of cleanliness and ventilation, this disease seldom spreads in families, and rarely passes to those about the sick, under such favourable circumstances, unless they happen to be particularly predisposed." It had been tried in many of the towns in Europe, to separate the sick from the healthy, by taking measures such as those recommended by his hon. friend, that of cutting off all communication; and invariably the same consequences had followed. In the first place, families disliked to be separated from their sick relative, and the consequence was, that every attempt was made to conceal the disease. These were the feelings existing among the poor, as well as among the wealthy classes; nay, even more so in the former, because they were more ignorant. Did not his hon. friend remember what took place in Hungary and at Petersburg, where the town was for three days in possession of the people, and all in consequence of the attempt made to force the sick from the healthy, and convey them to the hospitals? The noble conduct of the Emperor on that occasion would be long remembered. He suspended the regulation, and directed the people to be left to act voluntarily. It was explained to them how much better it was to be taken to the hospitals, where every attention would be paid to their sickness; and it was then left at their option whether they would go to the hospitals or remain at home. From that moment all dislike to be removed ceased, and the people were content to be separated from their friends, and to be treated in the public hospitals according to the system pursued there. That was a case which the Government of this country had thought it its duty to follow. Every kindness was shown towards the people affected by the disease, as well as every consideration paid to the feelings of the relatives. Every care was taken to preserve cleanliness in those parts of the town of Sunderland where the poor were congregated, and more especially where the disease prevailed; and hospitals had been established, in which patients had been already received. Physicians of the greatest eminence had been appointed to attend on the spot, and administer to the necessities of the sick, while other individuals equally disinterested and public-spirited had gone about recommending to the poor to be attended at the hospitals rather than at home, and taking every means in their power to adopt those measures of separation and cleanliness which were found most efficient. These were the steps which the Government had taken to arrest the disease; and he was of opinion that such a course was much more likely to be attended with beneficial consequences, than any enforcement which either this House or the Government could resort to. If persons would exert themselves in reasoning with the lower classes, and endeavoured to persuade them to take advantage, voluntarily, of the facilities afforded at the hospitals, it would be more effectual in overcoming their prejudices than any mode of coercion that could be adopted. He assured the hon. Gentleman that there had been no Turkish indolence on the part of Government, and he was quite sure, that when the public came to learn what had been done by Ministers in regard to this disease, they would be of opinion that their conduct had been most consistent with their duty, and most conducive to the end desired; namely, to check the disease and prevent the spread of the contagion to any other part of the kingdom. Whilst the whole faculty were uncertain both as to the nature and the treatment of the disease, it was very difficult for a Government to take so harsh a step on such doubtful information. They had interfered in every possible way to effect that which might prove the most beneficial in its results; and, therefore, they hoped what had been done would be satisfactory to the country.

said, that he was aware of the impossibility of surrounding Sunderland with troops. He had traced the progress of the cholera through the various countries which it had ravaged, and he was sure, that the quarantine regulations ought to have been more strictly enforced. There had been too much laxity, he regretted to say, respecting these regulations, but he trusted, now that the disease had made its appearance, that by cleanliness and attention, we might be spared the frightful ravages which had occurred in other parts of the world. Before the disease had made its appearance in Sunderland and Newcastle, he had called upon Ministers to use every precaution in their power, by strictly enforcing quarantine regulations. He must confess, that he thought Ministers, even after the disease had manifested itself, might have done more than they had towards preventing its spreading. They ought to have attempted to prevent its progress, by having the houses in which the cholera had broken out guarded. It had been shown, by the instance of the palace near St. Petersburg being surrounded by a cordon, and in which there were between 6,000 and 7,000 individuals, that the disease might be kept out; and Ministers were bound, in the first instance, to endeavour to stop the progress of the disease by precautionary measures, and by strictly enforcing the quarantine laws.

said, it might not be palatable to hon. Members to hear what he was about to say, but of this he was fully assured, that should the cholera make its appearance in the metropolis, it would certainly visit St. Stephen's, for the air which they breathed was unwholesome, and there was a great want of ventilation in the House.

insisted that cordons had been successful in foreign countries, and he believed they would prove equally efficacious in this. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about the expense of having a cordon of soldiers round Sunderland, but surely it would have been no great expense to have had the houses guarded in which those afflicted with the cholera lived? There were not now above a hundred houses so circumstanced, and these might most easily be guarded by soldiers. If Government acted with Turkish resigna- as to the disease, it would spread all over the county. He had done his duty in calling the attention of Ministers to the subject, and he could not compel them to act if they were not inclined. He had, before the cholera broke out at Sunderland, complained of the laxity in the observance of the quarantine laws. He would not detain the House longer, but he would call upon Ministers to act, and if they did not, in his opinion they would be responsible for the consequences.