presented a petition, signed by 8,000 respectable inhabitants of Norwich, complaining of gross abuses in the Corporation of that city. The hon. Member referred to the petition that had been presented to that House, complaining of the return of the sitting Members, and alleging the existence of bribery on their parts, and of general corruption in the city of Norwich. The charge of bribery was undoubtedly disproved; but the allegations of corruption were completely borne out. There could be no doubt that a system of extensive corruption existed among the inhabitants of both parties; and he regretted that the evidence taken before the Committee had not been printed that the House might have determined whether or not it might not have been fit to take further steps to insure the purity of elections at Norwich. He repeated the election petition contained two allegations—the one of bribery against the sitting Members, which was disproved; the other of a general charge of corruption, into which the Committee would not inquire. He would not impugn their conduct, for which he knew there were precedents; but it was certainly natural that the petitioners should complain that half their charges were left untouched.

thanked his hon. friend for giving him an opportunity of rebutting in person the many atrocious calumnies which had been advanced against his noble friend and himself. Nothing could be more false and unfounded than the imputations which had been thrown out on the subject. As far as he had any knowledge of the case, there never had been an election for Norwich to which such imputations were so little applicable. It was certainly impossible to expect that, in a constituency of above 4,000, there would not be partizans on both sides whose zeal would induce them to overstep the line of duty. He believed, however, that, at the late election, there were very few such cases; and he also believed, that the majority of them were in the ranks of his opponents. To show the candour of those by whom his noble friend and himself had been attacked, he would merely state, that an attempt had been made to persuade the Committee that the conduct of a member of the Corporation, which had relation to the election of Sheriff, had relation to the election of his noble friend. His hon. friend had said, that the members of the Corporation, having certain patronage, exercised it in behalf of their friends. Was there anything peculiar in that? It was the practice of the Ministers of the Crown to use their patronage in favour of those by whom they were supported, either in or out of that House; and he had never heard it imputed to them as a crime that they did so. He hoped, however, that if it were to be made criminal in a Corporation to give places to their friends, they would go higher, and make it criminal in a Ministry. To him this appeared to be an excess of purity. If, indeed, unworthy subjects of patronage were chosen, that would be a just cause of complaint; but otherwise he did not SCO how they could ground a charge against any Corporation or Administration, for using their patronage in behalf of those who were in their interest. As to the Corporation of Norwich, it was at present in that most desirable state to which it was wished to bring all Corporations—namely, that the elections were all popular. The constituency was numerous. Contested elections naturally generated heat and animosities; and there might have been improper cases at some of them. He knew of none; except that in the Court of King's Bench he had seen informations laid against Members of the Corporation: some of whom were punished, and all of whom were put to great expense. That was the proper tribunal for such cases. As to the Committee it could best defend itself. The Members of it were as little connected with him, as were any thirteen Members in that House. In politics, the greater part of them were opposed to him. As a proof, however, of the mistaken views of a disappointed partisan, a Norwich paper declared that the Committee had been bribed by his noble friend and himself.

said, the Motion which had been made would of course prevent him moving for the Committee of which he had given notice, as far as the breach of privilege was concerned. But the petition he had to present referred to two points; first, the breach of privilege; and secondly, the conduct of the Government in appointing the son of Sir John Key to the situation of Storekeeper in the Stationery office. He had no vindictive purpose whatever in view, and he should say nothing regarding the hon. Baronet in his absence, which he would not have said had he been present. The petitioners, twenty-six or twenty-seven in number, slated that they were engaged fairly in trade, and they complained, that by the late appointment of Master Key (a youth of eighteen years of age) to the office of Storekeeper, in which capacity he had to judge of the quantity and the quality of the goods sent in for the service of the Stationery Office, they were deprived of their chance of an equitable competition in their trade, as those duties ought, and could only be properly performed, by an individual of solid judgment and experience. This young gentleman filling such a situation, and his own father being a contractor for stationery, what security had the other portion of the trade that their wares would be fairly judged, or the public that their interest would be fairly and impartially considered? He looked, and it was the duty of the House to look, to the principle which was involved. If this young gentleman was only eighteen years of age, it was impossible he could enter into the bond required by law; and being so connected, it was nearly impossible that strict impartiality could govern his actions. He understood from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the young gentleman was no longer in office, and that neither the noble Lord nor Earl Grey was aware of his appointment. He could only, of course, suppose that Master Key had been appointed on the supposition that he had attained his majority; but, whatever were the circumstances connected with the case, it was absolutely necessary that the public should have a guarantee that it should not occur again. The petitioners prayed that their interests might be protected, in common with others. He felt compelled, in obedience to that prayer, and to the prayer of another petition, which he had to present on the same subject, to move, after they should have been received, for a Committee to inquire into the circumstances which led to the appointment of Master Key to the office of Storekeeper of the Stationery. The right hon. Baronet then moved, that the petition from certain stationers be read at length. The most important allegations in it were, that the Government contract for paper which amounted to 60,000l. was nominally with Sir John's elder brother, who had long since retired, and had now nothing whatever to do with business, but beneficially Sir John himself; and that Master Key had never been at the office since his appointment; but that his father attended every day, and superintended the reception of his own paper, which was unloaded from his own carts.

said, that, of course, the House would expect him to give some explanation of what had taken place with respect to this appointment. The custom of the office had been, that the person who had been appointed under the Comptroller, in the situation lately held by the son of Sir John Key should have been engaged in the stationery trade, and they generally had been persons who had not succeeded in business. On the late vacancy occurring, the Comptroller stated his wish that a younger man than those generally appointed might have the place as the persons formerly appointed were not always equal to the discharge of their numerous duties. Mr. Key was appointed, not in the belief that he was eighteen, but on the statement that he was twenty-two years of age. On his appointment the Comptroller did not mention that his uncle was the person who had anything to do with the contract with the Government, but on the appointment being made, the Comptroller took care that the article to be furnished under the contract should be inspected by another person. The Treasury, however, had not the least idea, from the beginning, that the contract was in the hands of the uncle of the person who had been recently appointed. The arrangement he had mentioned was made by the Comptroller of the Department. He need hardly tell Gentlemen opposite, who were well acquainted with the nature of these things, that he individually, had nothing to do with the appointment, and that he was not aware of any of the circumstances till yesterday or Saturday se'nnight, when a friend wrote to him to say what had taken place. He immediately represented it to the Board of Treasury; the consequence of which was, that the appointment was directly afterwards cancelled. Certainly nothing could be more improper than to appoint to such an office a connexion of the person who had the contract. And there was no person who knew what his duty was that would think of making such an appointment. When the application for the office was made, it was represented that the young man was of age, and the Comptroller had said, that he wished a younger man than those generally appointed to be in the office, and stated it to be his opinion they should not be more than twenty-five to thirty years of age. It had always been considered that a man connected with the trade should be appointed, and that reason had been urged with reference to Mr. Key. As soon as it came to the knowledge of the Government that circumstances of impropriety existed with regard to the appointment, that appointment was cancelled. If Sir John Key had retained his seat in that House, it would have been proper to inquire into his right to do so, but now as he had no longer a seat there, he (Lord Althorp) submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, whether Sir John Key, being liable to prosecution for penalties, it would be fitting in that House to pursue the inquiry at the present moment.

said, that it appeared to him that the most strange part of the whole proceeding was, the Motion making it doubtful, whether Sir John Key was still entitled to be a Member of that House. He regretted that Sir John Key had been allowed to vacate his seat, for if the vacancy happened at all, it should take place in execution of the law, and not in avoidance of it. If Sir John Key had been a contractor with the Government, his seat was void by the law; and they ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether it was so; and he ought not to be permitted, by the interference of the Executive, to avoid the question, whether he was a fit person to have a seat in that House. This House of Commons dared not refuse to inquire. If the statement made in the petition was correct, he would venture to say, that under an unrefomed Parliament no Government would have permitted such a transaction, nor any House of Commons have allowed it to escape inquiry. The Act by which contractors were prevented from sitting in Parliament was passed in consequence of that memorable resolution of Mr. Dunning in 1782—"That the influence of the Crown has increased—is increasing—and ought to be diminished." That Act contained provisions declaring, that no man entering into any contract for the supply of articles for the public use should have a seat in Parliament, and that no man in Parliament should enter into any such contract, and retain his seat; and it further declared, that "in every such contract, agreement, or commission, shall be inserted the condition that no Member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to have directly or indirectly, any share in the gains, profits, or benefits arising there from." Was that condition inserted in this contract? If so, after that could it be permitted that Sir John Key should become the contractor. That matter deeply affected the honour of the House, which was bound to inquire how such a transaction could take place. It appeared that the contract was nominally entered into with Mr. Muggleston Key, but really with Sir John Key. If it were possible to evade this Act of Parliament, and to permit the brother of a Member nominally to enter into a contract, while the Member himself was the virtual contractor, and would become entitled to all the advantages of the contract, that ought to be met by an immediate legislative remedy. In the petition presented by his right hon. friend it was stated that it was capable of proof that Sir John Key, being a Member of Parliament, was the real contractor; that that contract was for paper amounting to a sum of 60,000l.; that Sir John Key's brother had retired from business, and that Sir John Key himself supplied the articles, and was in daily communication with the Stationery-office on the subject. He repeated, that they ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether these were the facts, in order if the law could be so evaded, that they might apply a remedy. But superadded to all this was the statement that Sir John Key had got his son placed in that office, by which the quality and the quantity of the article furnished were to be ascertained. The noble Lord said that nothing had been stated at the Treasury of the age of this young man. That ought, however, to have been inquired into. It was the duty of the person at the head of the department to which he was appointed, not to acquiesce in that appointment, but to remonstrate against it on account of the young man's age; he should have made a representation to the Treasury, for although the youth was the son of a stationer, it was impossible that he should be practically acquainted with the business, any competent knowledge of which his age must have precluded him from acquiring. It was not sufficient to say, that his relationship was not known—his age ought to have disqualified him; he had to enter into a bond for the satisfactory performance of his duties, and it was impossible he could enter into any valid bond at that age. He knew nothing of these circumstances, except by the petition which had been presented; but he thought the House of Commons owed it to their honour and character to institute an inquiry, not for the purpose of obtaining penalties, but of ascertaining how such a transaction could have occurred and of preventing it in future.

trusted that, though he had already addressed the House, he might be permitted, after the attack which had been made upon the Government generally, and upon himself personally, to address the House again, and to explain the circumstances under which Sir John Key had obtained the office which had enabled him to vacate his seat. He would state the grounds under which Sir John Key had been permitted to accept the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. He admitted that, under existing circumstances, he did not view the granting of Sir John Key's application for that office quite as a matter of course; but he likewise felt that the effect of giving that office to Sir John Key would not withdraw him from the liability which, provided he was a contractor, he had incurred, of being prosecuted for the penalties to which every contractor was subject who presumed to sit and vote in Parliament, and that it would not place him in any better position than that which he occupied at the present moment. On the best consideration that he could give to the matter—and the House would recollect that he had not any long time given him for consideration—he was of opinion that no harm could accrue from giving to the hon. Baronet the appointment which had enabled him to vacate his seat. Now, the right hon. Baronet had attacked his Majesty's Government as if they had knowingly given this appointment of storekeeper to a young gentleman of the age of only eighteen years and a half.

No; I said that the Comptroller ought to have reported to the Government the age of the person appointed to the situation, and that the Government ought to have remonstrated against the order making the appointment, which it did not appear that they had done.

said, that he did not rise to defend the Comptroller, but the Government—for the imputation which the two right hon. Gentlemen had cast was cast upon the Government, and was cast upon the Government on this ground—that it had appointed an incompetent young man nearly connected with the contractor, to a situation, where he would have to control the contractor's supplies. He had not stated that the contractor had said that the young man's age was twenty-two. That representation had been made to Earl Grey when application had been made to him for this appointment. What he (Lord Althorp) had said was, that the Comptroller had not stated what the age of the young man was, and had not mentioned that he was in any way connected with the contractor. The Comptroller made an arrangement without any communication with the Treasury, by which the inspection of the paper sent in by their contractor was taken from the young man. He must add, that no person connected with the Treasury was aware that the contract was where it was, or that the young man was connected with the contractor. As to the appointment of a Committee, he had merely suggested that it was questionable whether the House ought to consider the matter as a breach of privilege, there being no longer a breach of privilege, in consequence of Sir John Key having vacated his seat. He assured the House that he had no wish to screen any party, and if any hon. Gentleman wished for inquiry, he would be the last man in the House to object to it. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Officer opposite whether he (Lord Althorp) had not written to him (Sir Henry Hardinge) that morning, and told him that he would not object to inquiry if it were demanded. He had only expressed a doubt whether, as Sir John Key, if he were a contractor, had rendered himself liable to heavy penalties for having sat and voted in Parliament whilst a contractor, it would be right to institute an inquiry into a matter which might afterwards become the subject of legal investigation. The tone which the right hon. Baronet had taken in the course of his speech seemed to assume that Government had done that which he admitted would have amounted to gross misconduct if they had done—namely, appointed the nephew of a pretended contractor, but as it was alleged the son of the real contractor, to an office overlooking the performance of the contract, for which he was moreover otherwise disqualified. He asserted, that Government had no knowledge of any such facts; and that from the very first moment ill which he became aware of them, he had said that they must be corrected, and that a change must take place in the arrangement.

said, that the assent which the noble Lord had just given to the appointment of the Committee was the very best answer the noble Lord could have given to the Motion. There was no reason why Sir John Key, because he shrunk from Parliament, should be allowed to get rid of the prosecution for penalties to which he had laid himself open by sitting and voting in Parliament after he had become a contractor. It was singular this first trait of a reformed Parliament—namely, that the brother of a Member of Parliament should get a contract from the Government, and then that contractor's nephew, the son of the Member of Parliament, should get a place where he had to judge of the mode in which the contract was performed, not for his merits, for they were unknown, but for his demerits, he being only eighteen years old, and without experience. How was it, he would ask, that this young man had got the place? Sir John Key had voted for the Coercion Bill, and for the Resolution which rescinded the vote of the House repealing the Malt-tax, and for those votes his son was rewarded with a place of 400l. a-year. This was a very extraordinary way for the son of a Member of Parliament, representing a popular constituency like the city of Dublin, to get a place. He had made a mistake—he did not think that the sons of the member for the city of Dublin had any great chance of getting a place. The son of the member for the city of London had, however, got a place. He contended that the present was a monstrous case, calling for examination and decided censure on somebody, and he was glad that the House was now going to examine who the parties were that deserved it.

was exceedingly gratified that his noble friend had given his assent to a Committee of Inquiry, for sure he was, that the more inquiry was made into the circumstances of this ease, the more would it contradict and refute the insinuations of the two hon. Gentlemen. He thought that the vindication of his noble friend, and of the Government with which he was connected, was now complete. It was not for the Government to say, that gross misconduct had not taken place somewhere, and he (Mr. Stanley) was exceedingly gratified that by the inquiry which was now to be instituted, that misconduct would soon be laid bare and open. His noble friend had stated the case on behalf of the Government, and as he did ill all cases where he himself (Lord Althorp) was personally concerned, plainly and simply, and without any wish to gain a vote by ornament or eloquence; on the contrary, he had rather understated than overstated the defence of Government on this occasion. This was the individual ease of the Comptroller of the department. An application was made for an office in it by a gentleman who was represented to be twenty-two years of age, when, in point of fact, he was only eighteen. The office was filled up, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite would not consider it as a disqualification of the holder that he was a supporter of the existing Government. On the contrary, the Government had been frequently abused for not disposing of its patronage among its own supporters. The charge had been brought against the Government over and over again, and by no person more frequently than the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would admit, that an improper person had been admitted to the office. That person had not the qualifications which he was represented to have; he was only eighteen years of age—not twenty two as had been stated, and, moreover, he was not competent, either by his knowledge or his experience, to perform the duties of this office. As soon as this came to the knowledge of the Government, the party holding the office was informed of it. The appointment took place in the month of June, he forgot the exact day; on the 28th of July it was represented to the Government that the person holding it was only eighteen years of age, not twenty-two; on the 29th a communication was made by his noble friend to the Stationery-office, and also to Sir John Key; and on the next day Mr. Key resigned, and a Treasury minute, cancelling his appointment, was issued be for the single word had been uttered about laying all the circumstances of this case before the House of Commons. Here, was a complete vindication of the conduct of the Government. He was not there to inquire into the conduct of the Comptroller; he was not there to inquire whether he was cognizant of Mr. Key's age or not. The Comptroller was not an officer appointed by the present, but by the former Government. If he had not fulfilled his duties, he was responsible for it. For his appointment the present Government was not responsible. For the contract in Mr. Key's name they were responsible, but for cancelling Mr. Key's appointment, when they learned the circumstances attending it, they claimed their share of credit; and he rejoiced that his noble friend, in assenting to this inquiry, would bring all the circumstances connected with this transaction fairly under the consideration of the public. The hon. Gentleman had said, that Mr. Key was connected with one of the parties to this contract. Now, it ought to be recollected that the contract was not made with Sir John Key, but with his brother. It was also possible to evade the law by one person making a contract in the name of another, and it was matter of extreme difficulty to detect these evasions. Besides, it ought not to be forgotten that the contract was not matter of favour and appointment by the Government, but was decided upon legal tender and by public and open competition; and in this instance, as his noble friend said, the contract of this year was five per cent lower than the terms of the contract last year. This contract did not come either before the Government or before the Treasury—the lowest bidding was taken—and that bidding was in the name, not of Sir John Key, but of Mr. Jonathan Muggleston Key. Whether the Comptroller and the Gentleman at the head of the Stationery-office, ought or ought not to have been ignorant of the connexion between these two gentlemen—whether they ought or ought not to have reported it to the Government—whether the Comptroller should have remonstrated or not against the appointment of a youth of eighteen to the office of storekeeper, was not at present the question. The whole case was to be inquired into; though he thought that his noble friend was quite justified in doubting the propriety of bringing this case before the House of Commons, as the penalties for which Sir John Key might be sued were of heavy, indeed enormous amount. He rejoiced, however, that the House of Commons was going to take this question into its cognizance; and he was sure that, in spite of the imputations which had been cast upon the Government, it would go into the inquiry with clean hands, and come out of it with an untarnished reputation.

asked, whether Earl Grey, when he gave this place to the young man, was aware that the uncle of this young man was the person who had taken the contract?

declared, that it was not his intention to do anything by which Sir John Key could be placed in a more prejudicial situation than that in which he had placed himself at present. He should be extremely sorry that any inquiry in the Committee should bring before the public such proof as would be necessary to support a prosecution against Sir John Key for the penalties to which he had rendered himself subject if he had sat and voted in Parliament after he had become a contractor. His object was, to do justice, and if blame attached to any quarter, to let that blame fall where it was deserved. He did not intend to bring any accusation against the Government. He had said, that ignorance or carelessness might be attributable to them, but after the letter which he had received from the noble Lord, containing his disavowal of the transaction, he did not think that it would be fair to make insinuations either against the noble Lord or the noble Earl at the head of the Treasury. Whilst he was anxious to appear to do nothing vindictive against Sir John Key, he still felt that he had a duty to perform towards the petitioners; and that duty he must perform by moving for a Select Committee to examine into the allegations of their petition.

proposed to add to it this proviso:—"That where the legal quantity of provisions was not given to the slave, and that was made apparent to three Justices, and that where, on demand being legally made for such quantity, in consequence of an order issued by those three Justices, a refusal to comply with the order was given, an end should be put to the apprenticeship of the slave, and he should be released from his indentures."

objected to the Amendment. The principle of the Bill was to leave these minor details to the Local Legislatures, and it would be an unwise deviation from the general rule to fix a specific penalty for the violation of local enactments. He requested Mr. Fowell Buxton to leave it to Government to frame instructions to the Governors of the different colonies. If those instructions should not be attended to, then Parliament would be at liberty to interfere.

proposed an Amendment, to the effect that the laws applying to the apprenticeship of freemen should be applicable to the slaves when apprenticed, after June 1st, 1834.

opposed the Motion. The laws as to apprenticeship were not in force in the colonies, and the Amendment, therefore, would be of no avail.

said, that the next consideration which he had to press upon the attention of the Committee was the necessity which existed for taking especial care to ensure to the children who should be born alter this Bill had passed, all the blessings of freedom to which they were therein declared to be entitled. Another consideration for their attention was, the fact that as the condition of slavery degraded and debased the human mind to a degree to render those who had once endured it scarcely capable of receiving that advantage from freedom which freemen ought to have, he thought that all children under the age of six years ought to be exempted from the term of apprenticeship, in order that they having altogether escaped the debasement consequent upon slavery, might arrive at manhood in a frame of mind equal to bear their free condition, and to avail themselves of that blessing. These reasons, he considered, were sufficiently strong to justify him in proposing an Amendment to the clause to that effect.

said, that perhaps he might be able to offer some strong objections to the hon. Member's intended Amendments, which would have the effect of saving the Chairman the trouble of putting them. In the first place he was ready to admit that the apprenticeship of the negro was a choice of evils, and was only to be looked upon in that light. In the second place, the apprenticeship of the negro infant was a humane provision intended to guard against the possibility of an orphan, or a child of parents unequal to its support, being cast upon the world without any means of livelihood, and consequently of being subjected to the chance of starvation. If this were not done and the master were compelled to support such destitute children, it would be an additional hardship on him, against which, however, the Bill fully guarded by giving him in return the advantage of the child's labour, such as it might be. The Amendment of the hon. Member, therefore, if carried, would only defeat his own humane intentions.

said, that if he thought the clause was to extend only to destitute children, he should not object, but he feared that the effect would be to carry slavery to a much greater extent than was intended by the principle of the Bill. When he found that there was in most of the colonies, a fund for destitute children, and when he found that the number of whites relieved by that find was as nearly twenty to one compared to those of the black population, though the latter were so much more numerous, he thought it would be no great addition to the burthens of that fund if all the children of the black population who might be left destitute should be thrown upon it. Even if it were a small increase of expense, and he did not think it could be very great, it would be better to adopt that course than place the children in such a state of half bondage until they attained the age of twenty-one years.

said, that the children thus apprenticed would be in the same situation as apprenticed labourers. The clause was, that if any such children under six years of age should be destitute—that was, without parents or any friends to claim them—the special magistrate should be authorized to apprentice the child to the master, or to any other person, as circumstances might render necessary.

was not satisfied with the proof that the child would not be able to support itself. [Mr. Stanley here observed, that that would be decided by the special magistrate.] He was not, however, satisfied with that mode of deciding. He thought the clause quite nugatory as applied to slave children.

took the same view of the case as the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, and would take the sense of the House on the clause.

proposed that the indentures of female apprenticed negroes do expire when they reach their eighteenth year; that being a marriageable age.

saw no reason whatever to assent to the Amendment.

wished to know whether Government had received information from Jamaica of any disposition on the part of the legislative assembly to defray the expense of rebuilding the chapels that had been destroyed in that island?

could not say that he had heard of any such steps having been taken; but the subject would be one of the earliest submitted by the Government to the consideration of the local Legislature.

brought up the clauses providing for the raising of the grant of 20,000,000l. He observed that it had been suggested by the right hon. member for Harwich to introduce a proviso enacting that no money should be raised under the Act except during the sitting of Parliament; and, further, that the terms of the contract should be laid on the Table. He saw no objection to this. It was understood that the Legislature was pledged that the loan should be positively raised, but it was right that Parliament should have an immediate check upon the Government as to the terms of the contract.

asked whether Parliament was to have a control over the terms of the loan?

replied, that the contract made by the Government would be final, but Ministers would be liable to the censure of the House if the terms were disapproved of.

thought that Parliament should have a control over the terms of the loan—at least the House ought to know the plan of providing for the interest.

said, that the interest must be provided for by Parliament at the time: he had frequently before stated that the mode contemplated was by a tax on colonial produce. When the contract for the loan was made and charged on the Consolidated Fund, he was sure that if a necessity arose for supplying any deficiency in the Consolidated Fund, Parliament would be prepared to do so; but he did not know that there would be any necessity fur a new tax at all: the revenue was progressive, and would necessarily continue so (such was his opinion). However, if a new tax should be necessary to provide for the interest, it would be for Parliament to decide in what manner it should be imposed.

asked whether the contract would be open.

answered that it would: there was a provision in the clauses he had brought up to that effect. However, there was one exception to an open contract, which was, in case the Commissioners for the redemption of the national debt should be able to undertake the matter without going into the market at all.

was not unwilling to pledge the Legislature to a grant of 20,000,000l, but thought that the terms of the contract should depend on the ratification of Parliament—a reformed House of Commons ought not to trust any Ministry to the extent now proposed.

observed, that the mode in which it was proposed to raise the loan would be the most advantageous both for the West-India proprietors and the public. It would enable the Commissioners for the management of the national debt to make the best bargain they could for the public.

said, that Parliament had always, in the instance of former loans (and of loans, too, of a far greater amount), reserved to itself the power to determine the terms on which the loans should be raised, without trusting altogether to the discretion of Government; and he thought that practice should be still adhered to. The Clauses empowering the Commissioners for the management of the national debt to raise the loan in question in the shape of annuities, and specifying the manner in which the operation was to be conducted, were brought up, read, and agreed to.

said, that in submitting the statement which he was about to lay before the Committee, it would be necessary for him, in the first instance, to give them an estimate of the amount of arrears of tithes that remained due in Ireland for the years 1831 and 1832, and also of the amount of arrears of tithes due for the year 1833, for the total amount of which the measure he was about to introduce went to provide. Some weeks ago his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had called the attention of the House to this subject; but at that time his noble friend was not prepared to state the precise amount of the sum that Parliament would be called upon to advance, and as, since that period, a desire had been expressed by the House that impropriate tithes should be included in this arrangement, it was necessary to ascertain the amount of such tithe due at present. Early in the Session an account of the amount of tithes and arrears of tithes due was ordered, at the instance of the hon. member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), and that account had been presented to the House on the 11th ult. That Return had misled many hon. Members as to the amount of tithes due, and it was altogether so erroneous that he would not have alluded to it on the present occasion, had it not been referred to on a former evening by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam worth, as an authority on the subject. It was not only erroneous in this respect, that from many parishes it contained no Return at all; but furthermore, it contained no account of the amount of tithe due for the present year, nor any account of what was due for impropriate tithes. It besides included the arrears of tithes due since the 1st of May, 1829. Now, from all that had come to his (Mr. Littleton's) knowledge, he did not believe, that there was any considerable amount of arrears due for the years 1829 and 1830. According to this account, which was, as he had remarked, an extremely erroneous one, the whole amount of arrears due was 409,384l. He would now proceed to state to the Committee what his estimate was of the amount of arrears due, according to the best information he had been able to collect upon the subject. With respect to the arrears for the year 1831, proceeding upon what he considered to be pretty correct data—namely, the amount claimed by the clergy under the Relief Bill of last Session he would set them down at 104,285l. From that sum was to be deducted 12,100l., the total amount which had been recovered by the Government in consequence of taking those arrears upon them as Crown debts. That amount too, he was bound to say, had been collected with great difficulty, and with some loss of life. Deducting it from the sum he had already mentioned, it left the total amount of arrears due for the year 1831, 92,185l. To that it would be necessary to add a sum which, calculating it on the best authority, he estimated at about 20,000l.—namely, the amount of arrears due to Bishops, Corporations, and to other persons who had not availed themselves of the relief afforded by the Act of last Session. That would make, according to his calculation, the total amount of arrears due for the year 1831, 112,185l. Now, with respect to the arrears due for 1832, he had in the first instance to observe, that the total amount of the ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland was calculated at 600,000l. That, he believed, was the estimate made of their amount by the best informed authorities on the subject. In the year 1832, in consequence of the great difficulties and embarrassments which had arisen in 1831 with regard to the collection of tithes, the collection of them was rendered still more difficult. A very small proportion of the tithes due for that year was collected in the southern counties of Ireland. A much larger proportion was collected in the northern counties; and, according to the best accounts which he had received from various parts of Ireland, he had every reason to believe that no less than 300,000l. for ecclesiastical tithes remained due for the year 1832. It appeared, then, that the total amount of arrears due for 1831 was 112,185l.; for 1832, 300,000l.; making a total due for those two years of 412,185l.; to that was to be added the sum of 600,000l, being the amount of tithes due for the current year; thus leaving the gross amount of ecclesiastical tithes due and unpaid for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, at 1,012,185l. The greatest difficulty had been experienced in calculating the amount of lay tithes due for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833. As much greater hostility existed to the payment of impropriate than of ecclesiastical tithes, it was very probable that a very small proportion of lay tithes had been collected throughout Ireland during that period. By an account which had been laid before Parliament early in the year, it appeared, that the number of impropriate parishes in all the dioceses in Ireland amounted to 669. By looking at those which had compounded, by which he had ascertained the amount of his tithes, he had come to the conclusion, that the gross amount of lay tithes due was 94,192l. 19s. 1d. It was, however, to be observed, that in some cases the lay tithe and rent had been added together, and in that way some of the landlords had received the value of their lay tithes. It would be necessary, therefore, to make an abatement for that consideration from the gross amount he had already mentioned. The abatement he proposed to make from that sum, in consideration of lay tithe added to rent, was 20,000l.; balance of lay tithe remaining due each year, 74,192l. 19s. 1d., which balance, multiplied by three, leaves an arrear of lay tithes for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, of 222,578l. 17s. 3d.; there by making the gross arrear of ecclesiastical and lay tithes for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, to be 1,234,763l. 17s. 3d. That was certainly a large amount. It would not be necessary, however, to apply to Parliament for an advance equal to that sum. He believed, that nobody would be inclined to dispute the justice of the principle, that if Parliament should come forward with a sum to pay the tithe-owners what was due to them, relieving them from the costs of collection, of valuation, and the other expenses and difficulties attendant upon the recovery of that species of property, a considerable discount should be given to the parties thus making such ready-money payment. He believed, that the Irish Members would not refuse a large discount upon the arrears for the years 1831 and 1832, as a considerable portion of those arrears must have been considered bad debts if Parliament had not stepped in and guaranteed their payment. A great difference must be made between those arrears and the tithes due for the present year. It was proposed, therefore, that while, upon the payment of the tithes due for the present year a deduction of not more than fifteen per cent should be made, a deduction of twenty-five per cent should be made upon the payment of the arrears for 1831 and 1832. The total per centage thus allowed would amount to 241,242l., which, deducted from the total amount of tithes and arrears due—namely, 1,234,763l., left a balance of 993,521l. That, therefore, was the amount to be provided for, and it was proposed to provide for it by an issue of Exchequer-bills to the amount of 1,000,000l. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to explain to the Committee the machinery of the Bill by which it was proposed to arrange the distribution of this money, and the mode in which it was to be subsequently levied on the land. Such he said were the heads of the Bill which it was his intention to propose on this subject. He would beg leave, in conclusion, to move the following Resolution:—"That his Majesty be enabled to direct Exchequer-bills to an amount not exceeding 1,000,000l. to be issued for the purpose of advancing under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for 1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of twenty-five per cent; and the value of the tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent, to such persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be desirous of receiving such advances, and that the amount advanced shall be included in the tithe composition, so as to be repaid in the course of five years, being payable by half yearly instalments."

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) should understand, that he (Mr. Shaw) had not moved for the Return of the arrears of tithe with any reference to the present measure, but previously to the announcement of any intention by his Majesty's Government to introduce that measure, and with a view to lay open the system of injustice and resistance to the laws under which the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland were suffering. He (Mr. Shaw) did not, however, materially differ in his calculation of the amount due, and now to be provided for from that which the right hon. Gentleman had come to by a different process. Setting off the number of benefices not returned at all, which appeared to be 157, against the arrears of 1829 and 1830, which were included in the Return, but which of course were not a part of the sum now to be estimated, there remained in round numbers 500,000l. of clerical arrear due for the years 1831 and 1832. Add to that the clerical tithes of the present year, being somewhat more than 500,000l., and about 200,000l. for the impropriate tithes for the arrears of the two last years, and for the current year, the result would be as nearly as possible the same the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at—namely, that a sum of about 1,200,000l. would be due for tithes in Ireland, and remained to be provided for by the Resolution then before the Committee. With respect to the means by which the Government proposed (as just stated by the right hon. Gentleman) to raise that sum of money, and to meet the difficulties of the case, difficulties which he admitted were great, but which he (Mr. Shaw) could show were produced principally by the weakness and the folly of the Government themselves—with respect, he said, to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, he contended that its leading characteristic was that of gross injustice to each and all of the parties concerned. First, as to the landlords, it was unjust beyond all precedent to require them to pay not only what they had not been liable to by law, but a charge that they had expressly contracted should be paid by their occupying tenants and not by themselves. The case was altogether different where there was no existing lease or contract. There he (Mr. Shaw) approved of making the landlord pay, but where there was an existing contract all principle was violated in transferring the payment from the party who had contracted to pay, to the party who had by express contract protected himself from the payment. Then, as regarded those who had paid their tithes and obeyed the law, they were to be put in a worse situation than those who had combined to resist the payment and to violate the law. And though he mentioned them last, the least injustice was not done to the clergy themselves, who, having been deprived for the last three years of their legal maintenance by an organised and illegal combination against them, carried on under the implied sanction, if not the direct encouragement of the Government—having abstained within the last few months from legal proceedings to recover their long withheld rights, or even from viewing the crops in uncompounded parishes, upon the express understanding of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), that these three years' tithes should be paid them, were now called upon to submit to the unreasonable, and under the circumstances, most unjust deduction of twenty-five per cent. No more cruel or oppressive conduct had ever been pursued towards any body of men than that with which the Irish clergy had been treated by the Government. In the end of 1830, soon after the present Ministers came into office, the systematic resistance to the law commenced, and those who most insidiously inculcated the doctrines which directly tended to that resistance, received not only the countenance, but the praise of the highest authorities in the Irish government. When violence and outrage were proceeding beyond the purposes of the Irish government themselves, and some attempts were made to repress them—no sooner were the consequences beginning to be felt, which in Ireland were always sure to follow a firm and vigorous Administration of the laws, than the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) used the unfortunate expression of the extinction of tithes, and again raised the outcry against them from one end of the country to the other. So matters went on to the passing of the Coercion Bill, the necessity of which was occasioned by the base, vacillating and timid policy of the Ministers; but order having been in some degree restored under its influence, and the people being led to believe, that the law had not been altogether suspended, the clergy seemed on the point of recovering their tithes by the ordinary process, when, in perfect keeping with their former indecision, and that up-and-down system which had characterised their whole policy, the noble Lord caused proclamations to be posted throughout the country that all proceedings for tithes should be suddenly put an end to. The policemen, who the week before had been putting up notices at the risk of their lives, warning the people to pay under the severest penalties of the law, were now attempted to be chaired through the country, and carried in triumph by the people, distracted with the inconsistency and unintelligible conduct of the very Ministers whose duty it was to hold a steady and firm hand over them, instead of first exciting them to resist the laws, and then having recourse to extraordinary means to punish them. From every part of Ireland his information was to the same effect, that had the Government not interfered, scarcely any tithes would have been unpaid by the 1st of November. A correspondent from the county of Cork wrote, that "all payments, though in fair progress, were at once put a stop to by Lord Althorp's words in the House, and the clergy are beginning again to feel all the difficulties of destitution." Another from the Queen's County says—"Until the Government interfered the other day, the anti-tithe conspiracy had been nearly put down. The Roman Catholics in this country were paying in all directions; and I don't think there would have been any tithes due before the 1st of November, unless in cases of real inability. This, of course, is all at an end now." And from the north of Ireland a most estimable and experienced clergyman writes—"I have been on the best terms with all my parishioners; in January last they were unanimous in thanking me for the composition I entered into; but the consequence of the recent conduct of the Government has been, that my agent has not only been refused any further payment, but actually threatened with violence if he did not return what he had already received—as they said, that Government was to pay all the tithes for the last three years." Was not this holding out a premium to crime, and paying a bounty on insubordination and disorder? He could not avoid referring to a passage in the first tithe report which was then on the Table. It said the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) was Chairman, was deeply impressed with the danger that must threaten the whole frame of society if a combination against a legal impost was permitted ultimately to triumph over the provisions of the law—and was triumph ever more complete than that which the Government bad given in the present case to that combination, to deprive the clergy of their legal income, which that same Report had so strongly dwelt upon? Was it not a striking instance of the evil deprecated in the Report of affording proof that turbulence could lead to relief, and that popular combination was sufficient to bear down legitimate authority? And what did the Report most truly point out as the certain and inevitable consequence? that "the security of all property would be shaken—the framework of Government and society disorganised—and a state of confusion and anarchy ensue." Yet with these truths placed before the Government by one of their own Members, at the time Secretary for Ireland, they had pursued the course to which he had alluded. As regarded the clergy, they were not in the situation of free agents—they were in a state of destitution, caused by the very persons who now proposed to make this exorbitant deduction from the arrears of an income already much reduced. Still they were not in a condition to reject any terms the Government had the injustice to impose; they were, as it were, under duress—not free to exercise an independent judgment. Was not the proposition now made a monstrous deduction to be made from their lawful and fair demands? He almost felt, that, in agreeing to the present measure, they would be accepting a temporary and insufficient relief, to the prejudice of their permanent interests, and the undoubted rights of the body to which they belonged. This, he suspected, was the reason why the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) viewed the measure so favourably—it substituted a mere passing expedient for the firm foundation of an acknowledged legal right. But he could not follow what might be his better judgment; he could not bring himself to refuse the means of subsistence to the many families he knew to be deprived almost of the necessaries of life, and what, perhaps, was more deplored by those most interested—of the means necessary for the education and permanent advancement of their children. He therefore would not oppose the Resolution—while he must raise his voice against the dereliction of duty, on the part of the Government, which led to it, and the gross and flagrant injustice of the conditions which they annexed to it.

said, before this million was voted, it was absolutely necessary they should understand the principle on which it was asked for; so strange did it appear to him to be, that he really was almost convinced that he was in error himself upon the subject. The principle, as he look it, was to advance to lay and other tithe-impropriators, who might not have received their tithes for two years past, or who may not receive them for the present year, this sum of money; and the Crown was to be the party advancing, and the party claiming an equivalent for that advance at the expiration of five years, till which period the amount was to be added to the composition fund, and after all only to be paid off by instalments. Last year they had gone on another principle to that which they now proposed. They had gone on this principle—that the incumbent was unable to collect his tithe, and therefore the Crown should be called upon to levy for the clergy. Last year, when the grant of relief had been made, a very different principle had actuated and directed the proceedings of the Government with reference to the clergy of Ireland. He admitted that the state of the clergy in Ireland was such, that it was impossible for him to withhold his vote of assistance to that deserving and meritorious body. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who might be said to represent the clergy of Ireland in that House, said that the money ought to be paid to the clergy, without any deduction. Nothing could be more natural than such a proposition on his part, on behalf of the clergy; but, there was another party whoso interests must be considered—the people of England, who had already paid their own tithes. This sum ought to be paid by the people of Ireland, in what proportion by the landlord and tenant, he would not stop to discuss; but if this legal charge was to be transferred to the people of England, who had already obeyed the law, it would certainly be holding out a premium to the disobedience of the law. They ought to endeavour to strike a balance between the interests of the Irish clergy and the interests of the people of England. He hoped that the House would support Government in their rigorous efforts to enforce the authority of the law in Ireland. He objected to the; principle of the vote; he would say nothing of the grant to the West-India proprietors, because that was a peculiar case; but if Ministers proceeded on the principle of solving their difficulties by large votes of money to be levied on the people there was an end of all hope of improving the financial affairs of this country. This principle of escaping from temporary difficulties by votes of money from the public purse, was one which would involve the country in inextricable confusion. He hoped at least, that the details of the measure would be maturely considered, and the best security possible taken to obtain the repayment of the money from those by whom it was due in Ireland. He should augur the worst possible result from the present vote, if the course now about to be adopted should be allowed to be drawn into a precedent, and unless it was followed up by a vigorous effort to compel payment from those from whom the money was really due.

said, that when vigour was talked of with regard to Ireland, it should be recollected that that had been the system for the last 700 years. This was the first time in which a more conciliatory system had been adopted. Were the Government to blame for adopting this first step in the system of conciliation? No. What was the state of Ireland before it was adopted? There was one universal resistance to the payment of tithes, and soldiers had been obliged to come from Cork to Middleton, to put down that resistance. Attempts were made to enforce payment of tithes by horse and foot, and the country was almost in a state of civil war. The law processes were incessant. In 1832 there were, in the Common Pleas alone, 321 writs issued, and in 1833, these had increased to 572. In 1832, of the writs issued, only seven were at the suit of clergymen; but in 1833 there were 265, out of the whole number issued, at their suit. Tills went on in the same manner in all the three Courts, so that there were nearly 3,000 processes at the time of the Coercion Bill. The country was almost in a state of civil war, and the Government were obliged to interfere and prevent a predial insurrection. No Government had acted more wisely than the present Government had done in this instance; and in his opinion the advocates of the clergy, instead of blaming, ought to praise them for the course they had pursued. They had a good reason for their conduct. This would be a good foundation for a system of conciliation. Let this vote pass, and next Session let them agree to some measure that would lessen the burthen of the Church of Ireland upon the people of that country. This money never would be repaid—who was there to pay it? Let them give it at once. The landlords were not much to blame. Were they to be made liable for their tithes and be made tithe proctors? If so, let it be so stated at once. It would be an injustice to them to make them liable for all these tithes. As soon as it was announced in Ireland that the landlords were to be made liable for the tithes if the occupying tenants did not pay them, there would be a general shifting of the tenantry. The clergy would, however, be provided for by this measure; and it was most ungracious on the part of the hon. and learned member for Dublin University, who represented them, to complain of a measure which was evidently for their benefit. The hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt felt the value of the measure, and no doubt wished to be able to say that the clergy had no reason to be grateful to this Government for anything. He heartily concurred in the vote for a million. Never was there a million that had been more cheaply laid out than this would be, for if the war had continued, more would have been spent within six months, besides all the other and more dreadful consequences. Let them grant this million and purchase peace with it—it would be a cheap purchase; and then let them continue the system of conciliation thus begun, and make Ireland prosperous and happy.

could not imagine that the hon. and learned Member could conceive that those who advocated the interests of the clergy in the House, and the great majority of the people who were their supporters out of the House, could agree with him in the opinions he had just expressed. The hon. and learned Member called this the first step in the system of conciliation towards Ireland. Was not the measure of 1829 so regarded by him at the time it passed? Had not the measure of 1793 and 1778 been so regarded? In every one of these instances the measure had been called the first step towards conciliation, and that expression had been kept up till each measure was passed; but immediately afterwards it was forgotten, and a new grievance was started, and every previous attempt at conciliation was then denied. He objected to the principle of the present measure, for he looked upon it but as a premium to disobedience of the law. He feared, too, that in that, as in other instances, the demand and supply would be found to equal each other; and every three years, he had no doubt, they should see the Irish Secretary coming down to the House with a proposition like the present. Protesting, therefore, against the principle, and against every use that might be made of this precedent hereafter, he should reserve his objections to the details of the measure till they came fairly before the House.

observed, that all the arguments of the hon. and learned member for Dublin showed his belief that the sum now advanced would not be repaid. After that, could that House be called on to vote one million of Exchequer Bills, and to do what? Why, to bolster up the Church of Ireland—a Church against which all the feelings of the Irish people were arrayed. He agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, that the demand for this sort of advance would never fail. The hon. and learned member for Dublin spoke of this as buying peace for Ireland. If he believed it would do so, he should consent to the vote; but as he was quite sure it would purchase rebellion, he should give it his strenuous opposition.

thought, that the House seemed to have scarcely any other duty to perform, than that of voting away millions of the public money—a system which it was high time to check. He considered this grant as very impolitic and unjust—impolitic, because it operated as an encouragement to resistance both active and passive—unjust, because the loss would inevitably fall upon the people of Scotland and of England, who had obeyed the laws, and paid their full share of all the public burthens, including the dues of their own clergy. It was also hard, upon such of the Irish people as had already paid their own tithes, and would now have to contribute towards making up the deficiencies of their more refractory neighbours. Whereas, if they had set the laws at defiance, their own tithes also would have been paid at the public expense. Such a system could not restore peace to Ireland, and would prove an incitement, both there and in Great Britain, to resist just demands, in the hope that the Government would impose the payment upon the country at large. He quite agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Oxford, that this measure would serve as a premium upon lawless proceedings; but he differed from the conclusions at which his hon. friend arrived—being determined to vote against the grant which his hon. friend intended to support. It was not to be expected, nor would it be just, that the advance should ever be reimbursed by the Irish landlords—or could be recovered by them from their indigent and resisting tenantry.

observed, that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had stated he should show how tithes, from which this advance was to be repaid, were to be collected. He doubted much if that could be done. He believed, that this money would be lost to England. And for what was it to be paid? To bolster up the Church Establishment against the best feelings of the country. The hon. and learned member for Dublin asked them to give the money at once, in order to continue the non-payment of tithes for another year, and then they would never be paid again. He (Mr. Hume) had always told them, that that would be the case. The people of England would do the same; and if they were to be called on to pay what other people ought to have paid, they would be silly not to do it. They were now distinctly told, that the money never would be repaid. Under these circumstances, could they think of granting it. The whole scheme of repayment ought first to be laid before them. He should propose, therefore, that the Chairman should report progress, in order to give the Ministers time to lay the Bill before the House, that they might form their own judgment on the matter.

said, that the passing of the Resolution must be preparatory to bringing in the Bill; and when the House saw the Bill, if they did not think that there were any means of recovering the money, it would be in their power to reject the Bill, at any stage of its progress. At the time when this measure was first announced, it was stated that the Government intended to bring forward a proposition which should prevent, in future, the collection of tithes in the old way. The continuance of that system might bring the utmost confusion in the country. He could assure the House, that they came with the expectation and the determination that the measure they intended to propose should procure the repayment of this advance. If the occupying tenant was to be made to repay it, the same consequences as before would follow from the same causes. They proposed, therefore, to follow a different course. They intended to follow up the Composition Bill of the last Session. If they were right in passing that Bill, the application of the same principle on a more extended scale must be advantageous. The tithes of this year would be spread over a period of five years, and would be added to the amount of the composition for tithes. The advance would be made to the clergy, who, on obtaining the composition, would repay it to the Government. This sum would therefore be added to the amount of the composition which the clergyman would be entitled to receive. It did not appear to him, that the Government was in any danger of not being repaid. The tithes that had been lost by the tenantry quitting the land, could not, of course, be levied on the landlord, but must be considered as totally lost; and no deduction could be made by the clergyman on account of them. He did not wish to call on the people of England to pay for the people of Ireland. He should, therefore, put his case on this issue, that if the House were not satisfied that ample provision would be made for the repayment of this money, they ought not to adopt the Bill; but if they saw a reasonable probability of the money being recovered, then he thought they would agree with him, that it would be good policy to make the advance, and prevent the old mode of collecting tithes from being again resorted to in Ireland.

could not see any means by which the money could be repaid, and therefore he agreed with those who thought that this would be a grant, and not a loan, and he believed that, if once adopted, this course must eternally go on while the Church establishment was forced upon the majority of the Irish people against their will.

said, that if the matter was as the noble Lord supposed, there could be no objection to the House adding to the Resolution, that they agreed to it on the contingency, that this Bill, when produced, should satisfactorily provide for the repayment of the loan. Ministers could not be ignorant that there was a strong feeling among the people of England against tithe, especially in the agricultural districts. He thought that, at all events, they would not be more willing to pay the tithes of the Irish than their own; and although the grant was proposed in the shape of an Advance, there could be little doubt, that, like the loan to the West Indies, it must end in an absolute gift.

added, that the adoption of the Bill, to be founded upon the Resolution, would, of course, depend upon the kind of security it offered for the money: if that security were not approved, the Bill might be rejected. The forms of the House required that the vote should first be brought forward in the shape of a Resolution.

said, that if the Resolution were merely waste paper, it was needless for the Committee to be called upon to vote in favour of it. The sum required was to pay the arrear of tithes in 1831, 1832, and 1833, with certain deductions at so much per cent; and it really seemed as if the House of Commons had nothing to do but to vote away the public money, without at all inquiring where that money was to come from. The people of England had none to spare, more especially for the lay impropriators, who had not a shadow of claim.

felt it his duty to support this Resolution, though he might, by doing so, incur the censure of his constituents. He hoed, therefore, that if the payment of the money were decided upon, it would be in the shape of a loan, and not of a grant, for he thought that this country was already too much taxed to be paying any sums for arrears of tithes in another country.

was confident, that tithes never could be collected in Ireland under the present system, and he therefore thought some such arrangement as the one proposed highly necessary. He entirely approved of the Resolution, which should have his support; and, as to the security, the House would be enabled to judge, when the proposed Bill came before them, how far that offered by it was sufficient.

said, that of the only two courses open to the Government for the settlement of the question of tithes, they had, he thought, made choice of that which would prove the most advantageous. He was convinced, that for the Government to proceed with the collection of tithes would be highly inexpedient, inasmuch as it would necessarily lead to the expense and discord which attended the harassing war fare which took place in Ireland last year, as well as to that description of resistance which had already been attempted. A repetition of such a course would, he was sure, be highly imprudent; and he therefore approved of the other mode—that which the Government had adopted—of relieving the parties now oppressed, by means of the proposed grant; for, notwithstanding all that had been urged against the Irish Church in general, he had never yet heard that the claims of the present incumbents had been denied.

contended, that the present was merely a temporary measure to answer the immediate purpose of Ministers—which would never give permanent peace to Ireland. The landed gentry of Ireland had declared, that they would never pay the tithes; so that the advance must be looked upon as a pure gift. Ministers would soon raise in England a resistance as effectual as that existing in Ireland. He especially objected to the grant of 220,000l. for lay impropriators.

regretted, that the objectors to this plan had not favoured the House with any suggestion instead of it. If this Resolution were rejected, the fault would not lie with the Government, but with the House.

would certainly oppose the attempt to throw the burthen of the tithes upon the landlords of Ireland. The money required ought to be taken out of the surplus fund of the Church, and the first million received by the Commissioners ought to be set apart for the purpose.

opposed it, as a measure which was calculated to do more injury than good to the agricultural labourer. Me moved as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day three months.

had before consented to a similar Bill for a short time, in the hope that in the interim some more general measure might be adopted, and he now gave his assent to the present, in the same hope, that before its expiration, Parliament might have time to pass a more general measure on the Poor-laws. He looked upon this merely as a temporary measure, and not as one which he should wish to sec the general law of the land. It had done some good in places since it had been in operation; but he admitted, that it was only a palliative of an evil which it could not permanently remedy.

said, that the speech of the noble Lord was one of the most un- statesmanlike he had ever heard. He admitted a given quantity of evil because that evil was to be only temporary; but if the Bill was calculated to do good, it ought to be general; and if it only afforded a temporary remedy to an evil, some more general measure should be applied. He did not think, that it would produce the good expected from it. The principle of the Bill had gone through many editions since it was first introduced by Lord Nugent, in 1830; but he did not think it had been so improved as to entitle it to the adoption of the House.

opposed the Bill. He lived in an agricultural district, and had not found it work well. He objected to it on the ground, that it was one of those palliatives which, in the result, would do more harm than good. He hoped, therefore, it would not be pressed.

said, though it might relieve for a time the distress to which it was to be applied, it would, in the result, aggravate that distress by destroying the independence of the labourer.

supported the Bill from the experience he had had of its operation in several districts to which it had been applied, and hoped that it might be allowed to pass.

thought the Bill bad in principle and bad in operation. It was one of those instances of legislation in which, though the benevolent intentions of the parties introducing it must be admitted, he thought the House ought not to concur, seeing that it could tend to no practical result. The present was not a mere re enactment of the former Bill, it went to extend the principle of that Bill, and as he denied that principle, as he did not think it right in theory or practice, and, moreover, as it tended to destroy the independence of the labourer, he should give it his opposition.

said, that if the matter were res integra, he might look at it differently, but, as they had only a choice of evils, he would agree to the present measure as affording a remedy for those evils for at least a short time, and until some general measure was adopted.

supported the measure as one which had worked well in many parishes in Buckinghamshire, and so much satisfaction had it given, that the decision of the House respecting it was anxiously looked for by many parishes. It should be recollected, that it was wholly optional, and if the parishioners desired it, they were not bound to adopt it, but if adopted by one part of them it might be set aside by appeal to the Quarter Sessions.

admitted, that in principle it was as wrong to interfere between the farmer and the labourer as it would be to say to a manufacturer how many men he should employ. The Bill was, however, to be defended only as a temporary palliative to an evil to which he should hope to see a more general and permanent remedy applied.

objected to the Bill, as one by which the large farmer and landholder might be enabled to throw upon the small farms and the shopkeepers those labourers for whom they themselves had no employment. What could a poor shop keeper and a poor widow lady do with three labourers who might be thus thrown upon them for support?

, in reply, said, that in those parishes in which the Bill had been carried into operation it had given great satisfaction to all parties. He had never urged it other than as a temporary measure, to be applied only until some general measure should be adopted.