presented a Petition, signed by 1,350 persons of Great Yarmouth, praying for the Ballot, in consequence of the scenes of drunkenness and riot which were seen at the last election, and stating that the corrupt voters who gave their votes for the sitting Members had been rewarded with two guineas a-piece. He moved that the petition be brought up.

said, with regard to the charges of the petitioners, he had only to make this answer, that no one should make these charges slightly or inconsiderately. If advisedly, the parties ought to bring proofs, and establish the case, as an act of duty to the country and to the House of Commons. But if they failed to make use of the legal remedy, and reserved the opportunity of making these insinuations and ex-parte statements, they made themselves liable to one of these two conclusions—either that these charges were without any testimony upon which to rely sufficiently to warrant taking them before a Committee, or if they brought them before a Committee, they feared that they themselves might be implicated in similar transactions; so that the object was not so much the purity of election as to suit party purposes. Such would be the answer that he would make to those electors who bad forwarded such insinuations to the House. He believed that he had a greater portion of the electors in his favour than either of the other candidates, a majority of the electors holding opinions coincident with his own. Undoubtedly a great excitement prevailed during the election, and scenes occurred which in calmer moments all must deplore; but he was not aware that the excitement was more on one side than the other, and he must do his opponents the justice to say, that they had behaved to him with exceeding politeness, for which he thanked them. But he rather thought that the object of this petition was not to discontinue, but to prolong the party spirit which prevailed, and he would ask if the result of the election had been different, would such a petition have been presented? With regard to the Ballot, his conscientious opinion was, that it would not remedy the evil complained of.

considered that the allegations were of too serious a nature to be disposed of by mere denial. The petitioners stated, that since the fourteen days expired, and, within a short time after the expiration, two guineas had been paid as head-money. Surely the hon. Member might have informed the House whether such a payment had been made or not. The House ought to know whether such an allegation were well or ill founded; and the hon. Member was perfectly aware, that after the fourteen days, no petition could be presented under the Bribery Act against his election; still the facts were serious, and he (Mr. Wason) had heard of them three weeks ago.

said, that he should only make the answer he had already made, but he was ready to meet any charge that might be brought before any Committee.

hoped that the hon. Member for the city of London would move for a Select Committee.

said, that some hon. Members appeared to be very anxious to have Committees, but as there had been no charge made against him in the regular form, he considered himself virtually acquitted.

begged to remind the hon. Member that one reason why the charge had not been made in the regular form was, because the given period (fourteen days) allowed by Act of Parliament had expired, and another reason was, the enormous expense attending election petitions. He trusted that the allegations would be contradicted if not true; but he was bound to state that be had heard from several quarters on which he could place much reliance, that within three weeks after the election, two guineas head-money was paid in Great Yarmouth, and from whence that money came he would leave others to conjecture. There was a Bill before the House now respecting the county town of the county he represented, and he hoped the House would deal equal justice to all.

believed that there was very good reason for people not running the risk of petitioning for Election Committees. In this case there was a direct specific charge made, and he thought that in the present circumstances of the town, it was necessary that there should be some inquiry. There were many reports from Committees with reference to bribery. Were the people to be deluded by the mere printing of these reports, and were no steps to be taken? If this borough had been sold at the rate of two guineas per head, he did not think that it was a bit better than Stafford. All these corrupt boroughs ought to be treated alike. If the hon. Member who presented this petition thought that there was good ground for moving for a Select Committee, he thought that was the fairest way to proceed, and would relieve the people of Yarmouth from such charges if they were not well founded. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baring) was certainly not bound to answer the charges of this petition—it was for him to take what course he thought proper—it must be left to his own impulse; but a Select Committee would do something which could not be done here, and he trusted that in this case the hon. Member who had presented this petition would move for a Select Committee.

thought with the hon. Member for Dublin, that the best plan would be to refer the petition to a Select Committee, not with any view of involving the Members in difficulties, but because he thought the petition referred to a matter of extreme importance.

could assure the House that he would be the last person to bring forward any measure bearing upon the hon. Gentleman or his friends, if the legal tribunal were easy of approach. It was not because they were unable to prove the charges, but because they were in want of the necessary funds. The petition was numerously and respectably signed, and was presented simply with a view of adopting means to vindicate the purity of election. The only reason why he had any objection to move that this matter be referred to a Select Committee was, that he was personally overcharged with Committee business; and that it would be impossible for him to attend to it. But if any other Gentleman should think fit to originate the Motion, it should receive his most cordial support.

said, that he did not think that it would be sufficient to lay the petition on the Table, and he therefore moved that it be printed.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Petition of John Bury Dasent. He would not trouble the House with any statement, as the nature and history of the case must be fully in the recollection of hon. Members. He meant to move for the discharge of the petitioner, because he stated his contrition for offending against the privileges of the House, but principally because he expressed his willingness to come forward at any time to give fully and freely his testimony respecting all the circumstances connected with the Ipswich Election within his knowledge. He had no wish himself but that every fact should be disclosed, and that all persons who were capable of giving evidence on matters relating to such important interests should be kept within reach, that hereafter they might be made to divulge all they knew. The Motion, however, for the discharge of Mr. Dasent was supported by all the precedents of former proceedings on similar occasions; the dignity and character of the House had been vindicated, and the petitioner had already endured a longer imprisonment than had before been inflicted upon any individual who had committed the same offence. It was now time, therefore, to relieve Newgate from some of its burthens. At the same time he would keep the parties within reach, although he would allow them to have their liberty that they might discharge their duties to their families, which, in some cases, were pressing. He moved that John Bury Dasent, Esq. be brought to the Bar, in order to be discharged.

did not mean to oppose the Motion, but after the part he had taken in the business, it was perhaps right for him to state in what way the evidence bore upon the case of Mr. Dasent. He would also state the principal ground which would induce him to consent to his discharge—a ground that had not been touched on by the hon. Member. The hon. Member referred to some of the circumstances which were given in evidence before the Ipswich Committee, to show that Mr. Dasent had purposely kept out of the way of the Speaker's warrant. He must complain, too, that one allegation in Mr. Dasent's petition was not well founded, viz., that he had given his testimony before the Committee without reserve; on the contrary, he had positively refused to answer the question why it was unpleasant to him to appear as a witness. He had also said, that to give his evidence at all was optional, which, instead of being a palliation, was an aggravation, when it was recollected that he avoided being summoned by the petitioners, and had only come forward on behalf of the sitting Member, when the case of the petitioners was closed. The conduct of Mr. Kelly, also, seemed to have been distinguished by unfeeling selfishness, and he would state why he gave this opinion upon it. Mr. Kelly had put his friend and pupil, Mr. Dasent, into the witness box, not to deny that he had been guilty of bribery, but to admit it; but at the same time to assert that he was not authorized by either of the sitting Members, Mr. Kelly or Mr. Dundas. Such conduct was both unfeeling and selfish on the part of Mr. Kelly. The reason, however, why he would not resist the Motion for the discharge of Mr. Dasent was, that he found in the evidence ample ground to warrant the House in directing the Attorney-General to prosecute Mr. Dasent for bribery. After the Motion now before the House should have been disposed of, he would endeavour to show what that ground was; he would, however, not enter into that part of the question now, but allow Mr. Dasent to be dismissed, having already, perhaps, undergone sufficient punishment for his contempt of the process of the House. Mr. Dasent had himself admitted his guilt in respect to bribery, with a voter of the name of Bird, and his admission was confirmed by Bird's evidence, but he had insisted that he was not authorized by either of the sitting Members. The case, therefore, seemed to him a very clear one; he had merely stated it because some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that the House ought to have the whole matter before it anterior to the appearance of Mr. Dasent at the Bar, with a view to his discharge.

should, with regard to the case of Mr. Dasent, on which his hon. Friend had made a Motion, offer no resistance to that gentleman's discharge. His offence was absconding to avoid being served with the warrant of the Speaker, and for that, perhaps, his punishment had been sufficient. He was not, however, willing now to enter into the question of bribery, but merely to consider the circumstances under which the House had recently exercised its peculiar and immediate power. The charge of bribery might very properly be brought forward on a future day, and then the House might consider what course it was proper for it to take regarding a crime punishable by law. In agreeing to the Motion for the discharge of Mr. Dasent, he was only to be understood to say, that for the offence against the privileges of the House, he thought, that the imprisonment had been adequate, taking into account the admonition he would receive from the Chair. The other, and subsequent question, deeply affected the purity and character of elections, but he hoped that it would take time to consider before it came to any determination upon it.

could not help thinking that the votes of the House would be more intelligible and more expressive of the truth, if, when published to-morrow morning, it were found stated in them, that at half-past five in the afternoon a process was gone through to show how contempt of the House could be made easy. Members were called upon in their judicial capacity to decide upon the case of a prisoner, when not one in ten could know any thing about the matter. Two charges had been spoken of in the discussion; first, that the petitioner, being a necessary witness before a tribunal appointed by the House, had kept out of the way that he might not be summoned; and for this, having undergone the very serious punishment of a few days imprisonment, he was to be reprimanded with all the courtesy of language the Speaker was known to possess, and then to be discharged. The second charge was, that the prisoner had been guilty of bribery, and, therefore, that he ought to be prosecuted by the Attorney-General. Of the second charge he would say nothing: it was a distinct substantive accusation which would be dealt with, he had almost said by a higher tribunal, but certainly higher as regarded its power of punishment. As to the first charge, the contempt, it seemed to him that in the degree in which the powers of the House were defective, ought to be its care to guard its privileges by the severity of punishment it was capable of inflicting. It ought not entirely to dismiss from consideration the point, Who was the culprit? Was he a person uninformed and unenlightened, who was ignorant of the obligations he owed to the institutions of his country? Was he some simple unsuspecting man who had been unintentionally entrapped into the commission of a public crime? Is he (said the hon. Member) like one of the poor men whose cases were under consideration last night, and who are suffering under sentence of transportation, torn from all the little comforts that belong to the cheerless lot of the labouring community, and which render a cottage little better than a curse? No! he is a barrister, who is presumed to have gone through a liberal course of education to fit him for the administration of the law, and to have passed through the ordeal of moral scrutiny exercised by parties who are so perfect that they are not even responsible. Moreover, he has had the advantage of being educated for the bar, under an individual clothed in the silk of distinction, and sitting in the Council Chamber of the Benchers, as one of the watchful guardians of the purity of the profession. He was the pupil of a practitioner who, from being a little shopkeeper and tea-dealer in Oxford-street, has risen to the dignity of sitting as one of the Judges of an irresponsible tribunal. Mr. Dasent was the pupil of Mr. Kelly, who has been elevated from the station I have mentioned to a rank and office that is denied to the judges of the land, where he sits in judgment upon the merits and character of every man who is a candidate to be called to the bar of this country. But now we are told that this is a case for clemency, and that sufficient punishment has been inflicted: it is important, therefore, that we should examine what is the nature of the offence. What punishment would be applied to a person similarly circumstanced before any of our ordinary tribunals? Here is an individual—a man of education giving him, it is to be presumed, a peculiar prominence of moral fitness, who studiously and confessedly avoids the process of the House. The hon. Chairman of the Committee said something about the prisoner's family alliances, and therefore appealed to our sympathies. Ignorance, if it existed, might be made a plea in a case of this sort, but ignorance is no plea for a man of this description. Mr. Dasent is a barrister; he has placed himself in a situation from which, in the career of promotion, by no very violent stretch of the imagination, he may step upon the judicial bench, and I should like to hear what he would say if, as a judge, he were called upon to pronounce an opinion upon the conduct of an unhappy individual who had disobeyed a subpœna of his court. "He would remark further," Mr. Harvey continued, "upon the manner in which Mr. Dasent had conducted himself, contending that he had committed a double offence, first, by absconding to avoid the Speaker's warrant, and next, by confessing that his own criminality had occasioned him to keep out of the way. He (Mr. Harvey) could hardly conceive a charge more complicated or more criminal. The hon. Member for Derbyshire had promised to move the House, that Mr. Dasent be prosecuted for bribery by the Attorney-General, and it was to escape from liability to this proceeding, that Mr. Dasent had kept out of the way. He really did not think that individuals who had committed such offences as had Mr. Dasent and his companions, were entitled to much sympathy on account of having suffered three weeks' imprisonment in the metropolitan receptacles for persons of that description. They were confined in. the governor's house, and could command all the luxuries that were obtainable at the London Coffee-house. To be sure, it might be said there was a difference in. this respect: in the London Coffee-house, people were not obliged to sleep as thick as two in a bed; but where parties had so good an understanding with each other as subsisted between these, it could not be supposed that that would put them to any particular inconveniences. If the House assented to the Motion for the discharge of Dasent, that individual would not have received as much punishment for his offence as was often inflicted on innocence itself. Who was there who had not seen accounts of miserable beings brought up before the Lord Mayor on some such charge as that of having stolen a loaf of bread from a baker's shop, probably for the purpose of appeasing hunger? On a statement being made by the officer, that the prosecutor was out of town and would return in a fortnight, or that all the evidence was not complete, with what indifference—with what an absence of feeling on the subject, in this House, or through the various ranks of opulence and distinction, was that unfortunate person "remanded till this day week;" then brought up again and "remanded till this day fortnight?" There were no sympathies for him. And if, eventually, on his being brought up, it turned out that there was no prosecutor, or that there existed no foundation for the charge, then, indeed, there was some appearance of commiseration; and it was discoverable up in a corner, in a sort of parenthesis, which told them that the Lord Mayor had presented the miserable being with a crown out of his own pocket. What, however, was the course in a case like the present? Here was an individual, who had been convicted of a grave offence; he had been under restraint for three weeks, and sympathy was all alive in his behalf; they were told that he was a young gentleman of great promise, belonging to a profession of high character, that he was most respectably connected, and that some regard should be had for the feelings of himself and friends. It might be said also,—let them see what awaited him—he was about to be handed over to the tender mercies of his Majesty's Attorney-General! To this he would say, could it be imagined that if this person were now called to the bar and discharged, they would ever hear of him in this House again? If, however, a Motion were hereafter made, to the effect that his Majesty's Attorney-General be instructed to prosecute Mr. Dasent in a Court of Justice, he could fancy the cries of "Oh, oh!" with which hon. Members would mark their sense of such a proposition. They would exclaim, "What! bring up his name again! Was he not confined in Newgate for a fortnight or three weeks? Was he not taken away from his family and Friends, and confined in the House of the Governor? Was he not in solitary confinement?" Then the noble Lord opposite, who, with his various important occupations, was too much engaged to be very alive to matters of this sort, the noble Lord would, perhaps rise from his seat, and make it a request to the hon. Member who had given notice of the Motion, that he would put it off till after the third reading of the Municipal Corporations Bill. Then, on some after occasion, probably, another hon. Member would beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Church measure stood for this evening, and he would much consult the public interest if he would give way in favour of so important a subject; so between the Municipal Corporations and Irish Church Reform, Mr. Dasent, the offender, would make his escape. But then at the end of the session, perhaps, some hon. Member would rise to say he did so to give notice on popular grounds, in order that his constituents might understand that he was alive to these matters, that next session he should consider it his paramount duty to bring the subject forward. Well, next session it was brought forward, and what was the general sentiment? why, that it was not decent at all to renew the matter. It would be said, here was a young man of brilliant character, of high attainments, of amiable feelings, and with most respectable connections—if there should be any hon. Member who knew Mr. Dasent, and could speak to his respectability, that would be enough, that would be conclusive—but at all events it would be asked whether, in the case of such an individual, it was fair, after the lapse of a period of four months, for his name to be again brought before the public, and submitted to the vulgar gaze? It would be urged that he ought not again to be subject to vulgar imputations being cast upon him, that to pursue such a course would be inconsiderate and unkind, and the House would be implored not to visit its judgment upon the young gentleman with vindictive feelings. If he were now brought before them, it would be but consistent with such conduct, if the Speaker were to address him in these words: "John Bury Dasent, I congratulate you on the insufficiency of the power of this House to punish you to the extent that your serious offence requires, but you must understand that this House is full of indignation when it contemplates the acts of which you have been guilty. It is hoped, however, that the imprisonment you have already suffered will prove a check to you, and that you will not again be so indiscreet as to go to such a place as Ipswich, unless you are better versed in the means of escaping detection." He would say seriously, that if they were to conscientiously perform their duties as judges, let them go through the process of something like an inquiry; but if on the other hand, they were to have their dullness and the tedium of their grave business enlivened by farces of this description, he had no objection to pay for his seat and be one of the spectators, only let it be fairly understood in what character it was that they were called there. Having left the House at one o'clock this morning and got up at six, he had occupied himself in reading the evidence in this case from six o'clock till nine. At twelve o'clock he took his seat as Chairman of the Committee on Public Charities and since the Committee he had been giving his attendance in the House. He was not supposing that his industry was more signal than that of all who were about him, but he did say that he had no time to look into the evidence to enlighten him as to any judgement that he could reflect on with satisfaction. With regard to Mr. Dasent, he had never seen or heard of him till he saw the report of the Committee; it was not his wish that any man should be incarcerated for an hour; but looking at this as a judicial subject, feeling himself called on as one of 600 individuals whose duty it was to pronounce an opinion, contemplating this House as the highest court of jurisdiction in the country, and in that capacity called on under solemn circumstances for their adjudication, he must say that he thought more time ought to be allowed for investigation before they adjudicated on any one of the cases of the petitioners. If they were this evening to discharge Mr. Dasent for having evaded service of the process of the House, and if then the hon. Member for Derbyshire were to move that his Majesty's Attorney-General should be ordered to prosecute him for bribery, many hon. Members would say that the latter was another question altogether—that whether they should indict for bribery and expose to all the penalties attaching to that offence, this young and hopeful man, was a matter for very grave consideration. Would it be wise first to let the bird out of the cage, with the intention of then determining whether they should let fly at him? If the House were prepared to adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, and to effect that his Majesty's Attorney-General was to prosecute Mr. Dasent for bribery, then he should say, let that individual by all means be instantly let out of custody; but if, in the first place, they determined that he should be reprimanded and discharged, then he would venture to say that they never would come to the resolution that this person was to be prosecuted for bribery. It would be said, that there were two charges against him; one was that he had evaded the process of the highest court of judicature in the kingdom and the other was, that he had committed an offence which exposed him to statutable penalties. With reference to the punishment Mr. Dasent had suffered, he would ask, was not every witness bound to attend a Court of Justice under the severest penalties? It was nothing to say-that they had unseated the late Members for Ipswich, because the whole weight of the case might have fallen upon this state of things. If the question was to be disposed of in a spirit of whining sympathy then it was only for them to say to Mr. Dasent that they had not the power to detain him longer—that they regretted the interruption that had occurred to his domestic comforts, and the other inconveniences he had sustained—that he would depart from the Bar, carrying with him. the admiration of the House—that they trusted that during his incarceration the keeper of Newgate had shown him every delicate attention, and that if he ever should find his way into that House again, they would afford him an excellent reception, since he had shown by his ingenuity that his qualifications were considerable. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by saying, that though not acting on his oath in that House, he felt imposed upon him the higher obligation of being called on honourably to discharge his duty and he was actuated by that feeling when he called on the House to adopt a different course from the one which had been, proposed.

said, that the hon. Member for Southwark, who had just resumed his seat, had misstated the Motion he had made. He had before said, that he wished the House to limit the punishment to the crime of which Dasent stood convicted, and he did not think it necessary to anticipate the punishment which he would probably receive for another alleged crime. The crime of which he was convicted was simply an evasion of the summons of the House, and when he came to look to the precedents, he found that the punishments for similar offences had seldom equalled, and had never exceeded, the punishment which Dasent had undergone. His Motion was simply that this person should be called to the Bar; he was anxious that Dasent and all the other offenders should be held within the dominion and power of the House till inquiry had been made into every part of the case, and justice was satisfied. Such was the course pursued in the Camelford case. Dasent having declared that he was ready at all times to give full information to the House, he felt himself justified in making this Motion. He agreed that further proceedings ought to be adopted, and he heard that they were to be. He never meant that the punishment of Dasent for crimes unproved should be limited by the Motion now made.

said, that if Dasent had been guilty of corruption on the largest scale, the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark might have been called for, but as his offences were limited in number he thought the hon. Member had pressed very severely on a very young man. He did not wish to indulge in what the hon. and learned Gentleman called whining sympathy; but he thought that any sort of whining sympathy was preferable to language so severe as that which the hon. and learned Member had used against an individual whose case he was confessedly unacquainted with Dasent and Pilgrim had offered to come to the Bar and state fully and frankly every thing that might be required of them. Under these circumstances he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, that Dasent, according to his own confession, evaded the service of the process of the House, under most aggravating circumstances. He had admitted himself, that he had evaded giving his evidence so long as it was wanted for the general purposes of justice, but he did come forward when he thought his evidence might be of service to his own particular friends. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark had adverted to the manner in which courts of justice visited a party with punishment who previously withdrew himself from the service of the process of those Courts. If an individual neglected to attend to give evidence in an action, the party who subpœnaed him as a witness might proceed against him by action to recover all the costs in the suit, and damages to the extent to which the party had lost by his absence. That was one mode. The other was, whether a party suffered by a witness's absence or not, if the Court chose to proceed against him by attachment, he was subjected to interrogatories at his own expense; and if judgment were given against him, an attachment issued, and there he remained in prison, sine die, unless he compromised with the party at whose instance the attachment was issued. Now he begged to ask, what was a fortnight's confinement, as compared with the punishment for such offences in a Civil Court?

having been a Member of the Committee, was bound to say that he thought there were mitigating circumstances in the case of Mr. Dasent. He would therefore support the Motion.

said, it appeared that Dasent had taken an active part in the illegal practices which had been discovered in the course of this investigation; and if the House should be of opinion that he absented himself in order to avoid criminating himself, they would treat him as other individuals were treated, who absented themselves to escape detection. If he absented himself to obstruct the course of justice, and to screen others, the House would treat him with greater severity. He should feel it is duty to vote that the Attorney-General be instructed to prosecute Dasent for the graver offence; and he should vote for this Motion on the understanding that the House would take that course.

rose to move that Mr. Pilgrim be called to the Bar, with the view to his being discharged. He said, all that the House had to consider in the case of that individual was, the act of his absconding to avoid the service of the Speaker's warrant; they had nothing to do with the conflicting statements of opposite parties. He did not think that it was necessary for him to enter minutely into the circumstances of the case, but that he might safely leave it to the clemency of the House. The individual in question stated in the petition which had been presented yesterday, "that whatever improper acts he may have committed, with reference to absenting himself to avoid the service of the Speaker's warrant, or with reference to the said election at Ipswich, such acts were not committed by him for his own personal or private advantage, or for the purpose of violating the privileges of the House. Nor did he commit them after any due or mature deliberation or consideration of their nature or effects; but that the petitioner was induced to commit such acts at the instigation, or by the instructions, of his then employers, the said Messrs. Sewell, Blake, Keith, and Blake, or of the said Fitzroy Kelly, Esq., or his confidential friends and agents at Ipswich and London. That the petitioner well knowing the great intimacy between the said Messrs. Sewell, Blake, Keith, and Blake, and the said Fitzroy Kelly, Esq. (who is steward of Norwich), and relying upon their superior knowledge and skill, and also upon the standing in society of these several Gentlemen, the petitioner did not hesitate to obey any instructions given by or originating from them; that the petitioner begs most humbly to assure the House, that he disclosed to the said Committee all the facts then in his recollection relating to the matters under investigation, but from the agitation experienced by the petitioner during his examination before the Committee, occasioned by his appearance there in custody of the Norwich gaoler, upon the charge of felony preferred against him by Messrs. Sewell, Blake, Keith, and Blake, and by his feelings caused by the public gaze and observation in and about the Committee Room, the petitioner's memory did not enable him to state to the Committee the fact of the payment to him by Messrs. Sewell, Blake, Keith, and Blake of the sum of twenty pounds towards the expenses of his absence, and of the fact of the petitioner having, at the request of Mr. Thomas Moore Keith, written to him the note, in order to give a colour to their consenting to the petitioner's absence." It appeared, then, that Pilgrim was only a clerk, acting on behalf of other parties, and he did think that it was beneath the dignity of the House to visit him with punishment. Moreover, as that individual was willing to give every information in his power at the Bar of that House or elsewhere, he did not think that the cause of justice would be better served by discharging him than by subjecting him to any severe punishment.

seconded the Motion, and said, that there was a distinction to be made between this case and that of Mr. Dasent, which had last occupied the attention of the House. Mr. Dasent had been acting on his own responsibility; but the individual whose case was now before them, was an old and faithful servant, who had only acted in obedience to the orders of his employers. As an agent he was guilty, but his guilt did not go to the same extent as that of an individual acting on his own responsibility and his own knowledge. He would not say any thing now upon the Question of the bribery; that would be better deferred until hon. Members were placed in a situation to judge of it correctly by having read the evidence.

did not rise to oppose the Motion but simply to perform an act of justice towards Messrs. Sewell and Blake, in stating that they most distinctly denied the truth of Mr. Pilgrim's statement in reference to the permission which he alleged to have been given by them to him, for absenting himself, beyond the journey to Ipswich. He had lately had a conversation with Mr. Money their cashier in which he learnt that the 201. advanced by him to Pilgrim had been advanced totally without the knowledge of any one of the parties of the firm. He begged to repeat, that such was the case, and that the cashier had been in the habit of advancing to Pilgrim small sums of money, as he had done in this instance, without the knowledge of any of the parties in the House. With reference to the observation which had been made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason), that Mr. Keith had seemed to him to be more guilty than Mr. Blake, he begged to say that he had that day had a conversation with Mr. Clipperton, who had given him some information of an interview which he had had with Mr. Keith on the 2nd of April, from which it appeared that Mr. Keith had called to know where Pilgrim was, and that when he had been satisfied on that point, a conversation arose about some papers that Pilgrim had left. He contended that the hon. Member was not justified in the insinuation which he had thrown out against Messrs. Sewell and Blake. He (Mr. Wodehouse) would state on their part, that they were perfectly ready to submit the case, so far as their conduct was concerned, to the House in any way which might be thought proper.

said, that no man of common understanding could read the evidence given before the Committee without coming to the conclusion that Mr. Blake knew perfectly well of Pilgrim's absence.

alluded to the denial of the hon. Member for Norfolk, of his assertion that Mr. Keith was more guilty than Mr. Blake, and said that the hon. Member had attempted to refute his assertion by saying that he had seen, not Mr. Keith, but Mr. Clipperton. If the hon. Member had taken the pains to read two pages of the evidence given by Mr. Keith before the Committee, he would find a full justification for its being said that Mr. Keith knew that Pilgrim was going abroad for the sake of avoiding the service of the writ. Would it not be extraordinary that the managing clerk of such an establishment should be allowed to absent himself for a period of some length without the knowledge of his employers, and without exciting any inquiry on their part? It was said that the statement of Pilgrim was contradicted by that of Messrs. Sewell and Blake. The case was not so. The material part of Pilgrim's assertion that he had received the 20l. remained untouched. Mr. Keith said that he had received it from the cashier; and then Messrs. Sewell and Blake said they knew nothing of the transaction excepting what they had learnt from the cashier. Was it then that they had brought the charge of embezzlement against Pilgrim on account of that 20l.? No such thing; that charge had been brought for a sum of between 2l. and 3l., and referred to a period of two or three years since. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not be misled into the belief that the statement of Pilgrim was contradicted.

did not think it fair towards Messrs. Sewell and Blake that the statements made concerning them should go forth without comment. The hon. Member asked whether it was on account of the 20l. that the charge of embezzlement had been brought? Cer- tainly not. Pilgrim drew that sum from the cashier on account, and it was only subsequently to his going abroad, and from the circumstance of his employers having to inspect some of his papers in consequence of that absence, that they discovered the embezzlement. Pilgrim stated in his petition that he had received the money from Mr. Keith; that was denied, and it appeared now that he had received it from the cashier.

observed, that Pilgrim stated himself to have received it from Messrs. Sewell and Blake—that is to say from their House, he obtaining it from the hands of their cashier.

remarked, that Messrs. Sewell and Blake, in their petition, declared that Pilgrim received the money without their knowledge. He (Lord Stormont) begged to add, that Messrs. Sewell and Blake were persons of the highest respectability. He should like to hear any Gentleman in that House say that they were not. Would that hon. Member who cheered him say that they were not? Their characters were not thus to be taken away in that House by such cheers. Those Gentlemen were known to be engaged in extensive business in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Lincoln, &c, and not a shadow of a doubt existed as to their high respectability. If any imputations were to be made upon it, he trusted that they would be made in a direct manner.

read an extract from the petition of Pilgrim, to show that he had acted entirely by the direction of Messrs. Sewell and Blake.

thought, that the petition of Messrs. Sewell and Blake did not coincide on material points with the evidence taken before the Committee. He would give one specimen, which was quite conclusive. In the petition, Mr. Keith stated "that after an admission by Pilgrim, of the truth of the charge of embezzlement against him, and earnestly imploring forgiveness, the said Thomas Moore Keith dismissed him from the employment of the firm, and told him distinctly that they should be obliged to prosecute him, and as soon as he set his foot in Norwich, they should apply to the Mayor for a warrant for his apprehension." In his evidence given before the Committee, Mr. Keith says that when he was at Calais, tie did not recommend Pilgrim to come home: he says distinctly "I recommended him not to come home, in order to spare my uncle's feelings." In the letter, alluding to the friendly writ, written by Clipperton to Pilgrim, there is a distinct expression of Mr. Keith's anxiety for Pilgrim's return; and yet, when Mr. Keith was brought before the Committee, he made the statement he had just read. He (Mr. Patrick M. Stewart), therefore, protested against its being allowed by the House, that any petition coming from Messrs. Sewell and Blake, however respectable those individuals might be, should invalidate one tittle of the statement of Pilgrim; there were discrepancies between that petition and the evidence, quite sufficient to hinder him from attaching such weight to it; although, indeed, he might not be inclined to place the fullest reliance on the assertions of Pilgrim.

admitted, that it was their duty to look not so much to the respectability of the individuals concerned, as to the weight of the evidence; but he contended, that Messrs. Sewell and Blake were in nowise implicated.

observed, that it appeared that Keith had had a communication with Pilgrim; and though, during their interview, some acts of bribery were mentioned, Keith said, that he knew nothing about such matters, and advised Pilgrim to consult his own adviser, Mr. Jay, on the subject. He must also be permitted to say, that Pilgrim's character was not in the eyes of his employers perfectly untainted before the transaction occurred out of which the recent prosecutions were instituted against him; for it appeared in evidence that he had at a very early period of his life, committed himself though his employers had consented to overlook his offence. His subsequent conduct naturally recalled to their mind a circumstance at the outset of his career in life which could not be considered but as a reproach on his character.

remarked, that in his opinion the House had nothing whatever to do with a matter of dispute, whether of a civil or a criminal character, between the firm of Messrs. Sewell and Blake and their clerk. The House had already consented that Mr. Dasent, the Barrister, should be dismissed. On what ground could they refuse to accede to the same Motion with respect to Mr. Pilgrim? Could any one suggest any reason, or state any circumstances, why a similar course to that pursued with regard to Mr. Dasent should not be observed in the case of Pilgrim. On the contrary, even though the Motion with respect to Mr. Dasent was negatived, he thought he could show good grounds why Pilgrim should be discharged. What was the position of these two persons? One was a Barrister, a person qualified to hold situations from which a man of loose morals or questionable integrity should, if possible, be excluded. Who was the other? A humble clerk? They had heard many attestations of the respectable character of the firm of Messrs. Sewell and Blake. If he (Mr. Harvey) were called on in that House after an experience of twenty-five years, to vouch for the accuracy of the testimony which had been borne to the characters of these gentlemen, he should not hesitate to say, that he never knew or heard of any men more worthy of being designated truly respectable. Indeed, the character of their clients fully justified their reputation. But by the degree in which their character was exalted should the conduct and reputation of Pilgrim be judged. If this man were desirous of offering himself as a clerk, and were to present himself for that purpose to any office in London, could he bring forward a stronger recommendation than that he had been a confidential clerk for a period of thirty years in a most respectable House. It was certainly marvellous, passing marvellous, that this individual should be engaged as a confidential clerk for thirty years, and at the end of that period sent, not at his own desire, but in consequence of the affectionate note written by Mr. Kelly, the King's counsel, the silk-robed man of the Middle Temple, calling on Messrs. Sewell and Blake to send over a confidential person—an epitome of himself—from that fountain of purity, Norwich, in order that he might check some of the exuberance of practices which might be considered as having an illegal tendency, and covering as he should have done with the mantle of almost judicial distinction, the proceeding of the election of Ipswich, to give it a certain air of immaculacy, and assist in devising a mode of conducting that election in a cheap, legal, and judicious manner. The man, it should be borne in mind, did not seek this employment. Mr. Kelly wrote, not to the clerk of thirty years standing; but he desired that his "Friend," Mr. Pilgrim, should act as he had described. He was to do every thing which the delicacy and peculiarity of the situation called on him to perform. He asked the House, then, after they had passed a Resolution to discharge a man highly learned in the law, who had undergone a severe course of study, which imposed a special obligation to eat two days in the week, or five consecutive days, his commons at the Middle Temple: when a man, he repeated, of such high legal reputation had been discharged by the House, could they hesitate to dismiss a poor lawyer's clerk, who had a salary of but 30s. a week. There had, however, been attempts made (he would not say that studied statements had been used) to blacken the character and prospects of this humble individual. He hoped that on this part of the question he should be allowed to mention that he had received a vote from Mr. Pilgrim, of whom he had never heard before the presentation of his petition to that House, claiming an interview with him, in the presence of his (Mr. Pilgrim's) attorney, and from what passed he was satisfied (without meaning to offer any opinion as to his guilt or innocence) that this Gentleman only panted for the occasion to be placed on his trial, when he was confident he should be able to rebut the charges that had been preferred against him.

begged to say that, from all he had heard of Mr. Pilgrim, at Norwich, he believed him to be a most respectable man.

was most desirous to be understood, in the few remarks which he had addressed to the House, as not wishing to oppose the discharge of Mr. Pilgrim, but merely to defend Messrs. Sewell and Blake from the imputation which appeared to be cast on them.

contended, that the hon. Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone) had very unfairly stated the evidence as given before the Committee, with respect to the character of Mr. Pilgrim; for it had been admitted that the Members of the firm by which he was employed gave him the most active support when he stood a candidate for the Coronership, although this event occurred long subsequent to the time of the Commission of the offence with which he had been charged.

observed, that if page 464 of the evidence were referred to, it would be seen that Mr. Pilgrim acknowledged his having committed the recent offence urged against him.

The same impression was certainly on his mind as that which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Wallingford; for he did not think that the offence of stealing the stamp had been altogether forgiven; though from Mr. Pilgrim's subsequent good conduct it had gone out of the recollection of his employers.

moved, that J. E. Sparrowe be brought to the Bar, reprimanded and discharged.

felt bound to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. He should do so on what he considered strong grounds. The first was, that it appeared that the Messrs. Sparrowe and a person of the name of Gross, having been partners and agents for Mr. Dundas, the son of Mr. Gross wrote to one of the Sparrowes, who was on the Continent at the time the Ipswich Election Committee first assembled, saying, "Do not move an inch until further orders, as they may go into a scrutiny." This must have been written with the cognizance of Mr. Sparrowe. There were abundant other grounds on which the discharge of Mr. Sparrowe might be fairly resisted. He would only mention one. It must be clear to any person who had dispassionately read the evidence, that Mr. Sparrowe was at the bottom of all the bribery and corrupt practices which had taken place at Ipswich; though, from the caution with which he had acted, it might be a matter of doubt whether guilt could be legally established against him. He should, therefore, oppose his discharge, for the purpose of allowing the Attorney-General and other Members of that House skilled in the law, time to determine whether a prosecution for bribery could be successfully maintained against him.

begged to be allowed to call the hon. Member for Derbyshire to order. The hon. Member was attempting to prove, that because it was a doubtful question whether Mr. Sparrowe was guilty of one offence (that of bribery), the House should inflict a greater degree of punishment on him for a charge which was then under the consideration of the House.

resumed. The jurisdiction of the House was not restricted within the limits to which the hon. Member, by whom he had been called to order, would confine it. It could not be questioned that their jurisdiction extended to the consideration of the case of those who had been reported as guilty of bribery.

But there is no such charge against Mr. Sparrowe in the report.

allowed that the hon. Member was right; but if anyone who read the evidence could doubt of Mr. Sparrowe's moral guilt, he (Mr. Gisborne) neither desired nor expected that he would join in the support of his Motion, upon which he certainly relied with some confidence. He should certainly resist the Motion that J. E. Sparrowe should be discharged.

contended, that it had been admitted, that Mr. Sparrowe was not charged with any acts of bribery; and the hon. Member for Derbyshire having agreed that two persons, against whom distinct acts of bribery had been proved, should be discharged, maintained that Mr. Sparrowe should be kept in custody simply because his (Mr. Gisborne's) impression on reading the evidence was, that he was morally guilty of bribery. This he considered was an unfair mode of proceeding, because he was prejudging a man on a charge on which he might hereafter be brought to trial.

observed, that the case of Mr. Sparrowe was very different from the cases of which the House had already disposed. When before the Committee he had shown no disposition to give full evidence on the subject; and in his petition he had not expressed any readiness to come forward at a future time and give further testimony.

was also of opinion that the case of Mr. Sparrowe and the remaining cases were very different from the cases already brought before the House. In the former, the charge was for absconding to avoid the Speaker's warrant; and the persons so charged appeared before the Committee. Of the other parties, three never appeared before the Committee. The two avowed agents for the sitting members, of whom Mr. Sparrowe was one, and Mr. O'Malley aided and abetted the others in keeping out of the way, and must be considered highly criminal for so doing. There was, therefore, a great difference between the two cases which had been disposed of, and those which remained to be disposed of.

expressed his hope, that whatever conclusion the House might come to, it would not be founded on the argument of the hon. Member for Derbyshire. That hon. Member must have strange notions of what ought to be his conduct in a judicial capacity. The individual whose case the House was considering had been charged with bribery; but the guilt of that offence had not been brought home to him. That being the case, the hon. Member for Derbyshire used this irresistible argument: "I suspect a man of a crime which I cannot bring home to him; he has been convicted of one of a lighter description; although we cannot convict him of the first offence, let us, in punishing him for the second, recollect our suspicions that he is guilty of the first." The hon. Member for Westmeath had alleged as a reason for punishing Mr. Sparrowe, that he had not expressed in his petition any desire to afford further information in future. Now, Mr. Sparrowe had been twice examined before the Committee; and, notwithstanding; his conduct with respect to the Speaker's warrant, there was nothing in his testimony which laid him open to suspicion in other respects. He (Mr. Law) was not aware that the Committee had stated so; and, therefore, accustomed as he was to Courts of Justice, and to the principles by which those Courts were guided, he could not allow suspicion in his mind to fill up the void which the absence of proof occasioned, but must in charity presume that Mr. Sparrowe was innocent. The hon. Member for Bridport had asserted that Mr. Sparrowe's offence was a grave one, as he had abetted the others to abscond. But the hon. Gentleman ought to have stated what the nature of that abetting was. It consisted simply in a knowledge—a guilty knowledge, if the hon. Gentleman pleased—that it was the intention of those individuals to abscond. Let the House consider what kind of guilt this absconding was. The guilt consisted in agreeing to withdraw, lest some future petition might be presented to some future Committee, and at some future period the warrant of the Speaker might be issued for their attendance. Now this was an offence which, if committed, not by several persons in concert, but by only one person, would at law be no offence at all. The House had, however, determined that it was an offence, and he had too much respect for the House to question the propriety of its decision. He would, therefore, merely repeat that all that had been brought home to the individual whose Case was under consideration was, that he had been guilty of knowing that the other parties intended to abscond; and he trusted, therefore, that no undue severity would be manifested towards him.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was mistaken with regard to the opinion of the Committee respecting Sparrowe, who had been three times examined, and with whose information the Committee were far from being satisfied. He wished the hon. and learned Member had applied his judicial mind to alter the impression which had been made on the Committee upon this subject. It appeared by Mr. Sparrowe's statement, not that he had merely a bare knowledge, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had intimated, but that he had an intimate knowledge of the departure of Arthur Bott Cooke, and a knowledge of the departure of Pilgrim. In no way in his petition did Sparrowe offer to come forward and give further evidence on the subject. In his decided opinion, therefore, a better and more satisfactory petition ought to be presented by the individual in question before he should be entitled to his discharge.

in explanation, observed, that Sparrowe, in his petition, stated, that in January last he had acted as agent, though without fee or reward, for the sitting Members, but that after the termination of the election he had acted, not as their agent, but only as their friend.

did not think that the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman made the case at all better. Whether agent or friend, Sparrowe's conduct in aiding and abetting individuals to keep out of the way, in order to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant, was equally culpable. But it was impossible to believe that he could have done that which he did merely as a friend. If any one thing tended more than another to show that the House was not in a condition to discharge Sparrowe, it was the speech which had been made by the hon. and learned Member; for he (Mr. Jarvis) was sure that the hon. and learned Member would not have asserted that the individual in question answered satisfactorily to the Committee, if he had read the evidence. The hon. and learned Member for Chester here read an extract from the evidence, by which it appeared that after Mr. Sparrowe had repeatedly declared that he had no recollection that the purpose for which Cooke was sent out of the country had been discussed between him (Sparrowe) and Clipperton before Cooke left Ipswich, he said, in answer to a question if he did not believe that it was so discussed, that he believed it might be; immediately after which the following questions and answers occurred:—'Do you not believe it was? When I say I believe it might be, I mean I believe it was; but I do not recollect it.—Then, Sir, at the time that Cooke left Ipswich, you knew the purpose for which he was going abroad? Yes." Was not such evidence as this a fair ground for opposing this person's discharge? And how could it be asserted by any one that his answers were perfectly satisfactory to the Committee?

had only presumed that Mr. Sparrowe's answers were satisfactory to the Committee, as the Committee had not stated that they were otherwise.

To show that the Committee had expressed dissatisfaction at the manner in which Sparrowe had conducted himself, he referred to a passage in the minutes of evidence, where it appeared that after two or three evasive answers, on being asked on his solemn oath, if he had the least doubt that Cooke committed bribery in Ipswich, Mr. Pollock objected to the question, and the Chairman said, "The Committee are not satisfied with this not recollection,' and ' not of his own knowledge.'"

stated, that the evidence of Mr. Sparrowe made a very unfavourable impression on the Committee.

moved, that John Bond be reprimanded and discharged.

thought this case worse than those of Dasent and Pilgrim, for they did give evidence before the Election Committee, whereas the petitioner Bond had taken care to give none at all.

said, that the former petition presented by Mr. Bond explained why it was he had not been before the Committee, He left his home before any petition respecting the return had been presented to the House; but he returned on the 20th April, whilst the Committee were still sitting, and was known to be at home by all his neighbours: so that had it been thought necessary to have his evidence, he was ready to attend to any summons served upon him. On the 22nd April he had occasion to come to London, and in the coach with him was the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason). That hon. and learned Gentleman asked him whether he was going to London to give evidence in obedience to the Speaker's warrant; for that if he were, he could inform him that his attendance was unnecessary—that part of the case to which his evidence would relate being closed. It should be remembered, also, that Bond was not charged with bribery, but simply with evading the service of the Speaker's warrant, and that he did so guiltily was by no means clearly established. At all events, his punishment had already been very severe; for being in a humble situation of life, he had been unable to pay the gaol fees for private accommodation, and had been confined in the same ward with a felon who was under sentence of transportation for fourteen years. Surely the House would not allow him to remain longer in so painful a situation.

said, that since the right hon. Member for Edinburghshire had had the indiscretion to make the statement the House had just heard, he (Mr. Wason) would inform the House of a circumstance connected with it which would not otherwise have passed his lips. During the whole of the proceedings, Mr. Clipperton, the agent of his opponents, had repeatedly said, that he should put the petitioners to every shilling of expense he could. Knowing this, he (Mr. Wason), when he travelled up in the coach on the occasion alluded to with the agent Bond and Bristo (the Bailiff of the Borough), he began the conversation by asking the Bailiff whether he was going to London with him, and his answer was, Yes, for that it was at the expense of the petitioners. He (Mr. Wason) endeavoured to show the injustice of this, as the witness had been examined on the first day; but the answer was, that he had not been formally discharged, and should go, because it was at the expense of the petitioners against the return. He (Mr. Wason) then turned to Bond, and said, "You, I hope, are not going to London at our expense, for the Committee has reported against you, and your evidence will be immaterial." This was all that passed, and fortunately there was a professional person present, besides the Bailiff and Bond, who heard the conversation. If the Question went to a division he should vote for the discharge of Mr. Bond.

said, that there was nothing in evidence against Bond, except that he had absented himself from home to evade the service of the Speaker's order, for which offence he had been confined for a fortnight in Newgate, in the same ward with a convicted felon, from his inability to pay the gaol fees. Considering the limited extent of his guilt, he thought this should be considered a sufficient punishment, and that the House should now temper justice with mercy.

said, that if it had been thought necessary for other petitioners who had been examined before the Committee to give an assurance in their petitions that they were ready to give evidence on the subject, much more so was it necessary in the case of a man who had not been examined at all. The precedent so often referred to in the Camelford case was again in point here. The petitioner there staled that he had been ill; that he had suffered greatly by his imprisonment; and that he should be ready to attend at any time with a full determination to give evidence. A similar pledge or offer should be exacted from Bond, Clamp, and Clipperton before they were discharged.

thought the parties referred to would give an assurance such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned when they came to the Bar.

wished it to be remembered that these three men came before them after the trial, in which their evidence might have been of value to the public, was over. They might, perhaps, have given important evidence relative to the bribery in which they were engaged, and they now came before the House for pardon without even professing willingness to make the communication, to avoid making which they committed the offence laid to their charge. He hoped, therefore, that the Motion would be withdrawn till Mon- day, when the parties would be able to present another petition.

said, that what was put by his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex as supposition, was in his mind matter of certainty. Those men would not have been sent out of the way if they had not been able to explain something which the others could not. If Pilgrim alone had been able to state all the facts, he alone it would have been necessary to send away. The House could protect these persons against any ill consequences to themselves from the evidence they gave, and they ought not therefore to be discharged till they had disclosed the facts within their knowledge.

said, that the submission of the other petitioners went the length of waiving the privilege of self-protection in the answers they gave.

begged to observe, that there was no distinction between the present case and that first brought before the House.

thought, that the fact of Mr. Dasent having been examined before the Committee did make a difference. He would not say what ulterior steps should be taken, but with regard to the Question before them, if it came to the vote, he should be against now discharging this person.

begged to be allowed to withdraw his Motion till Monday.

said, that before the Motion was withdrawn he thought it right that a clear understanding should be come to with regard to the course they should hereafter pursue, in order that as little time as possible should be consumed in the discussion of this case. If, therefore, the hon. Baronet merely withdrew the Motion now for the purpose of making a similar Motion on Monday, he thought it would be more conducive to the convenience of the House if the hon. Baronet would now move that Bond be brought to the Bar on Monday next. By this means they should be able then to decide, without a fresh debate, whether the time for discharging Bond had or had not arrived. For his own part he was not sufficiently acquainted with the case to have formed a very strong opinion respecting it; but as far as he could judge he was disposed to say that on Monday next Bond should be discharged. He drew a very decided distinction between this case and, the cases of those who were the agents and contrivers of the withdrawal of Bond and others.

said, that if the distinction was so clear, he for one should be quite willing to spare the House the trouble of considering the case on Monday, by discharging the petitioner to-night. For the sake of keeping him in prison three or four-days, it was not worth while to postpone the matter. Indeed that course would only be justifiable upon the supposition that it might then be thought desirable to keep him in confinement a great length of time after. If, however, he was not now to be discharged, it was desirable that information should be given to the House, in a subsequent petition, respecting one or two points referred to in that now before the House. Indeed, upon one of these points it would be proper for the House, if it had the power, immediately to act, by making an order, which should relieve the petitioner immediately from what he considered a very great hardship. He stated in his petition, that he was confined in the same ward with a convicted felon. Now, if an order to change his place of confinement could not be made, he hoped the gaoler of Newgate would take notice that it was the general feeling of the House that a person committed to his custody, even for the high offences of corrupting the purity of elections and violating the privileges of that House, should not be confined in the same cell with felons. He thought this was the general feeling of the House. He said nothing about the different situations in life of the parties thus thrown together, but it must be quite clear that men such as Bond, Cooke, and Clamp ought not to be compelled to sleep in the same room with a person convicted of felony by a jury of his country, and lying in prison under a sentence of transportation. The other point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was this, that Bond Stated in his petition that his health was impaired by his imprisonment. Now, if this was the fact—and it could be established on the testimony of any medical man—it would go far with him to support the Motion to have the petitioner discharged.

hoped, the House would discharge him that very night. The man had done wrong, but he had acknowledged his error, and had been punished in a way which, he thought, fully satisfied the justice of the country. Indeed he might be inclined to say that the petitioner had already been too severely punished. It should be considered that he and his associates had been brought up under all the vices of the old system, without thinking hardly that what they did was criminal. He would repeat, that before the passing of the Reform Bill corruption at elections was hardly thought any crime at all. It was practised by the great Lords of the country, was scarcely ever punished by the Courts of Justice, and had not any criminality attached to it in the eyes of many.

wished the matter to be postponed, in order that he might have time to read at least a part of the voluminous evidence which had been laid before them respecting it.

was sure that the House would agree with the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland on the expediency of shortening the discussion as much as possible; but the plan proposed by the noble Lord would not obviate the objection which many entertained to the discharge of the petitioners, on account of their never having been examined at all. What he would suggest, therefore; was this, that on Monday the petitioners might, if they thought fit, present other petitions, expressing their readiness, as the others had done, to attend at any time to give their fair and unreserved testimony to the House. That being done, the House might perhaps feel itself justified in applying to them a sentence similar to that which had been agreed to be passed upon the first petitioners who had been before them that night.

said, that it appeared to him that all the House had now to do was to determine upon the petitions already on the Table. He should not think it discreet for the House to pledge itself directly or indirectly as to the future course of its proceedings. One great objection to the discharge of this petitioner, and of those who stood in the same situation with him, was, that they had not made those communications to the House which had been made by three of the petitioners, whom it had been agreed should be liberated after receiving a reprimand. If, in any petition to be hereafter presented Mr. Bond and his associates should put themselves in a situation different from that which they now occupied, and cleared away the darkness in which the House was now involved with respect to their conduct, the House would then be able to determine what measure of justice should be meted out to them.

said, he could not see what valid objection there was to allowing the Motion to be withdrawn, when all the hon. Mover wished to do was to bring it again before the House on Monday with fuller information.

wished to know whether it was the desire of the House that Mr. Pilgrim and Mr. Dasent should now be called to the Bar and be reprimanded?

said, that he had given notice of his intention to move the House on behalf of Mr. O'Malley, whose case was essentially different from that of any of the other petitioners. In the first place, he was not at all concerned in the Ipswich election.

said, he had gathered the wish of the House to be, not to proceed further with these cases that night.

begged to make a suggestion to the hon. Member which might save him trouble. Mr. O'Malley's petition was presented before he was sent to Newgate; and he believed it to be an invariable rule not to liberate any one from prison on a petition presented before his confinement.

said, that he was prepared to obviate that objection, for he had in his hand a second petition from Mr. O'Malley, which he would now beg to present. The petition was accordingly presented, read, and ordered to be printed, and to be taken into consideration on Monday next.

then said, that before any further steps were taken in these proceedings, he trusted to the courtesy of the House to be allowed to draw its attention to an occurrence which took place in the presence, he believed, of all whom he had now the honour of addressing. He did so, not for the purpose of directing any special attack against the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but that the House might draw a just conclusion from the circumstances of the case. When he, in the discharge of what he thought his duty, stated that which had come to his own knowledge, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite rose—

rose to order. He understood the Motion before the House to be that two individuals should be brought to the Bar to receive the judgment of the House. What possible foundation that could afford to the gallant Officer to bring forward another question, respecting another person not before the House, and upon a matter which took place on a former night, he (Mr. Aglionby) was at a loss to conceive.

again rose, but was received with loud cries of "Chair."

said, it certainly appeared to him that upon a simple Motion that two persons should be brought to the Bar of the House for the purpose of being discharged, it was extremely inconvenient, not to say irregular, to interpose any observations upon a different and a separate subject.

knew it to be his duty and it was always his inclination to pay the respect due to the Chair. But he put it to the Speaker and to the House at large, whether it was the custom of Parliament to refuse a Member an opportunity of explaining circumstances which, if left unexplained, might tend to lower his character in his place in that House. The hon. and gallant Officer was proceeding to make some further observations which the general confusion rendered inaudible. At length.

interposed, observing, that he should be the last person in the House to deny the right (whatever the irregularity of the opportunity chosen might be) of any Member to rise for the purpose of giving an explanation upon a point in which his personal character was concerned; but he would only put it to the discretion of the gallant Officer, whether he thought the present was an opportunity upon which the House was inclined to enter into the discussion of such a subject as that he was endeavouring to bring forward; and whether he would not deem it more advisable to avail himself of some other opportunity more in accordance with the orders of the House and more in accordance with the business before it.

again rose, and was again received with cries of "Order!" As he had before said, he felt it to be a duty he owed to himself, inasmuch as that his character in respect of the truth of a statement made by him in that House had been impugned. He was ready to sit: but this much he must say—that this was the first time, in the whole course of his parliamentary experience, upon which he had ever known the courtesy of the House withheld from any Member who asked the House to hear him on a personal question.

thought that the hon. and gallant Officer, after the observation he had just made, could not have heard a single word of what he (Lord John Russell) had stated. He (Lord John Russell) stated, that he should be the last man to refuse to any Member of the House an opportunity of making a statement upon a matter in which his personal character was concerned; but he asked the gallant Officer whether, upon reflection, he did not think he might take a better opportunity than the present for making such a statement. He certainly had not the least intention, and did not express any intention of refusing the gallant Gentleman the ordinary courtesy of the House, or of depriving him of the opportunity of making any statement he might deem necessary. He merely put it to the gallant Gentleman, as a matter for the exercise of his discretion—he did not ask the House to refuse to hear the gallant Gentleman.

If it be the wish of the House that I should not go into a statement which is necessary to the vindication of my own honour—[cries of "No, No!"]—The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, to come to the point at once—

rose to order. He wished to call to the attention of the House the business upon which they were then engaged. They were discussing the case of two individuals adjudged by the House to have been guilty of an offence against its privileges. Now, if there was any occasion on which more than another the House, acting judicially, was bound to abstain from the discussion of any topic which might excite warm or angry feelings, surely it was upon such an occasion as the present, when the Speaker, as the organ of the House, was about to pronounce the opinion of the House with respect to the conduct of individuals who were upon the point of appearing at the Bar. He did not wish to deprive the gallant Officer of an opportunity of making a statement in vindication of his own character; but he really thought that the present was one of the last occasions on which he should attempt to occupy the attention of the House.

said, that if he thought the statement he proposed to make would be attended with any effect, such as was surmised by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he (Colonel Perceval) should be the last man to persist in making it. No person could be more reluctant than he should be to say anything or to take any course that could tend to prejudice the House, or any individual Member of it, against the parties who were about to appear at the Bar.

addressed them and said:—"John Bury Dasent and John Pilgrim, this House has found that you have been guilty of the crime of violating one of its most important and most valuable privileges, by absconding, for the purpose of avoiding the duty of giving that testimony which you were bound unquestionably to give, for the purpose of the due administration of justice. It must be unnecessary to any class of persons in this country to enlarge upon the importance of, at all times, yielding a prompt and willing obedience to those privileges which this House holds for the benefit of the people, and as their representatives. It must be, least of all, necessary to enlarge upon the nature of that offence to a gentleman whose professional habits and education must have made him more peculiarly acquainted with the nature of those obligations which are imposed upon all classes to contribute to the furtherance of public justice. You have, however, both of you, made that atonement which is in your power, by an expression of your sorrow and your contrition for the offence of which you have been guilty. This House has taken your petitions into its favourable consideration; it has dealt with you with all the mildness consistent with their sense of justice, and I have now to acquaint you that you are discharged, upon the payment of your fees."

moved that the reprimand be entered on the Journals.

rose and said, if he could now prevail on the House to lend him its attention for a few moments, he should endeavour to show that he was not deserving of that severe censure which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had recently endeavoured to cast on him, as well by the imputation of a discovered suppression of truth, as by the severe manner in which the denunciation was delivered. On the occasion referred to, his astonishment was indescribable when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman get up and tax him with having withheld what he (Mr. O'Connell) stated to be a fact, and in relation to which he, in his utter astonishment, declared that if it were a fact, as the learned Gentleman declared it to be, that was the first time he had ever heard of it. The hon. and learned Member charged him with the concealment of what he called a fact, namely, that Mr. Hudson had had bills of indictment sent up against him before a Dublin Grand Jury, whose political bias was well known to be in accordance with his own views, and, added the learned Gentleman, "what will the House think when I tell them, that Mr. Hudson was acquitted by a Grand Jury such as those described? That all the witnesses who had given their evidence before the Committee in London, and who were believed where they were not known, when they were sent back to Dublin, where their characters were known—the wretches! were disbelieved even by an Orange Grand Jury." Those were the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. On hearing them his astonishment was so great, that he began to doubt his own recollection. He had felt astonished at the time that Mr. Hudson should not have been brought before the public after the Report of the Committee, and therefore the House might judge of his surprise when the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward a detailed statement on the subject with all the solemnity which he was in the habit of drawing on in that House. He was now prepared to prove that the very reverse of the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was throughout and in all parts correct. There were no bills of indictment whatever sent up against Mr. Hudson before a Grand Jury of the city or of the county of Dublin. In fact, there was no prosecution whatever instituted against Mr. Hudson arising out of the proceedings of any Committee of that House. No witnesses were examined or discredited in the case by the Dublin Grand Jury. What must now be the feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman when the hon. Member recollected how he had endeavoured to put him down on the occasion. Some hon. Members, but not many, on the other side of the House had interrupted him with exclamations and sneers—the hon. Member for Staffordshire was one—and indeed he was not much surprised at the circumstance, after the solemn accusation of the hon. and learned Member, charging him with having been guilty of a suppressio veri. Now, in respect of every statement made with regard to Mr. Hudson, he held in his hand certificates from the proper officers which completely settled the question, but which he did not know whether he was at liberty to read, as they were not on the Table of the House. One of the papers came from the Clerk of the Peace of the city of Dublin, and the other from Mr. Bourne, Deputy Clerk of the Crown for the county. These documents stated, that search having been made among the Pleas of the Crown in both city and county, it appeared that there were not any bills of indictment for bribery, or any other offence, arising out of the Dublin Election of 1831, preferred against Mr. Hudson. The certificates were dated the 18th June, 1835, and authenticated by the signatures of the parties. He now felt that so far as the detailed statements and assertions of the hon. and learned Member went, and inasmuch as they imputed to him the guilt of a suppressio veri, he had given satisfactory proof that the hon. and learned Gentleman's declarations were unfounded, and that he had not suppressed the truth. The whole statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as regarded Mr. Hudson, fell to the ground, and was not sustained by fact. When the hon. and learned Member was endeavouring to bring the feelings of the House to bear against him—and if he had been guilty of the offence laid to his charge well and justly should he have merited its indignation—the hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that he owed Mr. Hudson no compliment, for he had refused to act as counsel for him at the Dublin election. That was the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. Without any application on his part he had re- ceived a letter from Mr. Edward Maguire, an agent of the hon. and learned Gentleman's opponents at the Dublin election, stating that the writer had observed Mr. O'Connell was reported to have said, that he was a gratuitous defender of Mr. Hudson, who had not behaved well to him, as he had refused to be one of his counsel at the last Dublin election.—[Mr. O'Connell: No; at the commission on the Dublin election.]—Be it so. The writer went on to say, that his situation as agent at the late Dublin election enabled him to state, that Mr. Hudson did act as one of Mr. O'Connell's counsel at that election; and in further illustration—said Mr. Maguire—of this gratuitous defence, which was a genuine quid pro quo, it may be as well to add, that at the present inquiry before the Commissioners in Dublin, Mr. Hudson did also appear as counsel for Mr. O'Connell, and, by a strange coincidence, on the day after Mr. O'Connell himself ceased to attend. The concluding paragraph of the letter stated—"Should these facts bear Mr. O'Connell out in his denial of any connexion with the gentleman in question, they will be useless, but if not, you are at liberty to use them as you think proper." He was not aware that he had ever seen the gentleman who wrote this letter; he certainly had no acquaintance whatever with him, but he felt obliged to the writer for sending him the information without any application on his part. The letter did him no service in his defence against the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge, but it must have this effect at all events—to make hon. Members pause before they believed altogether that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not labouring under some mistake when he said he had no connexion with Hudson, that gentleman having refused to act as counsel for him. Whether Mr. Hudson refused or not, it appeared he did, and does act as counsel for the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had stated the facts of the case as far as regarded himself—he had shown that he was not guilty of suppressing the truth, or of making use of information in his possession against Mr. Hudson, while he refused that individual the benefit of exculpatory information, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman assumed him to be cognizant. The House would decide between the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself, which had adhered to truth, and which had not.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member's speech looked very like an aspersion on the characters of others—it certainly could not be called a defence f his own, for the alleged attack had never been made. He had said on the occasion referred to, and said distinctly, that he hoped and believed the hon. Member for Sligo was ignorant of the circumstance of an indictment having been preferred and ignored, and he certainly did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of wilfully suppressing any fact. At the same time, after the hon. Member's statement tonight, he was not sure that he was not ailed on to say, that he thought Mr. Hudson ill-treated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in keeping from the House even now, the real facts of the case; and further, that some members of Mr. Hudson's own profession ought to have been more candid than they were with respect to the transaction. He did speak of an indictment having been preferred before a favourable Grand Jury—he did state that witnesses were examined, and that the Bill was ignored. He stated that he believed that Mr. Hudson was by name included in the Bill. But, before going further on this point, he had to fight the hon. and gallant Member in a sort of bye battle; it was true he had also stated, that he had reason to be displeased with Mr. Hudson, for although the Committee which acted for him had sent Mr. Hudson one day to argue a point, yet he stated, and truly, that Mr. Hudson refused to appear before the Commission. This was perfectly true. He had endeavoured to prevail on Mr. Hudson to attend the Commission for him, but he totally refused to do so. The day after he left town, a Mr. Hutton—not Mr. Hudson—did attend the Commission, and had attended it ever since as his counsel.—[Colonel Perceval: Mr. Maguire says Mr. Hudson attended.]—Mr. Maguire was mistaken. Mr. Hutton had attended every day, and was his retained, feed counsel—the only counsel that received a shilling from him—and Mr. Hutton was going on in his attendance. He now came back to the indictments. Let the House recollect the phillipic which the hon. and gallant Member, himself so sensitive, delivered against a young man rising in his profession, and the odium he had endeavoured to excite against Mr. Hudson. The hon. Gentleman said, that Mr. Hudson was the law adviser of the Castle; he was no such thing; he acted as an assistant to the Attorney-General, and issued his cases, but was not in any way connected with the Government. The present was a second attempt to blacken the character of Mr. Hudson. He should be able to defeat it. He could refer to some documents on the subject; and if the hon. Gentleman had condescended to inform him of the course he was about to take tonight, he would have been provided with more. He thought the hon. and gallant Member would get no great credit from his second exhibition. How did the case really stand? The House ordered the Attorney-General of the day to prosecute certain parties against whom the Committee on the Dublin election of 1831 reported; there was a division on the subject, and he (Mr. O'Connell) voted for the prosecution. No great intimacy subsisted between him and the then Attorney-General, who had been kind enough to prosecute himself. He found that the prosecution took place, not in 1831 (to which the hon. Gentleman's certificates were confined), but in January, 1832, when bills were preferred against eight or ten individuals, and prepared against the rest of the parties. Of course bills were sent up in the case of the persons against whom there was the strongest evidence; he could mention their names:—They were T. Gallagher, H. W. Sharman, W. Kertland, W. Hincks, R. Hitchcock, and T. Kennedy. Six witnesses who had been examined by the Committee, were sent before the Grand Jury, and there were eight other witnesses. He had the certificate of the same Mr. Bourne as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had quoted, and it authenticated the facts which he now stated. Bills against Mr. Hudson, Mr. Murphy, and others, were prepared, and would have gone up to the Grand Jury, if those already preferred had been found. The Grand Jury examined the witnesses, and upon their testimony ignored the bills. Who was the foreman of the Grand Jury that thus ignored the bills? Sir Robert Shaw, father of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Would the hon. and gallant Member tell him that Mr. Black-burne, the Attorney-General, did not do his duty, and send up the strongest case to the Grand Jury first. If he kept back a strong case, and sent up a weak one, Mr. Blackburne deserved to be impeached, and the noble Lord, who was the Secre- tary for Ireland at the time, was scarcely less culpable, but the thing was impossible; of course the strongest case was sent to the Grand Jury in the first instance. He was here the advocate of the noble Lord. He repeated that the bills were ignored. He was sorry that he had not by him at present, letters descriptive of the feeling that manifested itself in court on the occasion, and the general congratulations received by Mr. Hudson, whom he believed to have been included in the bills of indictment, as in point of fact he was substantially, though not by name. Was that all? Here was a curious fact; the bills were thrown out on the 9th January, and a Dublin harmonic society, of which Mr. Hudson was secretary, took advantage of the circumstance to invite that gentleman to dinner. The Lord Mayor presided at the entertainment, the Duke of Leinster was on his right hand, the Attorney-General on his left, and Mr. Hudson's health was given by the Attorney-General. He (Mr. O'Connell) had the learned gentleman's speech on the occasion. Where, then, did you find Mr. Hudson on the 2nd of February, about three weeks after the prosecution? At a dinner toasted and feasted, and feasted and toasted by the Attorney-General who had preferred the bills. He did not charge the hon. and gallant Member with a suppression of the truth; on the contrary, he distinctly said he hoped the hon. Member was ignorant of the facts. He now asked, did the hon. Gentleman never hear of any bills being preferred for matter in his speech on a former occasion, nor in his speech tonight had he mentioned it. Be that as it might, he gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman joy on his second attack on Mr. Hudson. Had the hon. Gentleman, who had so much feeling for himself, no feeling for Mr. Hudson, a young man, struggling in (his profession, with the world before him? He might here observe, that gentlemen like Mr. Hudson had great difficulties to contend with. There was infinitely more rancour exhibited in Ireland against Protestant barristers of liberal opinions than existed even in the case of Catholic agitators. It would have been candid in the hon. and gallant Member if he had said that bills of indictment were sent up against several individuals, though not against Mr. Hudson; but even now the hon. and gallant Member kept back the fact of those bills having been preferred and ignored. The hon. Member accused him of making insinuations against his character. He insinuated nothing, but he thought that the hon. Gentleman was far from having vindicated himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman here quoted a letter from Mr. Sergeant Woulfe, to show that the strongest cases had been selected for prosecution in the first instance, and that the bills having been ignored in those cases, it would have been absurd to have proceeded with others which were weaker. He then recapitulated the circumstances of the ignoring of the bills, and asked whether he was wrong, having heard the shout of congratulation, and finding Mr. Hudson toasted and feasted by the Attorney-General shortly after the failure of the prosecution—was he not justified in supposing that the prosecution included that gentleman, as substantially it did, and had entirely failed? Was the hon. and gallant Officer asleep? Did not he and his friends look with a vigilant eye, to see that the orders of the House of Commons had been carried into effect, and that the prosecution was urged as far as it would go? He should have been much more accurate in his particulars if he had been prepared on the subject; still, however, he thought his statement was substantially borne out by facts. He must repeat that he thought it rather unfeeling, on the part of the hon. and gallant Officer, to keep back the fact of indictments, having been preferred, although not against Mr. Hudson, yet against other parties with reference to whom the evidence was stronger. He would now leave the matter in the hands of the House; he trusted that his vindication of Mr. Hudson had been complete, and that the character of that gentleman remained without stain.

rose, and was about to address the House, when an hon. Member on the Opposition side suggested that the House should now proceed with the business upon the paper.]

rose to order. The House had, in courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, allowed him to vindicate himself from a personal charge, and, naturally enough, had afterwards listened to the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He submitted, however, that as there was now no question before the House, the right hon. Gentleman was out of order in addressing it.

said, that an opportunity having been afforded to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, to make the observations which he felt it necessary to offer to the House, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin having been heard in reply, it certainly would be inconvenient to continue the conversation., At the same time, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman wished merely to state a fact, the House would, perhaps, indulge him, with a hearing.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had charged him with having, when the subject was last before the House, suppressed a fact of which he (Mr. Shaw) was cognizant. Now, upon that occasion he, speaking not positively, but to the best of his belief, made a statement of facts which had, from the explanation given that night, turned out to be precisely accurate. After the hon. and learned Member for Dublin charged his hon. and gallant Friend with the suppression of the fact that Mr. Hudson had been indicted, and that the indictment had failed, he (Mr. Shaw) stood up and stated that he believed bills had been preferred against some of the parties, but that no bill had been presented against Mr. Hudson; and such turned out to be the fact. Now, as to the reason why no bill was preferred against Mr. Hudson, he wished to say nothing that could operate injuriously to that gentleman, and, therefore, would speak with the utmost delicacy; but the fact was, that the Government of that day was favourably disposed towards the unseated Members in whose interest Mr. Hudson had acted; and, as those who were considered the Representatives of the opposite party felt no desire to prosecute, the matter was allowed to drop. The circumstance of Mr. Hudson having escaped prosecution, did not, however, fail to attract considerable attention, and he was frequently requested to bring the subject under the notice of the House, but he had uniformly refused to do so. The general understanding was, that as regarded Mr. Hudson, the matter was allowed to drop by the Government, and the less the subject was pressed, as regarded Mr. Hudson, the better. With respect to the names of Hutton and Hudson—

rose to order. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate, that he had something to say in his own vindication, and upon that ground the House had listened to him. The right hon. Gentleman was now proceeding further, and by saying, that the less this matter was pressed, the better it would be for Mr. Hudson, he would call up other hon. Members to reply to that insinuation. The House had already granted sufficient indulgence to the right hon. Gentleman; and if he persevered, the consequence would be that the hon. and learned Member on his right (Mr. O'Connell) would claim to make a reply, and thus the important Motion that was about to be brought on would be interrupted.

It may well be conceded to me, in rising to bring forward a Motion, professing to have for its object the settlement of Irish Tithes, and the future regulation of the Irish Church Establishment, that to bespeak the usual, and more than usual, indulgence and forbearance of the House is not to use mere words of course, or to preface my speech with an unmeaning common-place. For, when I recall, and when the House remembers, in the first place, the inherent difficulties and complexities of the subject itself, the numerous experiments through which it has wandered, and the various aspects which it has, from time to time, assumed, when we consider, further, the industry, the perseverance, and the ability, which have, from so many quarters, been sucessively brought to bear upon it, but which, great and laudable as they have been, have all, hitherto, successively failed in accomplishing at least the main part of the object at which they all have aimed—the satisfactory and final adjustment of the Question at issue—well may I find my present endeavour arduous, and the prospect it presents to me almost appalling. I know, indeed, that as I have assumed the responsibility of taking the important office which I now have the honour to hold, I have almost put myself out of condition to plead that at a time when it had necessarily accumulated considerable arrears, I found myself with but very inadequate means of preparation, called upon at once to grapple with perhaps the most difficult question of state policy that ever presented itself, and upon which I have not ever happened previously to take any material part. There is indeed one consideration that alone tends to lighten this pressure of difficulty, which I gather from all retrospect of the subject, and this is, that for the first time, it devolves upon me to suggest a solution of the Tithe Question, accompanied by the assertion of a principle based, as it seems to me, on grounds of most just policy, of most honest conciliation,—such as I believe to be almost indispensable to reconcile the parties concerned—in other words the nation at large—to the embarrassments and sacrifices which any settlement must in some degree entail. At all events although the view which I myself take, and which I am thus the humble organ of submitting to the House on this momentous topic, cannot fail to encounter very decided—in many quarters very conscientious—in some, perhaps, very vehement, opposition; still I may venture to hope that my very abstinence from the discussions which have marked the previous progress of the question may back my request that it should now be received with all possible calmness and temper, and that I may allow myself to think that with all its difficulties, I inherit none of its animosities. With respect to the form of my proceeding, after the best consideration I have been able to bestow upon it, and some consultation with those whose opinions are entitled to have weight in the matter, I have felt myself warranted in moving for leave to bring in a Bill, without previously going into a Committee of the whole House. The Motion of which I have given notice, as may be collected from its terms, embraces two leading heads—the settlement of the Tithe Question, and the future regulation of the Irish Church Establishment. With respect, first, to the settlement of the Tithe Question, I think that the precedent of the Tithe Composition Act, introduced in 1823, by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, and of the Bill for the Commutation of English Tithes, introduced by Lord Althorp in 1833, are sufficient to justify me in pursuing a similar course. There are, however, one or two regulations which I shall propose ultimately to embody in the Bill, for which I must ask the sanction of a Committee of the whole House previously to introducing them in the Committee on the Bill. With respect to the second head—the future regulation of the Irish Church Establishment, and its revenues—I have thought that the Resolutions moved in this Session by my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and adopted by the House, which, with this view, have been read to-night at the Table will furnish adequate authority for the proposition which I intend to submit. The subject has been so much and so recently before the House, that a very brief statement indeed will be sufficient to explain to hon. Members the position which it at present occupies; as I proceed, too, to state the particulars of the Measure which I am about to introduce, and thus, necessarily, as it were, to put them into some sort, not so much of contrast as comparison, with the particulars of the two previous Measures, the one introduced by Mr. Littleton, and after undergoing considerable alterations, finally sent up to the House of Lords in the late Parliament; the other announced by the right hon. and gallant Member for; Launceston in the present, I find, that notwithstanding all that warmth of discussion and heat of feeling which have arisen, there is so much real similarity; and agreement in all the propositions that come before the House, that the chief part of this branch of my subject will be pretty nearly achieved by marking such prominent points of difference as do occur while I go on. It would hardly be necessary to inform any person who had given any portion of his attention to these topics, that the composition for tithe in Ireland, which, under the Act of Mr. Goulburn, was voluntary, temporary, and renewable, was made, under the Act of Lord Stanley, compulsory and perpetual, subject only to a periodical re-valuation according to the price of corn. This composition is now complete and fixed, or, in the technical phrase, applotted, upon every piece of land liable to the payment of tithe, Ecclesiastical or lay, in Ireland. The amount of the whole composition, according to the latest returns which have been made out, is, I believe, 665,000l., of which 555,000l. is for Ecclesiastical, 110,000l. for lay tithe. Now the opening proposition of this Measure is that in which both the previous Measures—the Bills of both Governments, as well as the opinion of every person who has spoken written, or thought, upon the subject, have uniformly concurred—that composition for tithe throughout Ireland should wholly cease and determine. The reasons which make this an Act not so much of expedient as of necessary policy, are so obvious in themselves and have received such copious illustration both from all that has been said within these walls, and from all that has been done, and is doing, without them, that I feel it would be worse than superfluous to add another word on this part of the subject. But before we arrive at a proper provision for the future, there comes across us that which is not the least difficult and thorny branch of the whole matter—the chapter of arrears. What is the state of the arrears? It will be in the recollection of the House that the liberality of a former Parliament granted the sum of 1,000,000l. subject to the understanding that it was to be repaid, for payment of the tithes due for the year 1833, and for the outstanding arrears of tithes for the years 1832 and 1831. Of this sum, I understand that about 637,000l. has already been advanced. But the whole million, was thus appropriated to the temporary relief of the tithe-owners, and every one who chose to apply for it received his portion, subject to a prescribed deduction. Those who did not choose to avail themselves of it were left to the ordinary legal modes of recovery; in aid of which the use of the civil and military force was never withheld, and was sometimes applied with very unfortunate effect. The Bill sent up to the House of Lords last year, allowed the yet unexpended residue of the million to meet the then remaining amount of ar- rears, and it enacted the repayment of the whole advances actually made under the Million Act by instalments, and on and after the 1st of November, 1835, for five successive years from the landlords, in addition to the yearly amount of rent charge to which, by that Bill, they were to become subject. The loss of that Bill brings a new feature into the case—the arrears of tithe for the year 1834, which, I much apprehend, include a large proportion of the whole amount payable. With what provisions the right hon. and gallant Member opposite was prepared to meet the arrears I am not able accurately to pronounce, as, by no fault, undoubtedly, of his (that responsibility rests elsewhere), he had not the opportunity of introducing his Bill. I collect from his statement that he intended to apply the unappropriated residue of the million to the payment of the arrears of 1834; I do not remember or find that he took notice of any previous arrears, and he expressed his apprehension, which I believe to be too well founded in fact, that for the arrears of 1834 alone, the sum in question would be greatly inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman also intended to remit the quinquennial instalments of the sums advanced upon the Million Act. Now with the arrears of 1831, 1832, and 1833, we do not propose to interfere. The means of relief were tendered to the acceptance of the tithe-owners—the legal modes of recovery were at their disposal—we, therefore, think it fair to leave them to the consequences of their own option. But, at the same time, in equal fairness, we do not think ourselves warranted to interrupt any suits now pending, however desirable we must consider it, were it in our power, to remove at once, and for ever, every vestige of those ancient grounds of irritation and collision. How then do we meet the arrears of 1834, which rest on very different grounds, inasmuch, as in the first place, no relief has been proffered, and, in the next, one branch of the Legislature had gone beyond merely talking of the extinction of tithes, and had enacted the final determination of all Tithe Compositions? To meet the arrears, then, of 1834, which we subject to a deduction of twenty-five per cent, we find for it, that in many parts of Ireland, especially in the northern and more Protestant districts, several landlords, under the provision of Stanley's Act, hare of themselves volun- tarily undertaken to pay to the clergy the tithe accruing to them, subject to a bonus of fifteen per cent. I believe 102,087l, of the composition for tithe have been thus undertaken for. Those landlords, so undertaking, we keep to the observance of their own liability. Will it be said, that we are acting unfairly towards them in giving an advantage over them to those who have not taken any step to discharge their liabilities? It is true that we wish to exempt, both prospectively and retrospectively, the occupying tenant from all future payment of tithe; but we empower the Privy Council to levy any arrears which have become due from the year 1834, from those persons who have permanent estates in the land, upon whom the liability had already, by law, devolved. We calculate the amount thus to be recovered will be between sixty and seventy thousand pounds. Hence, while in this respect we do so far connive at a non-fulfilment of legal engagements in the person of the occupying tenant, yet, in the instance of the generally wealthier and more solvent, proprietor, (who is more likely, too, to be a Protestant) we at least give no preference to those who have not discharged their legal obligations, over those who have either obeyed, or have undertaken to obey, the law. For any remainder of the arrears of 1834, which these provisions may fail to satisfy, we shall ask leave to employ such portions as may be necessary of the residue of the million; and, following the example of the right hon. and gallant Member, we shall endeavour to obtain the sanction of a Committee of the whole House for the remission of the instalments of the sums advanced under the Million Act. I do not pretend wholly to justify this course. The repayment of the sum was certainly promised, and, I feel assured, as certainly contemplated by those who proposed its advance. But after, what every day tends to convince me more and more was the unfortunate rejection of the Tithe Bill of last year—after the admission made in the House of Lords, even before that rejection, by Lord Melbourne, then Prime Minister, of the slight chance he foresaw of the sum being actually repaid—after the positive announcement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, then Secretary for Ireland, that he intended to propose the absolute remission of the repayment—I believe that almost every one has begun to be convinced that this million has, in fact, long been gone past recovery; that it is wholly out of the question to recover it from, still in a great measure, I fear, a destitute and impoverished clergy, except by involving them, and co-operating with them, in those means of military interference, and sanguinary collision, which, besides all their graver consequences, have already signalized their unfitness for their immediate object by levying the amount of 12,000l. at the cost of 28,000l. But it has been contended by many who sit on the same side of the House with myself, that they were not prepared to consent to so large a free gift on the part of this country, to relieve the embarrassments of the Irish clergy, or to prop up the tottering condition of the Irish Church, without receiving, as an equivalent, such an alteration in the appropriation of its future disposable funds, as might be more consistent with the justice of the case; more congenial with the feelings of the country; more conducive to the real object of any settlement—the maintenance of civil and religious peace. Such an altered appropriation we propose to engraft on our Bill; and on the strength of this we now come forward and appeal to the generosity of the Representatives of the empire at large for confirming this preliminary grant, in order that we may not only adjust the pressing exigencies of the case, but address ourselves with more facility and freedom to the remedial arrangements which follow. Having thus dealt with all that appertains to the past, I now arrive at our proposed arrangements for the future. In common with the Bill of the Government of last year, and the proposal of the late Government of this year, we convert the present composition for tithe into an annual rent-charge, payable, as in the previous cases, by the owner of the first estate of inheritance, or other equivalent estate to be defined in the Bill, equal, in the present case, to seven-tenths of the amount of composition, or 70l. in every 100l. The proposal of the late Government made the rent charge equal to three-fourths, or 75l. in the 100l. I need not apologize to the Irish landowners, at least, for the diminution. The Bill of last year made the rent-charge equal only to three-fifths, or 60l. in the 100l.; but then it charged seventeen and a-half per cent first, on the Consolidated Fund, then on the Perpetuity Purchase Fund, and made no remission of the million. The landlord will, of course, concede the amount of this bonus to all the intermediate tenants down to the occupier of the land. He will be entitled to recover, as so much additional rent, from the leaseholder under him, the amount, and not more than the amount, of the rent-charge fixed upon himself. But though we make the rent-charge payable by the landowner 70l. instead of 75l. per cent as proposed by the late Government, we do not quite mulct the existing clerical incumbent in the same degree; we charge the cost of collection, which we rate at sixpence in the pound, on the tithe-owner, inasmuch as we transfer from him all its risk and trouble. The net amount, therefore, which would naturally fall to the tithe-owner, under the arrangement which I have stated, would be 68l. 5s. on every 100l. of composition. But we think that here it is allowable to make a distinction between not only the future and existing clerical incumbent, but also between the lay tithe-owner, who has no duties to perform in return, and generally has other sources of income, and the clergy now in possession, who have, or are assumed to have, duties exceeding all others in importance to discharge; and who are but in too many cases, from the circumstances of the few last years, reduced at this period to a state of severe distress and privation, not brought on them, still less deserved, by any demerits of their own (in most instances I believe it is quite the reverse), but by that oblique retribution which generally, sooner or later, involves in the penalties of a vicious system, even its most unoffending instruments. We, therefore, allow to all existing clerical incumbents five per cent more on the composition, which comes to 73l. 5s.on every 100l. of the existing amount of composition; falling, altogether, it is true, 4l. 5s. per cent below the Bill of last year, for the rejection of which they have not to charge the members of the present Government, but coming up, with only the trifling deduction of the cost of collection, to the amount proposed by the late Government. This additional charge, temporary, not permanent like that of last year, of five per cent, not of seventeen and a-half per cent, like that of last year, we fix upon the Perpetuity Purchase Fund; of which, considering the order of men to whom it is to be applied, and the object which it is intended to serve, that of producing a final settlement of the Tithe Question, and thus giving repose to the clergy and the Church, it can hardly be deemed an unappropriate or unecclesiastical use; and I rejoice to think that this view receives countenance from the statement made by my right hon. and gallant predecessor in introducing the Tithe Bill of the late Government, inasmuch as if, during the process of the investment of the redemption money for which that Bill was to provide, any loss of interest should have been sustained, the present incumbents were during their lives to have had the annual income of 751. guaranteed to them; and this indemnification was to have been charged on the Perpetuity Purchase Fund. The two appropriations are therefore identical in principle. I am not aware that they would have been very different in amount, unless indeed that for some little time, probably, the charge on the Fund proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would have run much a-head of mine. The machinery of the Bill, by which these provisions are to be carried into effect, is so nearly similar to that of last year, that it will not require any detailed notice on the present occasion. The rent-charges are made payable to the Crown, and are put under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. As far as I can collect the intention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he intended the incumbent to receive the rent charges himself from the head landlord, and, if it should not have been paid when due, he was to apply to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were to have recourse to a Crown process to obtain it; an arrangement which I humbly submit might tend to involve Ecclesiastical persons and bodies in the recurrence of disputes and altercations, and in the purely secular province of the whole matter, to a far greater extent than I can think expedient or creditable, We also propose to allow under certain circumstances, a power of revision, and revaluation of the existing tithe compositions. I certainly should have very much desired to have closed the whole question at once; but, upon hearing the number, as well as urgency, of the complaints that are made, some, I think, proceeding from those who yield to none in good will and friendship to the Church—many of them alleging strong instances of fact in corroboration, it did appear that it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the Irish people to any settlement that did not include some such power; and our care must be to adopt such just and fair precautions as, on the one hand, will insure the dealing with real and solid matter of complaint, as in the case of promissory notes from insolvent parties, or adjudications by tribunals before which the parties did not appear; and, on the other hand, will be a security against the revision being frivolously, capriciously, or groundlessly resorted to. After they have been once decided, the rent-charge will, thenceforward, be only subject to variation as the compositions are how in reference to the price of corn at stated periods. The provisions of Lord Tenterden's Act for the Limitation of the Suits are likewise extended to Ireland, as in the Bill of last year. These, then, are the principal provisions of the present Bill, as far as regards the immediate settlement of the property in tithe, and the interests of the existing incumbents. I recommend them to the favour of the House, not, assuredly, because they obviate all difficulty, and steer clear of all objection—the very nature of the question, and the actual circumstances of the time make that impossible—make every thing, we can select a choice between the counteracting embarrassments which beset the attempt to do the utmost practicable good to all parties, with the least avoidable unfairness to any. We encounter the disadvantage too, of running counter to that specific and favourite project which almost every one who takes an interest upon so important and extensive a subject will have been sure to set his own heart upon. One is for an entire new valuation, and general Land-tax, to which the chief objection, I conceive, is the necessary consumption of time, and the employment of a new machinery; another, and a large party, too, I am aware, in this House, is bent on redemption. This part of the Bill of last year, after much trial and discussion, was resisted by the late House of Commons. I do not think it would find much favour in the present; and I cannot at all see how it could be carried into effect without, a sensible additional loss to the clergy. Still I do recommend this scheme to the House as liberal in the foremost place to the existing clergy, to whom it remits the liability for the repayment of a very large sum of money that has been advanced, and secures a payment for the time to come, and from and after a certain day in such year, with a running interest until discharged, subject to deduction certainly, but guaranteed to them beyond the chance of failure, and without any trouble or risk of collection—as satisfactory to the occupying tenant, from whom it removes all the vexation incident both to the payment, and, among well-disposed persons, even to the resistance of an obnoxious impost—as conducive to the real interests of the landlord, to whom, besides all the indirect advantages that would flow from the comparative tranquillization of the country, it gives, as to the land of which he is owner, a direct bonus of thirty per cent—as calculated to find acceptance with the great body of the nation, especially when coupled with that fairer and more equitable adjustment of Ecclesiastical Revenues, which we hope ultimately to establish, of which we here seek to lay the foundation; and which I will now address myself to submit briefly to the notice of the House. In approaching this part of the subject I know we must abide the double risk of shocking what I consider the untenable positions of one party, and of falling probably short of what I may also think the too high-flown expectations of another; inasmuch, as we both deny the inviolability of Church property, and yet are determined to maintain the existence, and add, we hope, to the efficiency of the Established Church even in Ireland. We have to deal with a state of things there, which, in the present state of public opinion, would have precluded any sane man from dreaming to found in that country, if every thing had now to begin afresh, a Protestant Episcopal Church, yet, finding it there, with its long prescription, interwoven with so much of the every-day working of our civil policy, we are not prepared to uproot its foundations, or destroy its framework. At the same time I feel so sensibly the anomalous and precarious grounds on which it now, upon the clearest evidence, is found to rest, that of nothing am I more convinced than that, if you refuse to modify it, you will find it beyond the power of man, at least, to preserve it. I am aware that a strong, perhaps, to some extent a reasonable objection is felt to the exact specification of numbers, when any result supposed likely to be acceptable to other parties, especially in a loose and turbulent state of society, would ensue upon the precise number falling short of the fixed point. We endeavour, therefore, as much as possible, to avoid the exact specification of numbers; and in the one instance, where we find it necessary, if, at least, we are prepared to do anything towards correcting these glaring disproportions which exist in many parts of Ireland between the pay and the duties of clerical incumbents, we have happily the means of making the reference to numbers retrospective instead of prospective. We must fix some point below which the appointment to the vacant benefice is to be suspended. If we will not do this, we do nothing at all.—If we will not do this, we still determine to keep up livings without cures, clergymen without flocks, pay without work; the worst gains of the sinecurist, on the worst plea of the bigot. There is now upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, who in pursuance of the directions given to them, have furnished a census of the population of Ireland, specifying the respective proportions of the different religious denominations. Now I certainly cannot pretend to claim for this work, or for any work of such a nature, especially when completed within so limited a period, the merit of perfect and undeviating accuracy, but I contend that as far as the circumstances permitted, the Report has been framed in such a manner as to make it as accurate and authentic as any document of such a character could pretend to be. The House will observe that the census of 1831 is taken as the basis of the present census. The census of 1831 was not framed with any expectation of its being used for the purpose of ascertaining the relative proportions of the different religious denominations in Ireland, and cannot be consequently liable to any imputation of partiality on that score. The enumerators by whom that census was made, were appointed by the Magistrates for the different counties, who were not persons likely to entertain any very violent, or subversive views. Those enumerators were ordered on this occasion to communicate with the ministers of all religious persuasions; the clergy in the Established Church were especially requested to assist them, and the Ministers belonging to all the different bodies were invited to prepare distinct censuses of their own. In many instances this assistance was afforded to the enumerators, especially, I am happy to say, by the clergy of the Established Church, who, in some cases, visited themselves every house in their parishes. The list, which was verified on oath, was left fourteen days open for public inspection. After it had so remained open, the Commissioners visited the different parishes, and then held public sittings of inquiry, at which the ministers of every religious persuasion were invited to attend, for the purpose of giving in their district censuses; and every one was at liberty to tender evidence, which was taken in the face of the assembled parish. If there was likely to be any very marked inaccuracy in the enumeration of the numbers of the different denominations, it would most probably occur in the census of a large population, where some difficulty might be found in ascertaining and fixing the precise number. In the census of Belfast, for instance, which contains a population of 67,000 and odd inhabitants, and 17,000 members of the Established Church, the mistake was more likely to occur, than in the midst of a population among whom no Protestants, or but very few, were to be found; because if, in the latter case, any Protestant had been overlooked in the enumeration, if it had been asserted and recorded that nothing like a Protestant was in existence there, was it likely that he would abstain from coming forward, pointing out the falsity of the return, and removing the slur which he would conceive was thus attempted to be cast upon his parish. I contend, then, that this Report, on the whole, is entitled to be considered as authentic and accurate, for the purposes at which it aims, as any document of such a nature can be. I will not enter, here, into any minute dissection of its contents, for which other opportunities may occur; and, for the object of a general statement, it will be sufficient to mention general results. The whole population of Ireland is stated to be 7,943,940 persons. Of this total the number of members of the Established (Church is 852,064 persons; of Presbyterians 642,356; of other Protestant Dissenters 21,808; and of Roman Catholics 6,4557,712—or, putting the cal- culation in another form, the number of members of the Established Church is 852,064 persons, while the total number of Dissenters from the Established Church is 7,091,876 persons. The distribution of the members of the Established Church is nearly as disproportioned as their total amount. It is well known that they are to be found in the greatest numbers in the northern province of Ulster; and, not to enumerate more than one or two instances of the great disproportion that prevails in their distribution throughout Ireland, I find, adopting the authority of a book which, I believe, is entitled to great weight on such subjects, "Beaufort's Ecclesiastical Map of Ireland," that, in the diocese of Dromore, there are 264 members of the Established Church to every thousand acres; in the diocese of Tuam but about eight members of the Established Church to every thousand acres. In the diocese of Clogher the members of the Establishment are as twenty-six to one hundred of the whole population; while, in the diocese of Kilfenora, the proportion is less than one hundred, many nearly parallel cases might be quoted. Now with what provision do we propose to meet these glaring instances of disproportion, both in the total amount, and in the relative distribution, of the members of the Established Church? We shall ask the House to give its authority for the suspension of the presentation or appointment to any vacant benefice, in which it appears, upon the face of this Report, that the number of Protestants does not exceed fifty. We do not, however, even apply this limitation so strictly that if circumstances should have been materially changed in the interval, there should be no power of preventing the rigorous enforcement of the rule. The appointment is to be suspended, upon the vacancy, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in whom we think that the superintendence of all these matters will be most properly vested; unless the Lord-lieutenant in council should otherwise direct. But will it be asked whether we are prepared to leave all those parishes in Ireland, in which the number of members of the Established Church does not exceed fifty, entirely without any means and opportunities of spiritual instruction, or public worship? I have never, either here or elsewhere, previously or to night, dissembled my adherence to the principle of a religious establishment, and, therefore, in introducing a measure which is to regulate the future constitution of a religious establishment now in existence, and in endeavouring to adapt it to the state of society in which it is found, while I will not hang back, or shrink, from any limitation of its privileges, or diminution of its revenues, which seem to be prescribed by the circumstances of the case, and a sense of fairness and justice towards other parties; while I will be scared by no names of confiscation, spoliation, and sacrilege, when I think myself justified, on the plainest grounds of policy and truth; I yet cannot but derive satisfaction, as a Protestant and a Churchman, wherever I feel that I may combine, without prejudice to the just and equal rights of all, any special mark of adherence either to the faith which I profess, or the form of establishment to which I belong. I take, then, the strongest case, though by no means a solitary instance in Ireland—I take a parish in which there is no glebe-house, no church, no churchman; and even in this spot, supposing a member of the Established Church should come to reside there, or even a casual passer-by should chance to require the performance of a religious duty, even in this spot he shall find that the Legislature of his country has provided some one on whom he, the solitary resident, or casual stranger, may be authorized to call for the ministrations or the consolations of his religion. At the same time we do not affect to make this provision do more than just comply with the principle which leaves no foot of the State's dominions without the pale of the State's religion; a principle which, I am sorry to add, is not in operation in many districts of Ireland, which do not come within the operation of this Bill. The amount of provision, however, we endeavour to proportion to the extent of service. I need not say, that, in such a case, it would be very scanty. In a parish without glebe-house, church, or churchman, we consign the care of souls, which, I believe, is a correct, though it sounds a contradictory, expression, to the care of the minister of some adjoining parish, to be named by the Bishop, at an additional stipend of not more than 5l. a-year.^* In

^* "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are directed, in the case of the suspension of a clerk to any benefice, in which divine service has not been celebrated for the three years

which case we indulgently depart from the proper rule that, where there is no duty there shall be no pay. I understand that, by the Church Temporalities' Act, introduced by my noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were, in certain cases, empowered to assign the stipend of 4l. per annum; this was not specified distinctly in the Bill, but such a stipend has been actually assigned; so we improve in liberality as we go on. In the case where there are any members of the Established Church—where there is but one—where there is any number below that which has occasioned the suspension of the benefice, the care of souls is either to be committed, as in the case where there is no member of the Establishment, to the ministry of some adjoining parish; or, if it should appear to the Board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners that, by such means, adequate provision was not likely to be made for the spiritual wants of the parish, a separate curate is to be appointed, with the consent and approbation of the Lord-lieutenant in Council; and it is to be specially enacted, that wherever there is now a church, and a resident officiating minister there shall always be, in future, a separate curate. With respect to the payment—where the cure is put into the hands of a neighbouring minister, the stipend, avoiding the exact specification of numbers, is to be proportioned to the duty to be performed; being in no case less than 10l., or more than 51. according to the judgement of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting under the same approbation and consent. Where a separate curate is appointed, his salary is not to exceed 75l.; he will be permitted to occupy the glebe-house, should there be

preceding the 1st February, 1833, to appoint to the incumbent or officiating minister of the parish adjoining such suspended benefice, such moderate stipend as they, associated with the Bishop of the diocese, shall think fit in consideration of the occasional Ecclesiastical duties he may have to perform in such suspended benefice." See Sect: 117, 3 and 4 Will. 4, chap: 37.

By the first Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, ordered to be printed by the House of Commons, 31st March, 1835, they state, that stipends varying from four to twenty-five pounds yearly have been appointed to the incumbents or officiating ministers of the parishes adjoining those benefices which have been suspended under the Act,

one, if he so wishes, and undertakes to keep it in repair, and is also to have whatever portion of the glebe-land may be thought proper, not exceeding the annual value of 25l.^* The Ecclesiastical Commissioners may let the glebe-house, unless the curate or officiating minister desires to occupy it; and may also let the glebe-lands, or such portion of them as shall not be allotted to him. They are to pay off all charges for buildings, dilapidations, &c, on suppressed benefices; and will, in the same manner, be entitled to receive all those dues that fall in. They are, in these respects, to hold the place of a single clergyman who might have succeeded to the living. Provision is to be made that, in every parish where the cure of souls is committed to a neighbouring minister, if his own church is not so situated as to afford sufficient accommodation for the members of the establishment in the annexed parish—and also in every parish where a separate curate is appointed, if there is no church or chapel—a suitable place of public worship shall be built or provided; the cost being suited to the probable extent of the congregation;—if to be built, not to exceed the sum of 100l.; if to be provided, or hired, not exceeding 51l. per annum.† Little, indeed, may be thought of these places of public worship, to be provided at so modest a cost. I admit they are not such as would have suited the palmy days of vestry cess—of architectural churches, and parish-paid organs; yet, for the accommodation of some ten or twenty persons, in the midst of a large population who are to derive no benefit

^* So that in such cases the income of the curate arising from tithes and glebe-land will amount to 100l. per annum, in a parish where the number of members of the Established Church does not exceed fifty, with the use of the glebe-house, subject to no other charge than that of keeping it in repair—and he will receive this stipend exclusive of any sum for any adjoining parish, the cure of which may be committed to him in case there are not more than fifty members of the Established Church in such adjoining parish.

† Where there is no church in a suspended parish, it is intended that the school-house shall be used for the purposes of divine worship; or that a room in the glebe-house, if any, shall be set apart for the purpose; or if neither of these accommodations can be afforded, that a place of worship be erected at a cost of 100l.; or a room hired at a rent of 15l. pounds per annum.

from them, I trust they may answer all the purposes

"Of such plain roofs as piety can raise;

And only vocal to their Maker's praise."

It is enacted that wherever the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are about to provide for the spiritual wants of a parish, or to apply any money in building, or providing, a place of worship, the Archbishop of the province, and the Bishop of the diocese shall be associated with them, as Commissioners, pro hâc vice. In the case which will very frequently happen, of one of these parishes, in which the number of members of the Established Church does not exceed fifty, forming part of an union with other parishes, it will be enacted, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, subject to the approbation and consent of the Lord-lieutenant in council, are either to disunite from the union the parish in question, and deal with it as with a separate suppressed benefice under this Act; or, if they shall think fit to continue the Union to direct that the incumbent is to receive such part of the income of that particular parish as would have fallen to his share as a neighbouring minister or a separate curate, under the provisions which I have detailed, in case the parish had not formed part of an union. If the Church and glebe house of the union should be in this parish, the Commissioners will be empowered to make such special provision for their use and occupation, as may seem to them most fitting. Further, upon every future vacancy of a benefice, the annual value of which, after allowing for the deduction on the amount of composition effected by this Bill, as well as for the tax on benefices, proposed by the Church Temporalities' Act, shall exceed 300l., the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be required to report to the Lord-Lieutenant, the circumstances of such benefice, and the extent of the Ecclesiastical duty, whereupon the Lord-lieutenant in council will be authorized to reduce the income in all cases when it should appear to them to exceed the requirements of the case; provided that the reduction never brings the income below 300l. A year. Now, with respect to the livings at the disposal of the Crown, and the Bishops, the right will hardly be denied to Parliament, provided it seems to them to be for the good of the country, and the Church, to deal with them at once. But it will suggest itself that lay or private advowsons stand on a different footing. With what degree of violence the hon. Member for St. Andrew's was prepared to deal with lay patronage in Scotland, the House was, unfortunately, prevented from fully ascertaining; but I feel it to be most desirable, in endeavouring to effect a great settlement of this nature, to shew as scrupulous a regard as possible to all claims bearing on the nature of private property, and we shall therefore introduce special provisions for enabling the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to indemnify the owners of lay advowsons which come under the operation of this Bill, by borrowing money on the security of the fund, to be established from the various sources I have mentioned. We propose to call this the reserve fund, and it will be applicable, in the first place, to the payment of stipends, or salaries, assigned to the ministers or curates interested with the cure of souls in the suppressed benefices, to the payment of the charges on such parishes,—to the provision of chapels, or places of worship, and other like purposes mentioned. After all such purposes shall have been satisfied, in just accordance, I conceive, with the Resolution of my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, all the further sums that accrue in each year will be applied by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion. As to the propriety of diverting the revenues of the Church to any but Ecclesiastical purposes, and the propriety of applying them to the religious and moral education of the whole ' body of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion, I feel there are points which it is quite out of my present province to labour; they have been already entertained, debated, and decided by this House; and it is in consequence of that decision that I now submit this whole measure to their consideration. I have already adverted to the objection which has been expressed in some quarters on account of apprehended peril to the safety, nay, to the lives of the existing clerical incumbents. I cannot, for my part, anticipate, that results so horrible could be brought about by any such ardent zeal for education, coupled with such a ruthless propensity to crime as this, in my view, rather morbid alarm pre-supposes; and let it be observed that, although the wants of the district from which the funds are drawn, will, of course, be primarily and mainly consulted, nothing makes it imperative to apply them within the actual bounds of the benefice become vacant; and, also, this Government, and, I make no doubt, all succeeding Governments, will still be prepared to call on the liberality of Parliament not to stint or starve the objects of popular education in Ireland, during the unavoidable scantiness of means which must prevail in the infancy of our Reserve Fund, and through the lives of existing incumbents. But, I may be asked, as the Resolution, to which the House has agreed, states that the spiritual wants of the members of the Established Church should be fully provided for in the first instance, and as the funds at present in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not by any means yet meet those Ecclesiastical purposes to which they are assigned, are we at liberty to apply any surplus which arises under this Act, to the purposes of general education, the fund for the Ecclesiastical purposes being still inadequate? I think we are clearly so entitled. Beyond the five per cent on the composition for tithe which we charge on the Perpetuity Purchase Fund, for the benefit of the existing clergy, and which comes under the tithe settlement, and not under the appropriation branch of this Bill, I believe we shall hardly make any trespass, beyond, at least, what we repay, upon the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is true they are in debt at present; it will take some time for them to redeem it; but still, eventually, they will be in possession of a surplus. With that surplus we now in no way propose to deal; we leave that to the disposal of future Parliaments, when the moment for their interference shall have arrived. We leave it just as it would have been left by the late Government; but under this Bill we propose certain fresh modifications and curtailments of which the state of the Established Church seems to us to admit; we first do what we think necessary duly to provide for the spiritual wants of the members of the Established Church; and it is the remaining surplus, thus created, which we deem ourselves at liberty to apply at once to the object designated in the Resolution, the religious and moral instruction of the entire Irish people. But will it be thought that when we speak of parishes without churches or churchmen, or with but tens and twenties, out of the whole population, we are but counting shadows, and making a great outcry over one or two extreme instances, and that this Reserve Fund will in fact have no feeders to supply it? I call the

said, that at that late hour, he should best consult the wishes of the House by pursuing the course adopted by the noble Lord (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) towards the Bill introduced by him (Sir Henry Hardinge), when he did not oppose the Resolution on the introduction of the Bill, on the understanding, that no Member by not opposing the Resolution, lent himself to the principle or the details of the measure. He should, therefore, offer no opposition to the Motion of the noble Lord, reserving to himself the right to offer every possible opposition to the principle and the details of the Bill hereafter. When the principle of appropriation was avowed, and it was proposed to apply the property of the Church to other than Ecclesiastical purposes, he felt it his duty to declare, that his objections to such a measure were as insuperable as ever, and that he would never be a party to the adoption of a principle so full of mischief and danger. The statement of the noble Lord embraced two heads, the Question of the settlement of Tithes, and that of regulating the property of the Church; and as far as he could follow the statement of the noble Lord, so far as the clergy were concerned, the plan of regulation proposed by the noble Lord was infinitely worse than any idea he (Sir Henry Hardinge) could have formed of the measure. The noble Lord had truly said, that the Bill would have many enemies; it was calculated to please only one tail. When the measure was known throughout the country, no doubt the noble Lord's anticipation would be fulfilled. He was confident that the Bill would not pass that House; at any rate that it would not become an Act of the Legislature. He was aware that in saying this he exposed the other branch of the Legislature to the imputation of the consequences of rejecting the measure of last year; but he appealed to the House, whether the rejection of that Bill was not justified by the fact, that in the Bill of last year the landlords had forty per cent; in this Bill only thirty per cent? He granted that it was better for the clergy; but was not a justification of the rejection of the Bill to be found in this statement? He intreated and implored the noble Lord, when he talked of there being no pay where there was no work, since there was to be so large a sacrifice on the part of Government and the country, to take out of the Bill the miserable stipend to a clergyman of 5l. a-year to relieve his measure from the ridicule of granting to a labouring clergyman 5l. a-year for the performance of religious duty. All the objections he had ever had to the principle of appropriation of the noble Lord (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) applied to this measure. But when he heard that the number of Protestants in a parish, to make it one of the suspended parishes, was to be below fifty, he must say, that this principle would be productive of the greatest danger in Ireland. Suppose a parish contained fifty-five Protestants; if, by means of emigration, cholera, natural death, or assassination, the number was brought down to forty-nine, was this parish, under the system of the Act, to be suspended?

observed, that the calculation was retrospective. The measure would only operate on those parishes in which, according to the Report on the Table, the number of the Protestants did not exceed fifty.

Where then was the justice of the arrangement, if it was merely retrospective. Where was the justice of fixing the number retrospectively at fifty. But he should not enter into the details. The Bill was of a character which he would undertake to say, when it was known in the country, would be found to have exceeded the worst predictions of the worst enemies of the Church, and it never would become an Act of the Legislature.

hoped that the noble Lord would not be alarmed. It was quite absurd to say at the present day, that a Church should not be suited to the wants of the people. A line must be drawn, and his Majesty's Government had attempted to draw a line. Looking to the principle of the noble Lord, he thought no measure could be more equitable. If the right hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the 5l., and thought it ought not to be given, where there was no duty done, he would agree with him to strike it off. But he did not look at it in that light. Parliament was right to require that some provision should be made. There was no fear that the measure would not pass this House; the Bill, he hoped, would pass both Houses of Parliament, and they were not the friends of Parliament who said otherwise. Let those who refused the last Bill refuse this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's means of knowing the sentiments of the people might be better than his; but Gentlemen lived each in his own sphere, and limited their inquiries to their own society. He was one of those who looked to Government as the means of promoting the happiness of the many, and it was in that light he viewed the present measure. There was only one part of it he could not support—that was the proposed grant of 1,000,000l. The Church had ample means to pay this money; the House should not give it up unconditionally. The right hon. Gentleman, he repeated, was mistaken as to the manner in which his proposition would be received. He was confident that in its spirit and principle it would be received by the whole country with exultation and gratitude.

could not allow the Bill to be introduced without entering his warmest and most earnest protest against it. The question involved in it was of the most vital importance, and which, if not speedily settled, would leave no security for property. The state in which the Irish Clergy were placed was such as he would not harrow the feelings of the House by describing. If Government had properly asserted the dignity of the law four years ago in Ireland, the settlement of this question would not be a matter of such difficulty. If they had proceeded with the same vigour with which they appeared to undertake this Bill, circumstances in Ireland would now bear a different aspect. The law had been asserted in Ireland, and order had been restored; but when Lord Althorp announced that no further tithes should be collected, the police, who on one day had put up one notice, were the next day to be seen putting up another of a different tendency, and the authority of the law was at an end. There was one point which he was desirous of impressing upon the House; namely, that the Clergy of Ireland, whatever might be their suffering, were a body of men whose integrity was not to be corrupted; and he would tell the noble Lord that nothing could induce them to forego their paramount duty, or abandon the work for which they had been appointed. They would accept of no personal or temporary relief at the expense of any principle which to them appeared subversive of the Established Church in Ireland. They never could forget the language of the dignified Prelate who presided at a meeting held some time since in Ireland, and who, in stating the sentiments of the clergy of that country, said that they were prepared to sacrifice every personal consideration, even life itself, for the preservation of the Church. The time was now come when the question was to be decided whether there should or should not be an Established Church. If there was to be no Establishment, let the determination be fairly and plainly stated; and let not the House or the country be deluded by this Appropriation Clause, and the Clergy of Ireland insulted and mocked by the noble Lord's 5l. provision. The object of this Bill was to set a fine upon the heads of Protestants and to hold out an obvious inducement to their reduction, and eventually their extirpation, by means of tumult and outrage which he could not stop to detail. Would the noble Lord stand up in his place, and say that his Bill would not have this effect? The noble Lord said that his measure was purely retrospective. But if the noble Lord attempted to quiet himself or the House with such a notion, he was under a sad delusion. The noble Lord proposed to do away with the duties and the stipend of the Protestant clergyman in every parish which did not contain fifty Protestant souls. What would the noble Lord do, however, when, some short time hence, parishes which now contained fifty-one or upwards of Protestants were reduced below that number, by what means he need not say? When that came to pass, as it inevitably would come to pass, would not the noble Lord find himself urged on by the same pressing necessity which now actuated him to sweep away those parishes also? It was quite puerile to talk of this Bill operating only retrospectively; its baneful operation would be worked forward until the whole Protestant Establishment in Ireland was undermined, and the religion left unprotected in the country. If it was the noble Lord's intention to destroy the Protestant Church in Ireland, let him do so in a more noble, a more manly, a more honest, and a more humane manner than the one he now proposed to adopt. Let him bring in a Bill expressly and directly for the abolition of the Irish Church, and not let the extinction of the Church depend upon the extinction of its members and adherents. He would not longer detain the House upon the principles involved in this Bill, He had already said, that he did not propose to offer any opposition to it in its present stage; but he gave the noble Lord notice that it was his determination, in all its subsequent stages, whenever it might be brought forward, to give it his most determined opposition. Before he sat down, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, relative to the regularity of the course the noble Lord had adopted on the present occasion. He wished to put it to the noble Lord and to the House, whether it was customary to bring forward a Motion upon a grave and important matter of religion or finance in any other way than before a Committee of the whole House. He certainly had understood that it had been the intention of the noble Lord to take up the Resolution passed by a Committee of the whole House in an earlier part of the Session, relating to the appropriation of Church-property; and upon that Resolution to found a Motion for leave to bring in a Bill upon the subject. The noble Lord had not done so, however; and what he wanted to be informed of was, whether the noble Lord was strictly in order in the course he had pursued?

was understood to say that he had precedents in the case of the Irish Tithe Bill, and also in that of the English Tithe Bill of 1832, to warrant the course he had pursued that night.

would not have said one word but for the observations which had been made from the opposite side of the House. But as a Protestant Member, he begged to return his best and warmest thanks to the noble Lord, and to his Majesty's Ministers, for bringing in a measure which would not injure the Protestant religion, but must materially serve it. He believed that, looking to past experience, Protestantism in Ireland would diminish, and that Church would cease to be the Established Church. He thanked the Government for this measure, which he hailed as a boon to the people of Ireland, because, if any thing could christianise the Church, it was a measure like this. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House seemed to claim to themselves the exclusive representation of the Protestants of Ireland; but he would say, that he and others on that (the Ministerial) aide were the persons who really represented the Protestants of Ireland, though they did not represent the Orange faction. If that measure, or one of equal efficiency, were postponed, the collection of tithes in Ireland as well as the Church itself would be gone for ever. It had been stated, that the plan on which the noble Lord proceeded was altogether inapplicable to the state of Ireland; but he (Mr. Walker) knew a case in his own neighbourhood in which the clergyman of one parish received the sum of 4l. a-year, for doing duty in the next parish, in which there was no church.

rose for the purpose of expressing a hope, as upon the present occasion there seemed not to be the smallest disposition on the part of the House to throw any impediment in the way of the introduction of the Bill, that hon. Members would not continue a discussion which might prevent a fuller discussion hereafter, but delay their observations till the proper time came, which would afford the opportunity of entering fully into the debate. When that time arrived, as his noble Friend very well knew, he should be prepared to express his opinion on this Bill, and on the subject of the Appropriation more especially. He need not tell his noble Friend that he should give it every possible opposition in his power. He well knew the courage of his noble Friend and those with whom he was associated in bringing forward this measure, but he confessed that the boldness of the measure and its details did far exceed his most fearful anticipations. First of all, entering his protest against the Appropriation part of the Bill in principle—against almost every detail in reference to the Appropriation—also against the principle of doing away with the practicability of redemption—and, almost as much as any, against the power to re-open composition, which could not now after so many years be safely reopened—hewishedtoaskforexplanationon one or two points upon which he did not know whether or not he had accurately understood his noble Friend. First whether his noble Friend meant, that for the sum, such as it might be, which was in future to be appropriated to the clergy, the State was to make itself liable, without deduction, whatever its power might be of collection or to appropriate?

said, that his noble Friend had understood him correctly in taking that in the affirmative.

then wished to know how far back his noble Friend meant to go with the power of collection?—next, from whom he purposed the collection should be made? he understood the noble Lord to say from the landlord. He knew the practical difficulty there would be in that, for he had considered the subject well, but did the noble Lord propose that the collection should be from the landlord at the head of the scale, or from the person immediately above the occupying tenant, and then so go on ascending in the scale? He asked that, in reference to those who were between the head landlord and the tenant, and whose interests might be most materially affected by the measure. -A third question was with regard to the parishes, for his noble Friend had first stated there were about 840 parishes that would come within the operation of that provision of the Bill by which, there not being fifty Protestants within each of them, the clergyman would be deprived of the income derived from those parishes. His noble Friend had said parishes, and had not said benefices; and this difficulty would arise under his noble Friend's Bill—for he apprehended the suspension would be compulsory; if the Protestant population did not amount to a certain number, this case might and would arise; a clergyman might be in possession of three parishes, one of which contained a large Protestant population, but which might actually fail in producing any income; the two others might contain a very small proportion of Protestants, and a numerous body of Roman Catholics; and for the very reason that they paid a considerable amount in tithes, and did not contain many Protestants, they had been added to the other parish, which contained a large body of Protestants, but few Catholics, and yielded no revenue; would the operation of the noble Lord's Bill not be, that in such a case, the clergyman, losing the income derived from the two parishes which were competent to pay, and did pay, would be left with a large body of Protestant parishioners, and absolutely deprived of any income from his living whatever? He hoped the noble Lord would be able to contradict the supposition that this would be the effect; if not, he would commit by his Bill a very gross injustice. The last question was, whether the whole produce of those 840 parishes—whether all the pecuniary advantages he proposed to derive from this suspension, was the miserable sum of 58.000l. a-year? He thought his noble Friend had said so, but he could hardly believe that, for the inducement of 58,000l. a-year his noble Friend would for so small, so pitiful a consideration, venture upon the discussion and argument of so great and so hazardous a principle. He only rose for the purpose of asking for these explanations, and of expressing a hope that the discussion at present wonld not be prolonged, reserving to himself the right of comment hereafter on every detail and every part of this Bill. He must say, with respect to a Bill of this description, and so violent a Bill, he had never seen one introduced to that House in so moderate a manner. His noble Friend's speech was temperate, calm, and perfectly proper throughout in its tone and manner. He only wished the substance of the speech and of the measure had been as gratifying to him as was the tone of his noble Friend in introducing it.

said, he would very briefly answers the questions put to him by his noble Friend. In answer to the first question, he did not propose a revision of all agreements with reference to the commutation of tithes, but still some of them were open to revision. He believed he would secure the object they had in view without involving himself in any of the difficulties anticipated by his noble Friend. In answer to the second question, he proposed to recover from the head landlord, and if they did not succeed they would descend till they got to the occupying tenant.

hoped the noble Lord would pardon his interruption by asking upon that whether, supposing the head landlord discharged the tithes, he being then entitled to recover it from the intermediate person, it was intended he should be liable to the payment, which by no covenant he had before been liable to, and that he should afterwards have thrown upon him the trouble and expense of recovering it without any indemnification?

said, they should come upon the immediate occupying tenant, the amount being deducted from the rent. He had certainly distinctly said, that the suspending powers of this Bill applied not to benefices, but to parishes. With reference to the case which had been put by his noble Friend of the three parishes, in pursuance with the principle of the Bill, they would certainly think themselves authorized to declare, that in any parish where there was not a sufficient number of Protestants, the emoluments arising from that parish should cease, except in certain cases, where they might deem it right to make a special provision that the suspension should not take place; if the Lord-lieutenant, for instance, should withhold his consent to it, in such cases. 58,000l. was not all that was expected to arise from this system. There was a sum which would arise from the glebe houses and glebe lands, and the reductions of incomes in those parishes in which the net annual value exceeded 300l. a-year. 58.000l. a-year, however, was all they could calculate upon at present as standing to the account of the commissioners of national education. The whole of the other income would not be realized as savings, because they would not only have to pay out of it ministers for labouring among their flocks, but also, where there were not churches, to provide suitable places of worship.

said, that on account of the advanced period of the night, he should not detain the House many minutes. As he wished to see this Bill in a printed form, he should abstain from entering into any observation on its details. The Bill, he apprehended, in two important elements of it, was nearly conformable in principle to the Bill which was introduced by his right hon. Friend. As far as regarded the remission of the million, which had been advanced, he entirely concurred in the provisions of the Bill. He believed the difficulty of recovering the arrear of tithes would now be so great that there was nothing to be done but to remit that amount; not, however, to the clergy, not to the Established Church, but to the landlords. It was not that it was to be remitted to the Church, but to the landlords of Ireland; because it would be a mockery to call on the clergy for repayment without giving them the means of recovering it again from the occupying tenants. He hoped, therefore, the fact would not be mistaken. The remission was a bonus to those by whom it must have been repaid. With respect to the bonus or remission of thirty per cent, whether it should be twenty-five or thirty per cent, there was no material difference of the principle between this and the Bill brought in by his right hon. Friend. He should, therefore, not say a word on that. On other points he differed most materially from the noble Lord. The noble Lord abandoned altogether the principle of redemption; he took away the opportunity of abolishing annual payments in lieu of tithes, by giving an equivalent in land, in so far that he made the clergy of the Church pensioners on Government, instead of being entitled to permanent incomes from their parishes, and, in that respect, he thought the Bill disadvantageous as compared with the Bill of his right hon. Friend. As to the principle of opening the composition, he must hear the principle detailed on which that opening was to take place, before he stated the full extent of his objections. He could conceive the possibility of its being so extremely limited that in one or two extreme cases it might be admissible, but the difficulty he knew it would occasion, and the injustice it would work in many cases, where evidence of the value was destroyed, would be so great that he must have the conclusive proof of some great practical convenience to be obtained, and some great benefit to be achieved by it, before he could give his consent to the opening of those compositions which took place with the voluntary consent of all parties. With respect to the detail part of the Bill, in which the noble Lord introduced his new principle of distribution, even if he agreed with the noble Lord as to the general principle of the Bill, if there was no great difference of opinion between them on the question of appropriation, he must say, he never could believe that the wit and ingenuity of any man could have devised so ill a mode of carrying his intention into execution. If selecting a number a parish, and fifty were the number at which curtailment were to take place as a principle, the mode in which the noble Lord proposed to execute his own intention, appeared to him to be open to insuperable objections. He could not but think that the noble Lord's proposal to allot to any clergyman of the Established Church who had obtained an education, and acquired habits fitting him for the duties he had to discharge, to allot to him, with a family to support, 65l. a-year, appeared to be an allotment utterly inadequate for the performance of such duties. He might have mistaken the noble Lord, but he understood him to say, 65l., although originally he said 751. a-year. In those cases where, admitting the Protestants to be very small, they were yet sufficient to justify having a separate curate, in his opinion an allotment of any such stipend as 75l. a-year was equally injurious to the interests of he individual as to the Establishment itself. It was no answer on the part of the noble Lord to say, that he could show instances now where curates received only 75l. a-year. That was no answer, because whenever the subject had been considered, and when the necessity of a fresh distribution of the revenues of the Church and a fresh appropriation had been admitted, providing for Ecclesiastical purposes, one of the great advantages always expected to be derived from those new distributions was to correct those anomalies, and to give to the clergyman that which would be at least sufficient for the maintenance of himself and his family. And he had heard the hon. Gentleman who sat near to him on his left hand (Mr. Hume) himself maintain this principle, that whenever in Ireland it was necessary to maintain an in-dependant clergyman, he would contend that that man was fairly entitled to 300l. a-year. He was not now contending so much for the individual, because he had an option to exercise, but for the interests of his flock and the general interests of the Established Church. If they were to have any clergy in any part of Ireland, it was for the interests of Ireland, for the interests of the Protestants, nay, for the interests of the Roman Catholic population, that they should be men possessing those general attainments that would afford that guarantee of character for which 300l. a-year was little enough. To station an educated clergyman in some remote part of Ireland, to deprive him of the advantages of society, and to allot to him the sum which had been mentioned, would be utterly unworthy of the character of the British Legislature. It was competent for the noble Lord to amend that part of the Bill, and he did hope, that if the House should come to the consideration of this measure in detail, and this part of the Bill remained, he did hope the noble Lord would find a very general and concurrent opinion on the part of the House, that any such allotment as 65l. a-year to a minister of the Church of England, exercising the cure of souls, was utterly inadequate. As to the great principle of appropriation of the Church revenues to other purposes than those strictly Ecclesiastical, and connected with the Church establishment, he could only say, that his mind remained unaltered, and to that he should offer his most strenuous opposition. At the same time, if the noble Lord would take a proper view of the interests of the Church, it would not be difficult for him to see that he would have, in point of fact, no surplus to appropriate; that was to say, if the clergymen were merely to have a decent maintenance for the discharge of their duties as ministers of the Church of England, even admitting the propriety of deductions in certain cases in large towns, there could be no difficulty in showing that there would remain no surplus for the noble Lord to appropriate. If the noble Lord was about to open the composition, and if he would admit this principle, that even where there was a single Protestant, or where there was only a casual congregation, still it was the duty of the Legislature to make provision for the performance of religious service; and if he would admit that other principle, that where there was a clergyman permanently established, he should be able to maintain his family in decent and becoming competency, it would not be difficult to show that they were fighting about a shadow, and that there would actually be no surplus to deal with. If that were the case, if they were to gain nothing by this principle beyond insuring discord, why, he asked, should it now be asserted? Did the noble Lord really believe, that with all his extravagant calculations about 50,000l. which would accrue from the suspended benefices—did the noble Lord really believe, that after meeting all the contingencies and the debts accumulated on the Perpetuity Fund.—after taking all those incidents of deduction into consideration, did he really believe that any surplus would be found to exist. [Lord Morpeth: The Bill does not touch the Perpetuity Fund.] Yes, but there was a debt upon it which must be paid off. After making his deduction of 30 per cent on the present amount of tithes—after making every allowance which he should find practically necessary in realizing his rent-charge—after having opened composition—after having provided for the new Churches, and the new glebe-houses he was about to build—after providing for the augmentation of the curates' salaries in the new parishes—the noble Lord might depend on it he might save himself the trouble of providing in detail for the appropriation of his surplus. The noble Lord's calculations were erroneous, and there would actually be no 50,000l. to distribute. Let them make a fresh distribution of the Church Revenues—let them do away with the allotments of 5l. where there was no Protestant congregation, instead of 65l. to the curate—let them allot 250l. to enable a man, in decency, to maintain his family, and the noble Lord would have no surplus to appropriate for secular pur- poses. Let them maintain the principle of an establishment. Let them provide for its adequate maintenance. Let them secure it by doing away with all pluralities—by doing away with all sinecures, in the sense in which that word was used. Let them plant in every parish in Ireland a clergyman to perform his sacred functions, and allow him a fair and becoming maintenance, and while there would be no surplus to appropriate, there would be no quarrel to foment and maintain on account of it.

said, the right hon. Baronet had observed, that he would not enter on the present occasion into any of the details of the measure, yet in a small compass he had alluded to many details. In order to save time, he would not say a word with respect to that part of the measure which related to tithes. On a future occasion there would be sufficient opportunity to compare that part of it with the measure of last year, which failed in the other House, and with the subsequent proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He must, however, be allowed to make a few observations with respect to the hardships which it was said the present Bill would occasion to the clergy of Ireland. With respect, then, to the allotment of 5l., which had been described as an insult to the establishment, he would only quote a passage from a report which he held in his hand, signed by two of the Irish Archbishops and three Commissioners, two of whom were appointed by the Government, and the other by the Primate, and who therefore must all be sufficiently attached to the interests of that Church. In pursuance of the 116th Section of the Irish Church Temporalities' Act, they had five benefices to dispose of, in two of which there was no Protestant, in one only nine, and in the other two only thirty; on consideration, however, of the circumstances, they had not thought proper to suppress them altogether, and they therefore appointed an officiating curate with from 4l. to 25l. a-year. That, therefore, which had been described as an insult to the Church of Ireland, because it would be unbecoming in any clergyman to accept of it, had actually been approved, recommended, and adopted by the diocesan of the Church of Ireland in more than one instance. But it was said that it was equally inadequate that the gum of 75l. a-year should be allotted to the curates to be appointed to parishes coming under the purview of the Act. The great complaint was this, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, that where there were heavy duties to perform, and at the same time a large income to be received, that large income was received by one man, while the heavy duties were left to another, with a very small stipend. He would give a single instance, for the purpose of showing that the operation of the Act would not be at all injurious to that class who performed the duties. The case was no imaginary one, but was communicated to him by a curate of the Established Church. His statement was shortly this—There were four parishes in which he and a labouring curate performed the whole duties. The congregation consisted of about 200. The sum received from the benefice, when the tithes were regularly paid, was 2,000l. a-year, and they had done the duties for two years at a sum of 75l. each. If those parishes were to come under the operation of the Bill, the effect would be, that there being some Protestants in each of them, the curates would receive 150l. each; still leaving a considerable surplus of income, even after all the deductions made by the Bill; but instead of its being devoted to the support of some distant clergyman who did not visit or superintend the parish, it would go to the benefit of the parochial population, who would be instructed, guided, and educated, by the funds which were originally drawn from them. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) said, he must always protest against that principle; and so did his noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, as he (Lord Stanley) had always done. His noble Friend put the case of three parishes united together, two of them containing a considerable number of Protestants, but not producing sufficient income for the clergyman; but luckily it happened, the neighbouring parish contained a vast number of Catholics, and hardly any Protestants, and therefore they should draw from the Catholics the means of educating and comforting the Protestants. Now it was that very system which the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) wished to maintain, but against which he (Lord John Russell) must always protest. He did not, and never should, think it right, that the great mass of the population in the South of Ireland should be made to contribute in the shape of tithe, or in any other shape, not for their own advantage, but for the sake of supporting a Church Establishment, to which they are conscientiously and religiously opposed. Nor was it sufficient to tell him that the Church wanted support, or that its funds might be useful in some other quarter. That, he maintained, was not the purpose of tithes. It was intended that tithes should go to the benefit of the county and district from which they were drawn, in the spiritual and moral instruction of the people. Bad as the system was at present, it would be still worse if they drew the whole of the tithes from the south of Ireland, and transferred the income to the more Protestant and rich part of the country, so that the Church Establishment might be supported in those parts at the expense of the poorer and more Catholic population. But the right hon. Gentleman said, that, after all, there would be no surplus. No doubt if the Ministers proceeded on the right hon. Gentleman's principles, there would be no surplus. But according to the principles which they had adopted in the Bill, taking the Income from more than 800 parishes in which there was no sufficient number of Protestants to form a congregation, they would find a surplus which, whether great or small in amount, would show that they were prepared to say that the moral and religious instruction of the great mass of the people of Ireland was an object which they had at heart—an object to which the Church revenues should be applied; and that, hereafter, while they gave that support which they considered adequate, and provided those means which were required for the spiritual instruction of the Protestants, the 6,500,000 Catholics enumerated by the Commissioners in their Report were regarded as worthy the paternal regard of a gracious Sovereign, and the superintending benevolence of the British Parliament. The present was undoubtedly a Bill complicated and difficult in its details; and he believed it was impossible to frame a measure to which plausible, and even reasonable objections might not be urged. But treating as it did of so intricate a subject, he would resort from all its details to the novel, and yet he believed sound principle on which it was founded; for that he believed was the first time that a Bill had ever been proposed to Parliament on such a subject, which went on equal principles towards the whole population of Ireland. He felt it deserved support, and he was ready to encounter all the obloquy which could be heaped on it upon that ground.

wished to know whether in the numerous instances in which from four to five parishes were united, having a considerable Protestant congregation, though none of them, to the amount of fifty, and a regular incumbent, that incumbent should be superseded, and the produce applied to the funds they were about to raise?

was understood to say, that those cases would certainly come under the operation of the Act, unless the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland thought circumstances justified the contrary. With respect to the other details of the Bill, he hoped hon. Members would forbear canvassing them till the measure was before the House.