was under the necessity of calling the attention of the House to the matter of which he had given notice, in consequence of an occurrence which had taken place yesterday. He had come down to the House yesterday at half-past four o'clock, the usual hour of commencing public business, in order to address a few words to the House on the Stamp Bill, then a second time on its passage through Parliament. He then found, to his utter surprise, that the second reading, the Committee, the third reading, had all been passed per saltum, and that many Members, who were present, were as ignorant as he himself had been, that the Bill was to be proceeded with in so summary a manner. Now, though it had been understood the night before that the usual formalities were to be dispensed with, it did not from thence follow that an opportunity was not to be afforded to hon. Members to make such suggestions as seemed good to them upon the Bill. On the Bill, as it was now passed, it was of course too late for him to say a word; but he would put it to the justice of the House, whether it would suffer the grossest personal reflections to be cast elsewhere upon its Members, and then stop their mouths, if they attempted to reply, or even to explain. He did not intend yesterday, nor did he intend that day, to take any credit to himself for the suggestion which he had made in that House on the night when the former Stamp Bill was passed. He conceived, however, that in consequence of that suggestion he had been personally attacked elsewhere, and that much obloquy had been cast on him, which he hoped the House would allow him on this occasion briefly to repel. He could only gather the expressions used from report; but from such report, the person using them appeared to insinuate that the operation of that most unjust clause, which was at present excluded from the Bill, might perhaps have been "either the impeachment of his (Mr. Walter's) veracity, or the giving some pain to his vanity," by the discovery of his being connected with the press. Now, he would say, with respect to such impeachment of his veracity—if such imputation were intended—that it was itself a falsehood. No discovery could be made which would impeach his veracity; on the contrary, if inquiry were made in the spirit of truth, it would only tend to disclose the utter ignorance of him who sought to impeach it. It could not have injured his vanity, for he had never concealed, he had never disavowed the fact, of his having once conducted the public journal which had not unfrequently been alluded to in that House: on the contrary, he felt then as he felt now, proud of such an application of those talents, be they more or less, which God had given him. The same personage had also spoken of his humble origin. He thought that that personage, before he made such an allusion, should have turned his eyes back to the founder of his own family. That individual was, he believed, a humble practitioner in the law. He also believed that, from the time of the first founder of the family to the present day, no member of his race had been distinguished for any merit of any kind until his Majesty had unfortunately called to his councils the individual who was now considered as the head of the Government. If, however, the secrecy of the private life of public men was to be invaded and laid open to the world, he suspected that it would appear—to retort the courteous language which had been applied to himself—that the noble Viscount (Lord Melbourne) had been the more foolish fellow of the two. It would be, of course, as absurd as it would be unbecoming in him to attempt to conceal from the House that, though he believed that the proposition embodied in his motion would be a great convenience to hon. Members, his object in making it was chiefly to create an opportunity of noticing a matter that was personal to himself. The hon. Member concluded by thanking the House for the attention with which it had heard him.

rose to move as an amendment, that the petition presented on the 27th of June respecting the duties imposed on British manufactures on their importation into Java, be taken into consideration. That petition, the hon. Member said, was one of great importance to the commercial and manu- facturing interests of this country. It had been signed by all the principal manufacturers and merchants in Glasgow, and if there had been time it would have received an equal number of signatures from the same respectable and influential class in this country. It related to the conduct of the Dutch Government since its re-occupation of Java, which was ceded to it by this country in 1814. The petitioners stated, that the Dutch Government had violated every stipulation of the treaty which it had made with this country relating to the duties to be levied on British goods imported into Java; that such conduct was derogatory to the rights and power of the Crown of Great Britain, and that it was flagrantly unjust towards the British merchants, and the petitioners concluded by praying the House to address the Crown to take steps to induce the Dutch to do justice to this country in this regard. The duty imposed in 1816 was 6 per cent. on Dutch goods, and 8 per cent. on the goods of other nations. In 1818 the duty was raised to 8 per cent. on Dutch goods, and 16 per cent. on those of other countries. But notwithstanding this high duty, the English manufactures still kept the lead in the import trade of Java. In 1820, however, the Dutch Government, for the purpose of confining the trade if possible, to its own manufactures, took off the whole of the duty on Dutch goods, while it continued that of 16 per cent. on the goods of other countries; still, in spite of this heavy duty, two-thirds of the colonial trade of Java remained in the hands of the English. In 1824 the Dutch governor issued a proclamation raising the duty on British goods to 24 per cent., while the Dutch remained free of all duty, and enforcing that duty against goods that had been already imported from England, and were in the warehouses in Java. Immediately after that event came the treaty between the two countries, of the gross violation of which on the part of Holland, the petitioners, in common with all the merchants and manufacturers of this country, complained. A mere reference to that treaty would shew, that it went directly to establish the principles of free trade. That treaty provided, that no nation should pay more than double the duty imposed on the goods of the nation to which the port belonged, and that where there was no duty on the goods of the nation to which the port belonged, the duty on the goods of other nations should be only 6 per cent. The only exception made in the treaty "from the general stipulations of freedom of trade," to use the words of the plenipotentiaries on both sides, of whom Mr. Canning was one, and the Baron Fagel another, was that of the trade to the Molucca or Spice Islands. To prove to the House what was the object of the treaty, and the principle on which it proceeded, he would just read the following extracts from the speech of Mr. Canning on the discussion on the East India Possessions Bill, in June 1824. Mr. Canning then said, that the chief complaint against the Netherlands Government was, that it acted on the principle of exclusive trade. The first step, therefore, which he had taken in the negotiations, from which the Bill before the House proceeded, was, to obtain a disavowal of that principle on the part of the Netherlands Government. It was not, to be sure, usual in diplomacy to frame treaties for the purpose of recording principles, but as in the present case it was the only point at issue, it was done. ^*** The objects, then, which it was proposed to attain by the treaty were, first, the recognition of the principles of free trade; secondly, the acquisition of Sincapore, and the ridding the Dutch of their possessions on the continent of India, and consequently of removing those grounds of irritation which would have existed so long as the Dutch possessions had remained intermixed with ours. Every one of those objects had been attained by the treaty."^* Now, he only called on the present Government to vindicate these principles of free trade in the negotiations going on at present with the Dutch Government. For the last twelve years the evils of which the petitioners complained—the gross violation of a treaty to which they referred—had existed, and the Government of England had neglected the interests of its subjects. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had at length manfully taken up the matter, and the noble Lord would, no doubt, inform the House how far the negotiation with the Dutch Government on the subject had proceeded, and what prospect there was of their ultimate success. There never was, he (Mr. Stewart) would contend, a more blind proceeding—a proceeding more fraught with injury and more fatal to the colonial wealth and

^*Hansard (New Series), vol. xi. p. 1444, 1445.

manufacturing interests of this country—than the cession on its part of the finest country in the world, the Island of Java, to the Dutch. But having generously given it up, Great Britain at all events should not be deprived of the advantages that it had then stipulated for. At one time the Dutch, with a view to encourage their shipping, held that the right interpretation of the treaty was, that the flag should regulate the duty; at another period, to encourage their own manufactures, they held that the origin of the goods should be the regulating principle, and at length they endeavoured to exclude British goods altogether. The hon. Member for Glasgow had presented a petition from Sincapore, complaining of the state of trade in consequence of this conduct of the Dutch, and he (Mr. Stewart) had himself received a great many communications from Java, Sincapore, &c, to the same effect. One distinguished individual well acquainted with Java, and from whom a letter had reached him only that morning, stated that the duty actually levied there on British goods amounted to thirty-five or forty per cent. He trusted that they would not be simply told by the noble Lord that the matter was in process of settlement, unless his right hon. Friend would follow up that statement by declaring his determination to vindicate the rights of this country and the commercial interests of the subjects of this realm. He hoped also that his right hon. Friend would not say that the state of the trade carried on between Java and some of our eastern possessions was any excuse for the violation of this treaty. If the flag was to be the regulating principle, the duty on foreign goods imported into Java should be only double that levied on Dutch goods. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would say that justice would be done this country in this matter for the future, and that compensation would be given for the past. The hon. Member concluded by making his motion.

said, that his hon. Friend had undoubtedly called the attention of the House to a very serious grievance which this country suffered by reason of the conduct of the Dutch Government, and it could not be denied that for a long course of years the Dutch Government had most distinctly violated the stipulations of a solemn treaty which it had contracted with Great Britain. His hon. Friend having so clearly explained in what that violation consisted, he (Lord Palmerston) would not take up the time of the House by recapitulating the points of it. He would content himself with saying that his hon. Friend had justly and truly stated, that whereas, by treaty, all articles imported into Java by British subjects and in British ships were to have a duty imposed on them double that imposed on similar goods imported by Dutch subjects and in Dutch ships, the Duties that had really been levied on English goods were far higher than those authorised by the provisions of the treaty; and that in other cases, where Dutch goods were imported free of duty, and where it was provided by the treaty that a duty of six per cent. only should be levied on similar goods imported by British subjects, a far higher duty had been exacted by the Dutch government. The subject had been discussed between the British Government and that of Holland for several years, and his hon. Friend was therefore entitled to come to that House and require some explanation from His Majesty's Government, so as to satisfy the country that there was at length a fair prospect of this matter being brought to a termination, and that the time had not arrived when it would be fit for that House to interpose by an address to the Crown. He (Lord Palmerston) thought he should be able to satisfy his hon. Friend that, for the present at least, no step was required to be taken in the matter by that House, for, though for a long time the Dutch Government had denied some of the facts contained in the representations made by the Government of this country, and though it had interposed many difficulties in the way of affording the redress sought, yet he (Lord Palmerston) believed that he was now in a position to state to his hon. Friend that a disposition had been manifested by the Dutch Government to do justice in the matter. For a long time that Government denied that there was the difference complained of in the duties levied in Java. But proofs having been obtained by the British Government that such duties were levied there, the Dutch Government was at length forced to admit that the practice was contrary to the provisions of the treaty of 1824. They had accordingly issued an edict to render the practice more conformable to the treaty in one respect, by enforcing the proportion of duty regulated by the treaty—that was to say, that where there was twelve and a-half per cent, duty on Dutch goods, the duty on British should be twenty-five per cent., and that where the Dutch goods were imported free of duty, the duty on corresponding English goods should be only six per cent. There was still one point of difference to be settled between the two Governments. The government of Holland insisted that the criterion of duty should be the nationality of the article imported, whereas the English Government contended that it was the nationality of the merchant and ship that, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, should be the criterion of duty. Whether the one interpretation or the other would be the better one for the commerce and industry of this country was not the question that we had to determine. He was sure that we should have no solid grounds to stand upon in our representations to foreign countries, unless we adhered to the strict interpretation of treaties, for it was only while we did so that we should be justly entitled to enforce our demands where they were denied. Even, therefore, supposing that a concession of the interpretation sought for by the Dutch might be to us in some respects advantageous, we should lose in the long run by being deprived of the high ground we at present occupied, when we insisted on the strict fulfilment of the treaty. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the English Government in restoring to the Dutch the magnificent colony of Java had done an act of splendid national generosity. It had become ours by force of arms during a war carried on with Holland, and at the peace we should have been perfectly justified, if we chose, in retaining it amongst our possessions. His hon. Friend was certainly entitled to say, that the Dutch Government had not shown a due appreciation of the generosity of England, by depriving us for such a long period, of the commercial advantages guaranteed to us by the treaty of 1824. It had often been made a complaint against the Dutch, that they paid too narrow an attention to their own interests, in their intercourse with other nations. When they were our chief rivals in the carrying trade, there were none so loud in insisting on the principles of free commercial policy; and when they became manufacturers, they became the most exclusive of all monopolists. He believed, indeed, that all nations, more or less, pur- sued their own interests. We were not, therefore, entitled to complain of the Dutch on that score, but we were entitled to complain that they had departed from the engagements of a solemn treaty. He begged to assure his hon. Friend and the House, that his Majesty's Government would continue to press upon the Dutch Government its interpretation of the treaty. He did not despair that these representations would have their due effect, especially as the Dutch Government had lately shown a more liberal spirit, and he trusted that the issue would be, that the strict terms of the treaty would be enforced. Such being the present state of the case, he was sure that his hon. Friend, and the House, would agree with him in thinking that, it would be departing from the practice of Parliament, and a most inconvenient course for the House to adopt, to interpose, by an address to the Crown, pending negotiations, and without that full knowledge of them, which it would be inconsistent with his duty at present, to lay before it. If the Government should succeed in the present negotiation, it would be terminated in a manner more conformable with those amicable relations which should be preserved between the two countries. If, on the contrary, it should fail in its efforts, it would then be his (Lord Palmerston's) duty to lay before parliament what had passed in the course of the negotiation, and to ask the consent of the House to such measures as the case demanded. He repeated, however, his expectation, from the mode in which the negotiation had of late been conducted, that the Government of Holland would see that it was its duty to do justice to this country.

said, that a grosser departure from its engagements had never been made by any country, than by Holland, in this case. He foretold in 1824, that such would be the case. When the papers were laid on the table, they would see what had been done. He believed it would be found that very little had been done for our commerce, and he must add his conviction, that the commerce of this country had suffered more by the neglect of its diplomatic agents, than that of any other country whatever. Had this treaty been made with America, there was no doubt she would have insisted on its fulfilment, or she would have made the Dutch feel the consequences. It was a fact, that the Dutch had been most regardless of the treaties they had entered into with this country. In conclusion, he felt greatly obliged to the hon. Member who called the attention of the House, and the Government to this important question.

concurred, in much of what had been observed by the hon. Member, who had introduced the subject to the House, and by the hon. Member for Middlesex. It was a fact, that commercial men of this country, were exposed to many hardships and difficulties in many parts of the world, and that the constant vigilance, and active exertions of our diplomatic agents, were necessary for their protection. The magnanimity and generosity of England, in giving up Java at the close of the war, did not stop; she also gave up the right of fishing off Newfoundland to the French, which they now practised to the annoyance of the English. There were many other important matters connected with our commercial relations, which required the diligent inquiries of Government. The merchants of this country did not seek for exclusive privileges, but they bad a right to certain advantages, in virtue of treaties, which ought not to be allowed to be infringed.

hoped that the Government, during the recess, would turn their attention to, with a view to redress, many of the grievances which related to our commerce. Complaints had been made at Sincapore and other places, of duties being laid on British goods to which they ought not to have been subjected. He did hope that the attention of Government would be directed to these matters.

expressed his satisfaction at the explanation given by the noble Lord, and would not press his motion.

said, that the hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to be under the impression, that the commerce of this country was suffering from the neglect or apathy of our diplomatic agents. In that, he could assure the hon. Member that he was mistaken. Half the correspondence which reached his office, from our diplomatic agents abroad, had reference to the commerce of the country.

(in answer to a remark made by Lord Sandon, which did not reach us) said, that it had been his intention, after the next order of the day was read, to state the course which he intended to take with respect to the above Bill. On the last day that the Bill was before the House, it gave rise to a desultory conversation which had not advanced the measure. Since then he had seen some notices on the subject—one by the hon. Member for Finsbury, on a subject which he had thought had been dropped till the next Session—namely, the revenues of cathedrals. Now, if the Bill was to be discussed in connexion with that and other subjects, he had only the alternative—looking at the state of the other business in the House—either to bring it forward early, and discuss it from day to day, to the great delay of other Bills, and the prolonging of the Session, or to let the other measures take precedence, and, when they should be disposed of, to bring on this at a period in a House too thinly attended to consider a measure of that importance. Under these circumstances, and considering that several hon. Members had already left town, who would, if present, take an active part in the discussion of the measure, he thought he should best consult the convenience of the House, and the due consideration of this Bill on a future occasion, by postponing it to the next Session. He would not then enter into the merits of the Reports of the Church Commissioners, on which this Bill was founded. He would content himself for the present with observing, that the measures recommended in those Reports were efficient measures of Church Reform, and he should be able to maintain that proposition at the proper time.

I feel bound to oppose this measure, first, on principle, because I consider that all the money advanced ought to he repaid; and next, on points of detail, for, if we cannot get back all the money, we certainly ought to get more than is proposed by the Bill. I trust, therefore, that the House will grant me a hearing for a very few minutes, while I call their attention to the return relating to the million loan. Not many weeks past a return was printed for the use of Members, stating the manner in which the million, voted for the relief of the Irish clergy, had been appropriated. On looking through it I was surprised to see some names which I little expected to find there. This induced me to examine the return minutely in detail. The result of that examination snowed, that out of 635,000l., the total amount advanced out of the public purse for arrears of tithe, 393,000l. had been advanced to 763 incumbents of parishes, making on an average more than 500l. each; 176,000l. had been advanced to 375 laymen, who were tithe-owners, making rather less than 500l. each; and 65,000l. had been advanced to sixty-one dignitaries of the Church, making on an average more than 1,000l. each. Having thus stated generally to what class of persons, and in what proportions, this money has been advanced, I must now request hon. Members to call to mind what occurred in this House when the grant of this million was proposed and voted. Though I was not a Member of the House at that period, I remember the impression on the public mind out of the House; and I have also collected from persons who then were Members, and, above all, I have found in the debates on the subject, what was the actual feeling and the real intention of the House when they voted that a million should be advanced out of the public purse for the relief of the tithe-owners in Ireland, who had not been able by ordinary means to obtain payment of their tithes. The general impression on the minds of the Members of this House seems to have been, that the million was to be advanced for the relief of the clergy of the Irish Protestant Church, because they were in so wretched a plight that they could not live without relief of this sort. The House was informed, in accents of the most pathetic commiseration, that the Protestant clergy in Ireland were in a state bordering on starvation—that they had not money enough to procure the common necessaries of life; as to luxuries, they had long since forgotten that such things were to be attained; that their children were compelled to work as common menials, digging potatoes for their wretched subsistence; that they were, in short, so many Established Church martyrs, in a state too miserable, too squalid, too terrible for human nature to endure, or even to contemplate; and that, unless immediate relief were granted to them, these intellectual, highly-educated men—the pillars of the Protestant Church in Ireland—must, most of them, perish amidst intolerable suf- ferings. All this misery, we were told, arose from the difficulty, the almost impossibility, of collecting tithe; and that, as in many cases, no tithe had been paid for two or three years, those of the clergy who depended solely on their tithe were reduced to a most destitute condition. Such was the picture of the Irish Protestant clergy presented to this House: such was the appeal made to the feelings and the sympathies of Members of Parliament by their suffering fellow-citizens. Can we wonder, then, that, setting aside for a moment all considerations of sound policy, unheeding the voice of reason, they should have suffered themselves to be led away by their feelings of pity—by their generous sympathy with the starving ministers of the Protestant Church, and that, urged on by the promptings of charity, they should have granted immediate relief, from the public purse, in order to alleviate such misery? No; they yielded to their pity for the poor starving clergy, and they voted the million. That this statement fairly represents the case, and the reasons which induced hon. Members to vote for the grant of this million, can be clearly proved from the debates on the subject. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, said, "that in the present destitute condition of the clergy he could not withhold his assent." The hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford said, "He was prepared to sacrifice everything but principle, in order to afford relief to the clergy in their present unfortunate condition."—The then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "that the money was for the relief of the clergy, and would be repaid by the clergy." The noble Lord, who is at present Member for Stroud, held the same language. Now, having thus shown the grounds on which the House consented to advance a million, for the relief, namely, of the starving Protestant clergy in Ireland, let us go back for a few moments to the return stating the manner in which the million has been appropriated. There are in the list sixty-one dignitaries of the Irish Church, receiving out of that fund 65,000l. Amongst them there is the hon. and very Rev. Joseph Bourke; he received more than 2,590l. as incumbent, and 1,700l. as lessee, making altogether more than 4,200l.; the Archbishop of Cashel received 2,060l.; the very Rev. Lord E. Chichester, 2,200l..; the Bishop of Clonfert, 1,200l.; the Bishop of Cloyne, 3,200l.; the Bishop of Ferns, 2,100l.; the very Rev. T. Gough, 3,400l.; the Bishop of Kildare, 1,800l. the hon. and venerable H. Stop-ford, 2,400l.; and the hon. and venerable C. le Poer Trench, 1,800l. Are these the poor miserable starving creatures in whose behalf the feelings of this House and the sympathies of the people were appealed to—not in vain? Again, in the list there are 375 laymen, receiving out of the fund 176,000l. I will mention a few of the names in the return. I cannot, of course, have any personal feeling against them; and when I mention the names no man will be able to accuse me of having shown any party predilection in the choice of persons. John Aylmer, Esq., of Caernarvon, North Wales, received 1,400l.; W. J. Bourke, Esq., 2,500l.; J. Callaghan, Esq., 2,100l.; Lord Carew, 1,000l.; C. Delmege, Esq., 2,900l.; Countess Disart, 240l.; Lord de Vesey and the hon. T. Vesey, 1,000l.; the Duke of Devonshire, 3,400l.; Lord Dillon, 200l.; the Earl of Donoughmore, 320l.; the Marquess of Downshire, 2,600l.; the Earl of Essex, 80l.; the hon. Baron Foster, 500l.; Sir F. H. Goodricke, 300l.; the Marquess of Head-fort, 118l.; Lord Lismore, 500l.; the Earl of Norbury, 280l.; the Marquess of Ormonde, 2,400l.; the Earl of Shannon, 280l.; Lord Southwell, 35l.; Caesar Sutton, Esq., 2,100l.; D. Thompson, Esq., 2,700l.; R. Weldon, Esq., 2,200l.; and the Marquess of Westmeath, 750l. Now, I do not accuse one of the persons whose names I have enumerated of having acted improperly in taking their portion out of the million; by the Act they had a clear legal right to demand the money which was advanced to them, though by the 10th section of the Act there is a discretionary power in the Irish Privy Council, as to the payments to be made on applications; but I do ask hon. Members, whether it was the impression—whether it was the desire—whether it was the intention of the House that the money should be so applied? The letter of the Act undoubtedly empowered laymen who possessed tithes and dignitaries of the Church (being incumbents), whether rich or poor, to apply for a portion of the grant; but was that the spirit of the Act? Was not the money really and truly voted by this House for the relief of the poor clergy of the Irish Protestant Church who were represented to be starving—was not the money so voted only or chiefly because they were thought to be starving, and that there were no other means of relieving their misery? If that were the intention of the House, is it not rather surprising that such men should be found profiting by the generosity of the House, and receiving money out of a public grant from the public purse, because the mere letter of the law was in their favour? Will not the people of England be rather disappointed when they find that the money which they thought was to relieve the starving Protestant clergy in Ireland has been, much of it, applied to swell the rent-roll and to increase the vast income of some of the richest men in Great Britain? Will they not be astonished to see noble tithe possessors and great Church dignitaries appearing amongst the claimants for relief, as the fellow-sufferers of the wretched, destitute, and starving Protestant clergy? The noble Lord, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, was very indignant with an hon. Member who called this measure a "a pious fraud." It must be confessed that the result has shown that the term was not altogether misapplied; for it certainly does appear as if the grant had been obtained from this House under something like "false pretences." Some hon. Members, indeed, declared at the time, without any attempt at concealment or circumlocution, that the money would go to the tithe-owners generally, and would never be repaid; and the hon. Member for Kilkenny even added as a reason that if the people of England were determined to uphold, in defiance of the opposition of the Irish people, an un-reformed Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland like the present, they were bound in justice and in common honesty to pay for it. That case is now altered; for the people of England have declared in favour of reforming the Church Establishment in Ireland—the House of Commons has passed more than one Bill to that effect; and the determination to keep the Church Establishment in Ireland without effectual and adequate reform is now maintained by the majority of a certain irresponsible assembly, which holds its meetings not far from this place, in opposition to this House and to the people of this country. Let the people, therefore, now bear in mind that the loss of this million has been entailed upon them, and that much greater loss and trouble will probably be brought upon them by the opposition to reform so obstinately pursued by the majority of that assembly. Having now shown on what grounds the million was advanced to the titheowners of Ireland —having shown, also, the manner in which it has been appropriated—I wish now to ask the Ministers whether they have really and ultimately determined to insist upon the passing of this Bill, and thereby to remit the payment of the debt to the public incurred by those who have received a portion of the grant, with the trifling exception mentioned in the Bill? If they do so remit the payment, they will be acting in direct violation of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the present Lord Spencer), that the money should certainly be repaid by those to whom it was advanced. In common justice—in common honesty—in accordance with a solemn pledge, the money ought to be repaid. I do not say this year, or next year, or within a short time: let the amount be paid by instalments—spread (if you please) over a long period—say ten or fifteen years; but unless a pledge given to the House and to the public be disregarded as of no weight and of no value, this money must be repaid. It may be said that this sum was advanced to the Irish tithe owners to induce them to give up all law proceedings against defaulters in tithe paying, and thereby to prevent civil war: for the House was told by Mr. Littleton (the present Lord Hatherton), that unless some measure of this description was passed, a civil war must rage in Ireland from one end of the country to the other. Well, say, then, that in order to prevent bloodshed, violence, and anarchy—to avoid a sanguinary tithe campaign—the House advanced the million. Now look to Ireland, and say what has been gained. You have paid your million—has it bought peace for Ireland? Your money is gone; but is the cause of your loss—is the evil also gone? No. You are now in as bad a position as you were three years past when you voted the million—you are even worse off, for you are now in a false position—you have given a million as a premium on resistance to law—a bad one, but still a law; instead of altering the law, instead of boldly grappling with the cause of the evil, a temporising policy was adopted, and now the tithe-war rages more fiercely than ever. If a man refuse to pay tithe, he is exchequered by his spiritual friend the Protestant parson—if he pay tithe, he runs the risk of being shot by some of his temporal friends, who have vowed never to pay tithe nor suffer tithe to be paid. A pleasant dilemma! There is another consequence of the forced maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland; but I will not further pursue this most painful topic. I had two objects in troubling the House this evening: one, to call their attention to the return respecting the million; the other, to urge on the Ministers and on the House the absolute necessity, in compliance with good faith, of not pressing the adoption of this Bill, and thereby abandoning the repayment of the million in all but a few cases. In 1833 Mr. Littleton said, "that under all circumstances the public would have as good security as it was possible to give them for the repayment of the money;" and the noble Lord, the Member for North Devon, declared, "that he trusted the spirit of liberality with which this was now granted by the people of England would be met by a corresponding spirit of liberality on the part of the Irish landlords and the people of Ireland, and that the people of this country would not ultimately have to complain of a want of good faith with respect to the repayment of this loan." The case then stands thus—the million was obtained for the relief of the starving clergy in Ireland, but a large portion has been paid to lay tithe-owners and to rich dignitaries of the Church—it was advanced as a loan, but it is sought now to convert it into a gift—it was to pacify Ireland and to put a stop to the tithe-war; but Ireland is not pacified, and the tithe-war rages as before—it was a sort of set-off against the appropriation clause—a very dear purchase by the way, for a certain assembly will rather perish than pass the appropriation clause. This being the case, I again ask the Government to reconsider their determination to remit the repayment of this money, for which they have got absolutely nothing in return. Now, I trust that hon. Members will not mistake my motive for having urged this subject. It is not merely a desire to effect a saving of a few hundred thousand pounds to the public—it is not that I grudge the money to Ireland, for I would willingly (if just and necessary) join in a much larger vote for the benefit and the relief of that unhappy country, but it is because good faith would be violated by the transaction that I have spoken against it. No man will venture to deny that good faith should, above all things, be observed in all affairs, public as well as private. This money was advanced on the express understanding, and under a distinct pledge, that it should be repaid, and, therefore, without a breach of good faith, this debt to the public cannot be remitted.

wished to place the real facts of the case before the House, and hoped he should be able to satisfy his hon. Friend that the money had not been diverted from the original purpose of the grant. His noble Friend's (Lord Spencer) intention, when he introduced the Bill, undoubtedly was, that the money should be applied for the relief of the ecclesiastical incumbents in Ireland. His noble Friend, however, had been met by objections from every side of the House, that the measure would be incomplete unless the grant was extended to lay as well as ecclesiastical claimants, and it was in consequence of an amendment forced on Government by the House that this extension took place. No greater misconception could exist than that which pervaded his hon. Friend's remarks, and which had extended to the public out of doors, that the Bill was intended solely, or mainly, as a measure of relief to the tithe-owner. I was intended mainly to give relief to the tithe-payer, because the receipt of this money by the tithe-owner protected the tithe-payer to a certain extent from demands for tithe. It took away from the tithe-owner the right of proceeding against the tithe-payer, and was thus made conducive to the establishment of tranquillity in Ireland. It was not intended by the Act to give relief to certain parties who might be owners of tithe, but to all owners of tithe who complied with the conditions of the Act, who delivered in their schedules, proved that a sum of money was fairly due to them, and that they had not been able to recover it He did not at all complain of the hon. Gentleman's statement on the subject; but base and calumnious delusions were sought to be propagated among the public by selecting certain names from the list, with a view to make it appear that Government had endeavoured to make a job of the grant, and to advance money to their own favourites exclusively. He was aware that there was no hon. Gentleman opposite who would not immediately disavow such a supposition, but out of doors certain parties had attempted to show, with a singular power of misrepresentation, that the supporters of the Administration had been particularly favoured in the distribution of the money, when, in point of fact, Government had no control over the matter. It would be found that among those who had received assistance from the grant, the opponents of the Administration were more numerous than the supporters. The Treasury, he contended, had excercised a just discretion in not proceeding to enforce repayment of the instalments of the loan. It appeared from returns which had been made out, that the tithe payable in 1834 amounted to 325,000l., of which only 119,000l. had been received; in 1835, to 324,000l., of which only 45,000l. had been received or recovered. Under these circumstances, it would have been vain to endeavour to enforce repayment, and such a step would only have excited fresh irritation and renewed disturbances. He would always maintain, however, that it was unjust to remit the repayment of the loan, except in connexion with the settlement of the Irish Church question. It was not proposed by the Bill to remit it, but only to suspend, under certain limitations, the enforcement of the right, until the question of the Irish Church should be settled. The Bill proposed, that the Treasury should have power to enforce repayment where the parties had collected the whole or the greater part of their tithe, where the tithe was held and instalments payable by the landlord, where the lay impropriator was owner of the estate and had received the amount of tithe due to him, in the shape of rent. All that he asked was, that Government should not be made responsible for the rigid enforcement of the demand, and he thought that he was also entitled to ask this for the sake of those of the clergy who had not had recourse to writs of rebellion for the collection of their tithes, and had waited for the decision of the House on the question.

wished to know why the principle contained in this Bill had not been applied to a similar description of property in this country? The object of this Bill—and a very desirable object it was—was to prevent the Corporations of Ireland from dealing with the property confided to their care, until a measure for the better regulation of the Municipal Corporations of Ireland should have passed both Houses of Parliament.

said, that the motive and reason for passing this Bill did not exist as regarded England. The necessity for this Bill arose from the fact of the other House of Parliament having rejected a Bill which provided for the better regulation of Corporate Property in Ireland. Had that Bill passed through the other House of Parliament, the present Bill would have been wholly unnecessary.

reminded the hon. Member for Southwark, that in the English Bill of last year a provision was introduced which had the effect that the present Bill would have—namely, to prevent the alienation of corporate property until the Bill for the better regulation of Municipal Corporations should have come into operation.

objected to the further progress of a Bill of such importance at so late a period of the Session. He was opposed to the principle of the Bill in every respect. The case of the Jews was very different from that of the Dissenters. The same principle did not apply in both cases. He would move that the order of the day be read that day three months, and if he stood alone he would divide the House upon this question, in order to show to the country that there were some Members in that House who wished to preserve it a Christian assembly.

would support the amendment of his hon. Friend. He would ask how was it possible for a member of the Jewish persuasion to attend in that House when prayers were said in which the name of the Saviour was invoked? He knew that it was fruitless to resist the Bill in that House, but it was a consolation to him and to the religious people of this country, that they might hope that this Bill would meet with a very different reception elsewhere.

considered this Bill an inroad on the constitution, and would take every opportunity of recording his vote against it.

contended, that the House ought to insist on retaining the clause which gives the last word to the party accused—indeed, that clause involved the whole principle of the Bill. In 1826, Lord Lyndhurst, in his place in that House, had said that he would oppose any Bill on this subject which did not contain this clause. In 1836 this clause was that to which of all others the noble Lord most objected. He moved that the Commons disagree to the amendments of the Lords on this clause.

agreed, with some reluctance, to this motion. He did so, because a Select Committee of that House had pronounced a very decided opinion upon it. He thought it right, however, to inform the House, that since the last discussion on the subject he had received a very long letter from Lord Chief Justice Denman, in which his Lordship said that he considered this Bill so important, that he would take it as it came amended from the Lords, and would leave the disputed questions to be settled hereafter.

rose to propose an additional clause to this Bill; not that he approved of this Bill—on the contrary, it was repugnant to his feelings as a man, as a Christian, as a fellow-creature, as a neighbour, as a friend. It prohibited him from the practice of hospitality to his poor and distressed neighbours; but he would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all his sacks of money, that, acting upon the precepts and following the example of his respected and venerated father, he would claim the exercise of hospitality as an hereditary right. He had as little occasion to exercise bribery at his elections as any Member in that House; and he would now declare that never, directly or indirectly, had he bribed the vote of any of his tenants in his own favour. His constituents knew him as a neighbour and a friend; and so long as they did know him as such, he should not be afraid of any stranger, however rich, or however gifted, who came among them to solicit their votes. The hon. and gallant Member brought up his clause.