ilecluttri nun prarcetingri fn parliament.

Tna APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day having been read, for a Committee of the whole House to take into consider- ation the subject of Irish Tithes,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to move that "the Speaker do now leave the chair." Lord John said, that it had been his intention to have simply made that motion, without adding a single word until the House were in Committee ; but the conduct of gentlemen opposite had forced him to depart from that resolution. He thought it would not be fair that Sir Thomas Arland should have an opportunity of bringing for- ward his motion for rescinding the Appropriation Resolutions of 1835, before Ministers had been able to state what they considered the merits of the question on which the House was about to enter. With regard to Sir Thomas Acland's proposition, he intimated a suspicion that Sir Thomas bad been instigated by his diocesan ( Dr. Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter); his motion was well calculated to produce discord and bitterness, and to prevent an amicable settlement of the Irish tithe question. Lord John then went into a description of' the relations of the Irish people with the Established Church, with a view to show that it was absolutely impossible to secure peace and good government in Ireland as long as the Protestant Episcopalians engrossed the entire revenues of the Church. It even became a question with Irishmen, whether it was advantageous to preserve the union with this country as long as the anomalous condition of the mass of the people in respect to the ecclesiastical institutions of the country was maintained. The measure proposed by Ministers was calculated in some degree to diminish the hostility of the Irish people to the Establishment, as it awarded a portion of the revenues of the Church to the general benefit of the community without distinction of religious sects. Lord John entered into a detailed explanation of his plan ; but did not make it very clear or intelligible, especially that part which had reference to the appro- priation of a surplus. He stated, that the existing tithe composition would be converted into a rent-charge at the rate of 701. for every 1001. ; that the rent-charges would be redeemed by the Government at the rate of six- teen years' purchase on the full stun of 1001. (Sir Henry Hardinge had only proposed to give the Church fifteen years' purchase) ; that the mo- ney paid for the rent-charges should be invested in land, or in such other way as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should deem advisable ; that the Government would guarantee to the clergy the regular payment of 70 per cent. of their present income ; that the produce of the rent-charges thus obtained by Government should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and paid out again, chiefly as follows,-160,0001. in support of the general Constabulary force of Ireland, 20,0001. to the Police of Dublin, MAW. towards paying the cost of criminal trials, 100,0001. for the erd education of the people, and any further sum to the charities of land. He did not pretend to say that this measure would have the Mleatory effect which be fully believed former propositions he had brought forward would have had. He was aware of the determination of the Irish clergy to resist on equitable settlement of the tithe ques- tion, and maintain the present state of things. With this view, they had announced their determination not to submit to a greater reduction than 13 per cent. from the tithe-composition. These unreasonable pretensions of the Irish clergy—this insensibility to the frightful evils t a protracted contest—rendered Lord John far from sanguine as to the beneficial consequences which, did the Irish clergy exhibit a dif- ferent temper, might be reasonably expected from the proposed mode en! settlement. But beyond the " exorbitance and obstinacy " of the clergy, there was Sir Thomas Acland's motion ; and he begged the ttinouse to remark the circumstances under which that motion was to be

In the last session of Parliament, a bill for the establishment

of peers; Corporations in Ireland bad been sent up to the House 01 Peers; and, being aware of the mischievous consequences of making ttereitions year after year which led to no result, Ministers had resolved, oft hill were rejected, either to resign their offices or appeal to the People, But the Peers did not reject the bill—they only postponed the consideration of it till the 1 ithc Bill should also be sent up to them, so that the two measures might be taken in connexion with each other. It was generally believed that if the Tithe question were adjusted, there would he no opposition to a bill for giving Ireland municipal institutions similar to those enjoyed by Englishmen and Scotchmen. This belief, and the rumour of the intentions of the fiew:sition, were confirmed by the Duke of Xtrellington, who, on the ..it. s' of June 1837, spoke as follows in the House of Lords- " br is not my intention to enter into any agreement with respect to the Irish 11,tinieipal Corporations Bill. In former discussions with respect to this bill, t aft Al icy objection to it ; not as to itself alone, but as connected with other. Irish measures. I still retain the same objections. At the same time, I must say, that it is my anxious wish to put an end to the Tithe question, which was introduced seven years ago. It is also my wish that some arrangement should be made for a provision fur the poor in Ireland. I am desirous to see the cor- poration question settled when arrangements can be made for carrying out the other questions connected with it. I am most desirous that the Parlianientary discussion that now occurs on these questions from year to year should be brought to a close; and I can assure the noble Viscount, that if in the next Parliament we shall meet in the same relative positions, I shall be prep fired to concur with him on all those subjects in any reasonable measure he may intro- duce for their final and satisfactory settlement."

This declaration of the Duke of Wellington, Lord John contended, was of the very greatest importance- " It contains many things, of which the last is not the least important. It declares in the first place. a willingness on the part of the Duke of Wells too to enter candidly and fairly upon a settlement of the three great Irish questions of Tithes, Poor-laws, and Municipal Corporations. That is important ; but in the next place, it declares that the noble duke would be prepared to enter into the discussion of such measures with the view to their final adjustment whilst Lord Melbourne remained at the head of the Administration. I can conceive that if the Duke of Vi'ellington or the right honourable baronet oppo- site had said, ' I am ready to agree to measures upon this subject which shall lead to the settlement of them, it would he remarked that the proposition to be entertained was, that if the present Administration would yield to his suggestion he would make propositions in conformity with his opinions Iris views, and his sentiments upon these questions, which should be satisfactory to Parliament and the country. But the Duke of Wellington did not say that. He said, ' with the noble lord,' (meaning Lord Melbourne,) ' in his present position at the head of the Government, I shall he ready to enter into an agreement or

arrangement upon these disputed questions.' Now, if he had added a few words to that declaration, and those words had been diiT.rent from all the rest—. if he had said, But I have one proposition to make more, namely, that the declarations which the noble lord made in the Melee of Lords at the commencement of his administration shall be repudiated, and the resolu- tions which were conic to by the House of Commons shall be rescinded '— Great checriny front thu Ministrrial side ;—if the noble duke had said that, be would at once have provoked this answer Irtini the noble lord at the head of the government—' It is true that you have made these proposals, but you couple with them conditions inconsistent with our principles—inconsistent with our honour—( Chows fiotn thr Orroqilion)—and upon such terms I cannot pro- pose any measures upon these subjects.' It is owing to the concealment of those conditions—coalitions which I say would have been inconsistent with our principles and out honour, that our opponents have been able to go on from that tittle to this in the course I shall presently describe. In the first place, I ask, was the declaration of the Duke of W'ellington given with their assent and authority or was it not? If it was not, they ought immediately to have de- clared a difference of opinion. If it was, I cannot conceive how it could he that at the end of the session of 1537 they could propose certain propositions of arrangement, and at the sante time conceal or hide that which they knew we could never agree to, and to which it was impossible that our assent co thl be obtained. I say this because we have acted upon the strength of the declara- tions made by our opponents in this and the other House of Parliament, and upon the assurance, as I may say, which was generally understood, that any propositions that were to be made should be propositions that we might c.a. sistently support." In the expectation of the cooperation of gentlemen opposite, and relying on the Duke of Wellington's declaration, Ministers had pressed forward their Poor Bill, (a measure not likely to add to their popu- larity,) and their Tithe Bill; holding back their Corporation Bill, from which they expected to gain most credit and popularity in Ire- land— " Many Irish 11einbers told me that I was wrong in postponing a measure which I had brought forward in previous sessions of Parliament, and which was justly popular in Ireland, for the sake of a measure which must neces- sarily be attended by many difficulties, and upon which the popularity of the Ministry in Ireland would be risked, and might be lost. Therefore they urged upon tae, in the strongest manner, not only the propriety but the necessity of bringing forward the Kish Municipal Corporations Bill prior to the introduc- tion of the measure for the establishment of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland. What was the answer? ' I will do no such thing; I will not say that I have not acted in the most conciliatory manner with respect to the propositions to be made to the other House of Parliament : I will not say that I will carry forward the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill merely for the sake of obtaining a party advantage.' Our opponents have taken great advantage of this *ono- !lotion. With respect to the Municipal Corporations Bill, when the right honourable gentleman asked me whether I would not postpone going into the Committee upon that bill till after the Tithe question was considered, I again agreed to do so. This was a further proposition to which I assented, and I agreed to bring on the Tithe question before it. If the honourable baronet

who is this night about to bring forward a motion for rescinding the Resolu- tions of ISA had, as he might have done, given notice of a motion at an early period of the session, instead of doing so only four days ago, I should not have de- ferred the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. He, therefore, has all the advantage to be derived from my conduct ; and he has all the advantage of any unpopularity

we might have suffered from urging forward other measures, and from delaying the Municipal Corporations Bill. The only advantage I have is, the advantage I shall derive for my future guidance from the past conduct of my opponents,— which is, that whenever they make professions, I shall consider those pro- fessions as snares; that whenever they make declarations, 1 shall consider those declarations as stratagems, and intended to deceive. (Immense cheering on the Treasury benches.) Such is the position, such the circumstances, in which the honourable baronet thinks fit to make his proposition. That that proposition should come from those w ho profess an amazing attachment to the Church—that the bar to any settlement of this important question—that the raising of this angry debate—(Laughter front the Opposition)—that the

endeavour to force upon us a point on which they must know we should not

yield, should come from those who, I repeat, profess an extraordinary attach- ment to the Church, is perhaps nothing that ought to surprise me. It is a very happy satire of a great poet, that when Discord was sent for, the mes- senger who sought her found her not in courts nor in camps, but in s monastery. No doubt, the poet who gave that description well knew that men Who profess an exceeding abstineirce from the affairs and follies of the world, and who say that their wish and intention is only the inculcation of religion and morality, are very often as fond of broils and contentions as, or still more so than, those whose ordinary occupations are with the concerns of the world. I am making this allusion in the supposition—which I can hardly doubt is a correct one—that it is the wish of those who are most connected with the clergy that a debate should take place upon these resolutions of 1835."

To the principle contained in the resolutions of 1835 Lord John de. elated his entire adhesion. That principle had been sanctioned in a Report of the Irish Education Commissioners, including the Arch. bishops of Armagh and Cashel ; who had recommended that a tax should be imposed on the clergy for the purpose of raising a fund fur the education of the people, on a plan that would not disturb the reli- gious tenets of any sect. The wise and just principle so put forth by the Primate of Ireland, Lord John wished to see in active operation ; and be would resist the attempt to rescind the resolutions in which it was embodied,—not only because be believed the principle itself to be just and true, but because the reversal of the resolutions would inflict a stigma on the Government, which he would not consent to bear. But if those resolutions were rescinded, he would ask where the House would atop? Would it, as was the openly-expressed wish of many, not only set aside the spirit, but repeal the letter of the Eman- cipation Act ? Undoubtedly, many were disposed to treat the Irish as a degraded race. What was the language of a distinguished convert to Toryism, who had been sent abroad as a kind of travelling courier, to expound the doctrines of the Conservative party to the people /— lie says, The people of Ireland, of whom Mr. O'Connell talked so much, were, he was grieved to say, the most miserable, ignorant, Popish, priest-ridden populace, and superstitious to a degree, of the inveteracy of which Englishmen could form no conception. When Mr. O'Connell talked of the Irish, he left out of his consideration the Protestants, comprising nearly all the property, in. telligence, honest independence, and real importance of Ireland.' As for the Catholic gentlemen, as for the Catholic merchants and Roman Catholic farmers of Irelaud, property, intelligence, honest independence, and real importance, did not belong to them. But there is a moral to this description it is not merely a description for the sake of informing his audience what kind of people these Irish may be, by one who has travelled in those parts. For he says further, the Irish boasted of coming from Carthage, and certainly they were Tyrian in one respect—they were double-tongued. The Irish were in many repects the antipodes to the English ; and it was absurd to propose that they should have the power of establishing Popish Municipal Corporations iu Ire- land.' There is, I say, a moral in all this. You are to pour out every term of abuse upon the people of Ireland ; you are to designate them as being ignorant, Popish, priest-ridden, and superstitious ; you are to describe them as men of no property, of no intelligence, of no importance in the country, as compared with the Protestants ; and all this you are to do in order that you may be enabled to deny to them their fair demands, and be enabled to say to them, 4 Whatever the people of England and Scotland may have, you are unworthy of corporations—you must never look to be treated as equal to Englishmen, or have intrusted to you the franchise of self-government ; you are a superstitious herd, and far below our consideration to legislate about.' That is the policy which is put forth by those who endeavour to obtain the assent of the people of England to rescinding these resolutions." (Cheers.)

Lord John wound up his two-hours speech with a peroration founded upon the Latin passage quoted by Sir Robert Peel on Saturday at the Merchant Tailor's dinner—" discordia maximie res delabuntur " it was a maxim applicable to an empire as well as a party- " You will stand together with Ireland : if you will make !reined the strength of your strength, a part of your united body, then, indeed, with re- spect to any convulsions that may take place, with respect to any dangers that may threaten you, you may have the power to defeat and overcome them ; but if you divide that strength, and have three-fourths of the people of Ireland against you, and then have an insurrection in your colonies, or be threatened with danger from foreign powers, your means of defence, I say, arc crippled, and your power for future exertions greatly impaired. You can no longer keep the people of Ireland subject to your sway as if they were a low, a vile, and an alien race. You cannot hope to maintain the empire on these conditions." (Ministcr id cheers.)

The question that the Speaker leave the chair, having been put, Sir Titomas ACLAND moved that the resolutions of the 7th and 8th April 1835 be read at the table by the Clerk. Which motion having been agreed to, the Clerk read them as follows- " That any surplus revenue of the present Church Establishment in Ireland, not required for the spit itual care of its members, be applied to the moral and religious education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion, pro. Tiding for the resumption of such surplus, or of any such part of it as may be required by an increase iu tine number of the members of the Established Church. "'That it is that opinion of this }loose, that no measure on the subject of Tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and Mud aujustment, which dues not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution."

Sir THOMAS ACLAND then rose to move that these resolutions be rescinded. He strongly denied that in the course he had adopted he was in the least degree actuated by a desire to establish a harsh or unjust system of government in Ireland, He simply wished to maintain the long-established rights of the Church. Neither did he desire or intend to prejudice the question of Irish tithes : on the contrary, he aimed at removing an obstacle to the satisfactory settlement of it. He fol- lowed the precedent set by Lord John Russell himself, when he moved the resolutions in which the principle then assumed for the satisfactory settlement of the tithe question was laid down. It would be no fault of his if the motion should give rise to an angry debate. In 1835, Lord John Russell had pointedly declared that there was no use in discussing the subject of tithes until the principle on which the settle- ment could be made bad been agreed upon. He hoped that what was a justification for Lord John Russell in 1835 might be adduced by one of his opponents in 1838. He did not know whether the Appropria- tion-clause lurked in Lord John's present resolutions, or not—he could not find it ; but were it there or not, sure he was that the most artful casuistry or mystification could not have been more successfully em- ployed than they were in Lord John Russell's speech, to keep the House in ignorance whether the Ministers did or did not intend to err- force the principle of Appropriation. With respect to the advantage of laying down the principle assumed in 1835, he would ask what pro- gress had been made towards the settlement of the question during the last three years? All he wanted was to relieve the House from shackles which fettered it, and had prevented the settlement which all parties desired. With this view be moved that the resolutions be rescinded.

Sir EARDLEY WastoT seconded the motion. Sir CHARLES LEMON opposed the motion, as useless, except t a triumph to the Tories over the Government. It was a bad °(' - supported Sir Thomas Acland's motion. Lord LEVESON, Mr. Si.as":, and Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE opposed it. Mr. SLANEY would give no opinion respecting the Appropriation-principle, which he had never supported; but he would oppose a motion whose real ob.. plan was the absence of the Appropriation principle, turn his friends out of office. Mr. COLQUHOUN, Colonel CONOLLY, Mr. MILNES, and Mjrci.oeptLysitee,rasirrnirot Mr. FRENCH said, that the most remarkable poinItvhiinchthgeeript a bad original. opposite were so anxious to rescind ; but, should they carry the pen sent motion, their object would not be effected, for the 13th of Rielia7d, II., chapter 6, was an appropriation act, and so designated, by which' portion of the Church revenues was appropriated to secular purposes.

Lord STANLEY declared that be was quite in the dark with regard 1; the position in which the Appropriation stood, in the view of ahem, herson the Ministerial side of the House. Lord John Russell's speech had been carefully and artfully framed, so that he might one party, " I maintain your principle of Appropriation," and to th other, " 'You are raising a factious opposition to the s ttlm e great question "— "My honourable friend on the opposite side who has just sat down 1, broadly and distinctly declared that there is no principle of appropriation what. ever in the resolutions of the noble lord which are now before the House. lie said that the resolution of 1835 was not in this plan attempted to be carried into effect. The noble lord himself will hardly contend that it is. The resolution which was passed in 1835 declared that any surplus beyond that which was re. quired for the wants of the Protestant Church should be devoted to the me- poses of education, without any reference to the religious persuasion of those who were to be educated. A further resolution of the noble lord affirmed, that no plan could be final, or satisfactory for the settlement of the Tithe question, which did not embody that resolution. These were the resolutions which the noble lord proposed in 1835. Now, the more that the noble lord proves that iu his present resolutions there is no principle of appropriation of the surplus, the more necessary is it that the resolution of my honourable friend the honor;. able baronet be agreed to, and the resolution rescinded which denies the poi;.. bility of a settlement of the Tithe question without embodying in it the Ap. propriation principle. The noble lord and the honourable gentlemen opposite are placed in this dilemma, and I defy them to get out of it. Either the ress lutions now proposed include the objectionable principle of applying to secular purposes the revenues of the Church, or they do not. If they do, then it in I principle which the noble lord is perfectly aware that gentlemen sitting upon this side of the House never will give their assent to. He knows that no propo. skims founded upon such a.principle can lead to a settlement of the Tithe quo. Lion. If, then, the resolutions do not include that Appropriation principle,and the noble lord has declared that they do not, he has avowed, then, that this in a settlement which dues not contain a principle without which he has already avowed that it can be neither satisfactory nor final. Is it, then, too much ti ask of the noble lord, when he invites us to an amicable settlement, to beg of bin at once not to stultify himself as well as us? He has laid down in a resolution, that there can be no satisfactory settlement without a certain principle being agreed to. We ask of him to rescind a resolution which declares that the settlement he is now proposing cannot be final. The honourable gentlemen who has last spoken has certainly started an unexpected difficulty in this matter, and one which cannot easily be got rid of : the honourable gentleman has said that he did not think that it was open for us to rescind the principle of Appropriation, for if we did rescind the principle of Lord John Russell, yet there must still remain the act of Richard the Second, in which that principle is enforced. Now, I tell the honourable gentleman, I am quite willing and quite prepared to split the difference with him : if he will consent to rescind Lord John Russell's resolution, I am prepared to give him all the benefit of the statute of Richard." (Laughter.) Much reliance had been placed on the declaration of the Duke of Wellington respecting the settlement of the Irish questions; and Lord John Russell said that Ministers had shaped their conduct with the expectation of receiving the Duke's support- " The noble lord has told us, that when he consented to postpone the Corps. ration question until after the Tithe Bill and the Poor-law had been disposed of, he could not believe that the noble duke would have offered opposition 0 his Tithe resolutions. Now, a word or two as to the proceedings of the noble lord upon those questions. Does the noble lord recollect, that before the Easter recess, my right honourable friend the Member for Tamworth suggested to bin the extreme necessity of postponing the Municipal Bill until the question of Tithes was disposed of; and when the noble lord appeared to hesitate as to that course, he gave notice that he would make a motion, that the question (dm of Tithes) should take precedence of the other ; and about a week after that lane, the noble lord acted on the suggestion of my right honourable friend ; but even while acting on it, took distinct care to inform the House that he was by ca means acting in consequence of that recommendation from my right honourable friend. ( Cries e f "No, no ! ") I was present at the time. The noble lord did postpone the question until after Easter. He certainly allowed the Moot. cipal Bill to rest, and the other bill to take precedence of it. The noble lord declared that he did not act in accordance with the suggestion of my honour able friend. (Cries of " No, no ! ") I state this from my own recollection; but, however, I do not wish to press_ this point, for it is riot one of very great importance. But, then, the noble lord has spoken of an agreement or node r. standing being entered into or implied by the Duke of Wellington. This is I matter of too much importance, on account of the high station which the noble

.

duke deservedly holds with his country, that there should be a misunderstand' log with respect to his expressions. And I now ask the noble lord, will he pretend to tell me that the Duke of Wellington, at any time, or under any ctir- cumstacces, held out the hope that Inc would be a party to any agreeme which it was stipulated that the Appropriation-clause should be persevereda If an agreement were come to upon this question, must not the very 1:9`15!)! that agreement be the abandonment of the Appropriation-clause? and , abandoned, as it seems to be implied it is, by abandoning these resolution, tiPs I say that the manly, the straightforward, and the frank way of abanduffingoita would be, not to bring in ambiguous resolutions, which may be tort,tarnelwr, one shape, or into another, but to come forward and to say frankly, "L°. to settle this question, and, relying upon the honour of a noble personage, who has stated his wish to have it settled, we are anxious to join him in doing and in order that be may be sure we mean exactly to fulfil the compact, se with that understanding with him, frankly rescind a resolution which stands is the way of a fair and just settlement of the question.' Does the noble Ion pre' tend not to know the beneficial effects which the rescinding of that rese_rleu.t:ce, would have? Dues he not know that the minds of the clergymen of Ireland will be disturbed, and their fears excited, as long as be keeps that resolution hanging over their heads ; and that on rescinding it, they would consent o might settlement proposed by him, even though the greatest pecuniary sacrifices them? Does he not know that the greatest objection to the introdue. fall upon of the Municipal Bill into Ireland rests upon this? for before that measure Iismel oonsented to, it us desired to Fee greater security given to the Church. The MA lied declines to withdraw his resolution. It remains then over the heads noble

the clergy ; it fetters legislation, and it places a vast gulf between him and

as; for it may lead to and facilitate ulterior views." Lord STANLEY concluded by assuring the House that he was for a settlement of the Tithe question,—although he knew that the condi- tion of the Irish clergy would be benefited by postponement, as every year the sacrifice they were called on to make would becoe less ; but in the first instance, Ire required dust the Appropriationm resolutions should be rescinded.

Lord Molar/Aar said, that if there bad been any attempt to mislead or entrap the House, the trap-baiting had been on the other side. The

terms offered to the Irish clergy were distinctly stated, and more ad- vantageous titan those which Sir I henry Hardinge offered them in IS33. He entered into a recapitulation of the principal provisions of the Go- vernment plan ; and admitted that the Appropriation principle was not in the new measure- ii We may be told that we are giving up a principle for which we have battled : if that cry shall be raised, I can only say that I shall be happy to

meet it when it is. lu this explanation of the conduct of the Government, I

merely wish to state, that having once plainly laid down that principle which we think proper, expedient, and just—having done what in its ley, not once,

not twice, but in repeated instances, and in a series of bills to give effect to that principle—having dune diet, I am willing to admit, in the face of and in spite of much opposition and much public inconvenience, we have been willing to try, after so much of failure, which we admit and deplore—we have been willing to try whether, by making a more comprehensive change in the existing system, by taking a wider range, by removing every thing connected with the payment of tithe out of eight both of the occupier and of the owner of the land, by re- moving every thing connected with the collection of that obnoxious impost from the soil of Ireland—after doing what we fondly and credulously thought would have been an acceptance of an invitation held out from the highest and most illustrious quarter opposite—we have been willing to try whether we could not, by the measure which my noble ft iced has kid Oil the table, produce a ter- mination of the present unnhappy state of irritation and suspense and place the qtestien on a footing which, although it might not be wholly satisfactory to say party, should never thelesss be generally acquiesced in; and if we hail been met with any thing of the spirit of fair compromise and the desire of concilia- tion, would have affected the settlement of this question, and would have re. stored the country to that state of peace and comfort for which in this debate-

able territory the combatant, have been so long sighing. I protest in the face of man, and still more solinnely in the face of -God, that this was our simple and single object in bringing forward the measure which we have laid anon your table, although we know that in doing that we run the chance of exposing ourselves to much of obloquy and misrepresentation. The noble lord opposite, Lord Stanley, taunts us wills reeking conceahnent and elide:miming to entrap he unwaty, and with using •uisrepteeentations. As the resolutions stand at present, I ion sure any one who has given his attention to the imbiect will see that they make no .pretence of asserting the principle of Apprepriation; be- cause we did hope, in the face of this difficulties that environed the question, aod in the hope of obtaining a satiefactely solution and termination of it, that when we removed the cause of irritetiori iron; the sore place, we would insure a corresponding benefit. But the ineeinlmeut of the honourable baronet has given a new thin to the whole question, and to our entire course." (Cheers from both snits of the House.)

Lord Morpeth described the state of the Irish Church, its revenues, and duties; and then asked, whether it was to preserve such a system of established polity that the chivalry of the Opposition was called forth to cheek the progress of legislation and blast the hopes of amicable arrangement ?-

"By the scheme we now propose, we offer to Jo more than ever was done before, and to give up more than ever was conceded ',Awe, in order to effect an amicable settlement of this question. That is our view, spirit, and intention. But, its a patty struggle must be waged—a party vote must be given. (Minis- terial cheers.) Your expiring and flickering chance of a majority must under- go another risk ; and the gr I you have chosen for your appeal is the infal- lible, inalienable revenues, property, duties, and establishment of the Church of Leland. (Loud Opposition cheers.) Weil, then, in that valise 1 do not hesitate to take up your gage; and though the noble lord may here or else- where be ready to cry, Up Guards, and at them !' upon this the noble lord's favourite grows I of the Church of Ireland, as put in issue on the motion of the honourable baronet to rescind the resolutions of Ite35, I take up the challenge he has given, and with as firm a trust and as firm a emifidence as ever he can muster ; and may the truth prevail and prosper ! " (Loud cheers.)

At the conclusion of Lord Morpeth's speech, the debate was ad- journed, on the motion of Mr. LITTON.

On Tuesday, the discussion was opened by

Mr. LITTON; who maintained, that the proposition of Ministers would deprive the Irish clergy of SO per cent. of their income. Bait his statement is not intelligibly repotted, or it entirely failed to make good Mr. Litton's assertion.

Mr. LASCELLES followed, in support of Sir Thomas Aeland's amendment.; and Mr. IlsootvoTosr spoke on the other side.

Mr. TOWNLEY, most painfully to himself, bad opposed the Appro- priation resolutions ; but he would now support the Ministers, (in whom he always wished to place general conlidence,) as they had not, in their present plain for settling the Irish Tithe question, interwoven that principle, and to which he could not assent.

Mr. bum YOVNG and Lord SANDON supported the motion for re- scinding the resolutions.

Mr. &sere said, that in opposition to the persons with whom he generally acted, he had voted against the Appropriation clauses ; but he was not and never had been it party man ; and he looked upon Sir Thomas Acland's motion as merely a party movement against Minis. tern. It was a very different thing first to oppose the passing of a resolution, and then to support a motion to rescind one deliberately Passed by the Honse-

He must contend, and on mature consideration believe, that Sir Thomas Arland had made his present motion not with a simple desire to remove a resta- lutioo, to which he objected, from the journals of the House but for the r

Pie of a great trial of party strength, and that he had no other object e P inhui; proposal than to induce such a trial. Ile desired it especially to be understood, that in the vote which he would that night give, he did not depart from his ancient opinion : he would still oppose the male-appropriation of Church pro- perty in any form ; but be had looked at the noble lord's resolutions, and he did not see a vestige of the Appropriation principle. They were not very clear, he

would admit; but after carefully considering them, and after hevieg bee: C.c explanations which had been given oftheir niet twe .11 tee ceur•e of the delette, he declared that he could not discover a vestige of the Appropriation principle in them. Asa friend to the peace of Ireland, he conceived that it was a matter of great importance to have this great question settled ; and when, as he theueht, these resolutions might lead to such a settlement, what did he perceive? Why,

that a firebrand was thrown among them, and that it was tl gilt right to le- scind these obsolete and effete resolutions, which were binding on no one, winch were passed in a former Parliament, and which not Dire Member scarcely knew of as existing and in force before the present motion was brought forward from party-spirit to add to the difficulties of treating with !rebind. Mr. Watt° said, be had imagined that lie had discovered its the reso- lutions of this year the germ of the Appropriation principle ; but he was assured by Lord John Russell and Lord 'Morpeth, that, in conse- quence of the Duke of Wellington's overture at the close of last ses- sion, they had resolved to propose a measure abandoning the Appro- priation principle; and therefore on that point he could have no further doubt. Deeply did he regret this determination of the Government. He could not look upon the resolutiorts of Is1:35 as obsolete or effete. He looked upon them as living memoranda of the feelings of Parlia- ment; and, adhering foully and firmly to the principles they asserted believing that no satisfactory adjustment of the 'Lithe question could be made on any other principles—he deeply regretted the compromise into which the Government bad been drawn. Ito h8)4, he had pros posed a resolution in the following words- - 'nod oho Protestant Episcopal Establieliment in helmet ese.-eds the spivitled waists o: the Prote.itant population; and that it l■i•ine the rielit of the S:at, to ie.:Idato the distribution or Church property in such manilla', as P■1111;l1li011i play 'I I, it is the opinion of this I loom, that the temporal posses:1°1lb of the Chinch of In Lind, as DOW established by law, ought to be reduced."

And who was very nearly being his seconder in moving that reso- lution—and who, at any rate, hail voted for it ? Why, Sir Eardley R'ilinot, who now stood forward to second Sir Thomas Achiners motion to rescind resolutions involving the settle prinei;le. Sir Eardley Wilmot's constituents had been dissatisfied with that vote, had taxed him with it, and censured him for it ; and Sir Eardley had defended himself in a letter which be would read to the House. Mr. Ward accordingly read time letter; which amounted in substance to the de- claration of an opinion, that the application aro portion of Church pro- perty to the education of the people, would not weaken but siren:Awn the Establishment, and that he would use a steady hand in wiping off the rust which had defiled the alms and dimmed the lustre of the Church. The reading of this letter excited much cheering and laughter on the Alinisterial benches.

After speeches by Lord TEIGNMOVTII in favour of, and Mr. Ever.Lw against Sir Thorne,' Acland's motion, Mr. Slim addressed the House. Ile said it was right that Mem- bers should know the actual state of tithe property in Ireland ; and he made u figure statement, which, like most of the others in this debate, was either incorrect or confused as it came from tl:e speaker, or has been badly reported. One statement attributed to Mr. Shaw was, that of the sum of 486,7S41. payable for tithe to the

parochial clergy, was payable by landleade, who previonoly to 1835 had undertake,' the payment of I Ita,1:331 ; but none had been anti- dertilketl since, nor could there be under the ;lot. Slery promised Lord John Russell his coiaperatiort in settling the Tithe and Corpora- tion questions when once the Appropriation principle was discoidal

Mr. O'CONNELL said, he rose after Mr. Shaw, though not to answer him—not in consequence of any thing that gentleman had advanced- " post hune, non propter home." Mr. Shaw offered very liberal terms of alliance—if the Minister would do nothing, Mr. Shaw was ready to help him. These were the terms on which Mr. Shaw was ready to ally himself with the Home See:curry. Now, the real question before the House was, how should Ireln:,d be governed ? This was time ques- tion which had been under discussion for seven hundred years, Shall Ireland be governed by a section ? ( Vehentent shouts front the Opposi- tion.) Mr. O'Connell continued- " I thank you—(Noise renewed)—for that shriek. N toy a shout of inso- lent domination— (Noise) — despicable and contemptible as it is — (Xi/et ": have I heard against my country." (Uproar continued, duriny which Mr. O'Connell, with uplifted fist and great riolcuce of manner, uttered several sentences which were inaudible in the Gallery. The Speaker u-as at laq obliged to interfiTe and call the House to order.) " Let them shout. It is senseless yell. It is the spirit of the party that has placed you there. Ireland will hear your shrieks. (Continued uproar.) Yes; you may want tie :vitt. (Roars of laughter.) What would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? (Minisbrial cheers, awl Opposition lauyhter.) I ask not that guts. thus for your renowned Commander-it-Chief, who is himself an Irishmen, but for the hardy soldiery if Ireland, who fought the battle for him. (s' Question and laughter fruit the Opposition ) I say again, that is the question. The question is, shall the people of Ireland be ainalgemated with the people of Eng- land ? Refuse to receive us into that amalgamation, and abide the consequences. (Cries of " Hear!" front the Opposition benches.) Surer at Inc as you like, but recollect that I speak the voice of millions, who will bear again of the base insult offered to me this evening. (Cheers front the Irish Members, accompa- nied by an observation from Mr. Grattan, which was not heard in the Gal- lery, list which caused a titter on the Opposition benches.) Why should lo.it the eon of Grattan say—(Ilere the cheers and laughter drowned the remainder of the sentence.) The English people, too, are auditors of your taunt. You teil us that you can command a majority: I say to you in reply, early your bribery a little further, and you will really have a majority. (" Question, ques- tion I") More extensive bribery than you practised at the last election never yet. was practised in this world ; and the highest amongst you shrink from its in- vestigation." ("Question, question !")

The resolutions, he admitted, did not go far enough ; but lie watt ready to accede to them, for the sake of an amicable arrangement- " The Protestant landlords are now beginning to feel the weight of tithes equally with the Catholics. From the county of Cork we perceive vast nutn- bers of petitions proceeding from all classes of politicians. The Conservative landlords are becoming heartily sick of the payment of tithes. They may call

rent,' but the tenant understands it as an additional burden to his rent. If the tenant appeals to the agent for distraining for rent before the man is pre- pared to pay it, the agent tells him that the clergyman of the parish is pressing the landlord for his tithes, and he is obliged to collect his rent sooner than 'Aher- n:5e it should be done, for the purpose of paying the clergyman's demand ; and thus it is that though you may call it rent, the people feel it to be tithes. The Protestant landlords, and even many of the Protestant clergymen, are calling for a settlement of the question. Even within the last week, time hetet of eh- deacon lloale has been publish,rl, in which be calls upon his brother'clergymen to accept the admirable terms offered by the Queen's Government. Will not these terms be allowed to be accepted ? It is true that here Protestantism is nixed up with politics, and the interests of religion are apt to he overlooked in the advantages of party. Piety is combined with love of place, and the tran- quillity of Ireland neglected for the hope of the enjoyment of office. The Pro- testant gentry as well as the people in Ireland call for conciliation now. Let, thee, Ireland be now tranquillized ; and, as far as an humble individual can do, 1 have set the example already, and I am ready to follow it up."

c4 Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that Mr. O'Connell's speech would of itself justify a vote in favour of Sir Thomas Achind's motion. He asked Mr. O'Connell, how he could support the Ministers, who practically abandoned the Appropriation principle, if the attempt to rescind the resolutions of 1835 was, as he would say, a proof of she desire and inten- tion of the Conservatives to rule Ireland harshly and unjustly? Sir Robert reminded Ministers, that he had foretold their triumph would be short—(Ministerial cheers)—he had not said that their tenure of office would be brief, but there was such a thing as holding office in a not very triumphant manner. He referred to the circumstances which had preceded and caused his resignation in 1835; und defended his sub- sequent conduct in reference to the Irish measures of Government. He appealed to Lord John Russell, whether it would not be fur more manly and politic openly to consent to the repeal of the resolutions of 183.5, than to adhere to them in form while he practically set them aside ? With respect to the insinuation that Ministers had been duped and misled by the Opposition, he positively and indignantly denied that on any occasion be had given them the slightest cause to expect that he would sibundon his opposition to the Appropriation principle. lie would, however, maintain, that there never proceeded from any Ministry a proposition better calculated to entrap its opponents, than that of Lord John Russell ; whose best friends and most experienced supporters were absolutely at a loss to say whether the Appropriation principle was contained in the Government Tithe resolutions or not. lie considered it absolutely necessary to arrive ut a clear and definite understanding on this point— There were three courses ay which this understanding might have been attained : either the noble lord might have made a manly and frank avowal, that, findiug it impossible to pass this ineastne tittered with the principle of the resolutions of 1833, he was prepared to sacrifice the Appropriatiou clause in order to arrive at a satisfactory adjustment of the questiou ; or we might have Drought forward an abstract resolution of our own, condemnatory of the prim tilde of appropriation,—but that was a course which appeared to us obnoxious to the objection urged against your own resolutions of 1835, that they were abstract resolutions, fettering the practical consideration of a p reticular subject; Or lastly, the means were open to us which we have adopted, of obtaining the feeling of the Ilowie upon this question, and of showing our faithful adherence to the principles which we formerly defended, by moving the reeeindiug of those resolutions of 1830, as being calculated to obstruct the satisfactory settlement of this great practical question. To have put off this discussion, would not in the least have forwarded the practical result ut which we aim. We could not have discussed these resolutions in Committee without giving use to it ; or if your course had been by bill, the very preamble to the bill woula have raised the question ; and thtrefore, on the whole, it appeared to us most satisfactory that as a arelitninary proaeding we should elicit the (I ) i ll ion of the present Parliament upon this great twilit ut issue, and show that our opinion remains unchanged in refer:uce to it."

Sir Robert contended, thut the people of this country never would have consented to the repeal of the Catholic disabilities, hakithey foreseen this attack on the Church, which it was intended to fortify by the Catholic Emancipation Act. With respect to the general question of education, he believed lie held nearly the same opinions as Lord John Russell ; but he never would consent to alienate the pro- perty of the Protestant Church to support a system of education from which the principles of the Protestant faith were excluded.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from Sir Robert Peel, he defied any person of the smallest practical know- ledge to entertain any doubt on the question whether the Appropriation principle was or was riot contained in the resolutions. Had any doubt existed, the plain question might hove been asked ; but that course would not have suited gentlemen opposite. They wanted a trial of strength, and should have it. He for one did not regret that another opportunity was allowed for reconsidering the question. It was now pretended that the Appropriation resolutions alone stood in the way of settling the Tithe question ; but it could not be forgotten, that in 1834, a measure passed by the Commons without the Appropriation prin- ciple had been rejected by the Tory party in the Lords. For the sake of peace, the principle so odious to gentlemen opposite had not been introduced into the new resolutions : but, not content with that con- cession, the opposite party called upon Ministers to degrade themselves by rescinding the resolutions of 1835. To this they would not con- sent ; and he repeated his satisfaction that the matter was again to be put in issue. He maintained that the real friends of the Church ought to have taken a different course— They ought to have been contented to go into Committee—to adopt those parts of the Government plan of which they approved, and to reject those which they condemned: they should have utrlertaken the inquiry in a spirit of good-will, peace, and candour, instead of introducing into the discussion all the most angry passions, all the most formidable divisions, and doing what Mr. Plunket mice said in that House was the greatest of all dangers—" chaining men to opinions which practically they were disposed to abandon." (Loud ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Well, hod gentlemen opposite any great triumph from that expression ? lie had said no more than the resolution —he was ready to take the second best in-tead of the best ; but they would never be so base or false as to put a negative on their own resolutions, which they believed in their consciences to be founded iu nothing but what was just. The House divided—

For going into Committee at once ....

For rescinding the resolutions of 1885 us a preliminary L2917i

Ministerial majority 19

The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers on the Ministerial side.

The House went into Committee, pro forma ; but immediately afterwards, on the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Committee rose, to sit again on Monday next ; when Lord John said he would state the course lie intended to pursue.

MISCELLANEOUS.

WATERFORD CITY ELECTION. On Tuesday, the Chairman reported that Mr. Barron was duly elected. [The charge of bribery against Me Barron, on which the petitioners relied, utterly broke down : the chief witness was, according to his own statement, suborned to " make outs case" by a promise of 401.]

of June. Lord John Churchill, complaining of the return of the Marquis of Blandford for Woodstock. To be taken into consideration on the 7th

WOODSTOCK ELECTION. A petition was presented on Monday from SCOTTISH SMALL DEBTS BILL. This bill passed through the Com. mittee on Wednesday, after several attempts to diminish the pernicious authority it is intended to confer on Scotch Justices of the Peace. The principal division was on a motion to limit the jurisdiction of the Justices to 5/. sterling, instead of 1001. Scots ; which was rejected by 60 to 40, although supported by Mr. MURRAY the Lord Advocate, Ms, Fox MAULE, and Sir JOHN CAMPBELL.