to enter with them; but he called on them in the first instance to blot out all the encumbrances which had embarrassed the former system. He called on the House to remit the 640,000l., of which they ought never to have demanded payment; and with respect to the remainder of the arrears, he proposed that a com

possible, he asked them whether they should leave this festering sore-this national blister-this canker-preying upon the vitals of the country? Instead of conciliation, increased disturbance must result from any attempt to levy this 640,000l. If they persevered in the proposed system, with reference not only to that sum, but to the arrear which had since accrued,mittee should have the power of diminishthey compelled the parties to do all they ing it at least to the extent of the dicould to recover every farthing of the minished rent-charge. He proposed that money. It would be better to leave mat- they should strike off twenty-five per cent. ters as they were, than, under the flimsy Let there be a committee or commission pretext of conciliation, to make it not to investigate how much was due to each only the interest but the duty of every of the clergy, and by whom. Wherever tithe-owner to look for his arrears. They solvent persons were discovered, let them urged the tithe-owner, in fact, no longer be obliged to pay their arrears, and let to forbear. They might take this course the arrears be remitted in those districts if they pleased; but let them not remain in which there were likely to be disturbfor a moment under the delusion that they ances. In the meantime let the operation were establishing a system of conciliation of the law be suspended. As to the rein Ireland. They might talk as they sidue, the arrears which had since accrued, would of the impropriety of allowing men he proposed to remit no more than twentyto set the law at defiance; they might five per cent. to any solvent person; but talk of submission to the constituted au- there should, at all events, be an inquiry thorities, and of the necessity of enforcing as to the places in which the suing for the majesty of the law- all admirable these arrears would give rise to disturbphrases, truisms of the most perfect and ances. The report of the commission undoubted excellence, but utterly inap- might be completed by the first day of plicable to any statesmanlike attempt at next Session. Two or three intelligent governing Ireland by the policy of con- men would be sufficient to conduct the ciliation. What did the people care for inquiry. By this means they would resuch phrases? The more they talked of move the irritating process of litigation, abstract justice and abstract law, the they would be enabled to ascertain with more would the people recur to the ab- accuracy in what districts disturbances stract injustice of making one, and that were likely to take place, and in what the greater, portion of the inhabitants of districts it was probable, that they would a country pay for maintaining the religion be unable to levy the tithes under the of the remainder. When they came out present system. By the first day of the with these fine phrases, the people of Ire- next Session they would be enabled to land would say in reply, that they saw the devise proper means for recovering all church in England supported by the the solvent arrears. If it were to be a people-a church which was the church new system, let it be altogether new. of the majority of the people; that the Let it not be a partial and piebald syschurch of Scotland was paid by the tem, with so much of the old system as people-a church which was the church would tend to produce vexation, and so of the overwhelming majority of the much of the new as would create empeople; while in Ireland the church of barrassment and confusion. He had tresthe people had no connexion whatever passed at greater length upon their attenwith the state-and God forbid that it tion than he had originally intended; but ever should while the state establish- he could not help conjuring the House to ment (of which he did not at all mean to make this concession in a spirit of genuine speak disrespectfully) was the church of conciliation. Let no man taunt him with a miserable minority. Under these cir- desiring to take English money. It was cumstances, what was it that he proposed? true that he did; but, when they looked The House had drawn the line; tithes and to the advantages which would result from tithe composition were now to disappear the sacrifice, they would not hesitate to for ever. They were entering on a new make it, if they were actuated by a sinplan, and he (Mr. O'Connell) proposed [ cere desire to win over the people of Ire

Lord John Russell was very doubtful as to the formality of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion, and, even if it were carried, he did not think that it would obtain for him the object which he proposed. His right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had a proposition to make with regard to the arrears of tithes, and when that proposition was submitted to the House would be the most proper time to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal into consideration.

Lord Stanley said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite pressed his motion to a division, and if it were consistent with the forms of the House, he should feel it his duty to support it. He wished to guard himself against more than expressing an opinion, in which he fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the bill would fail in a beneficial result, even in a larger degree than was antici

land by conciliation. Notwithstanding | in point of form, he would give notice of all the veneration in which the Marquess his intention to move an address to her of Normanby was held in Ireland-not- Majesty for the remission of the 640,0007., withstanding the perpetual counsels which and would now move, that it be an instructhe people received from the clergy, and tion to the Committee to make arrangetheir commands, where that was possible ments for the diminution or discharge of -not, as it were, to tarnish the adminis- the arrears of tithes now due. tration of the noble Lord by offence or outrage-it should still be remembered, that as yet the people of Ireland had obtained no real measure of legislative relief. The Municipal Bill they had not yet passed. All that they had given them was a poor-law. He had seen it reported that the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government had stated it in another place to be the great objection to the Poor-law that it would become a burthen on the landlords of Ireland. There never was a more fatal mistake. The real objection was, that the burthen was imposed upon the occupiers of the land, who must pay in every case one half of it. From placing the burthen on the shoulders of the landlord he should not be at all disposed to shrink. What he did shrink from was, placing it upon the occupying tenant; and he denounced it as another ingredient in the cup of Ireland's misery. It was also proposed under the new sys-pated, if it did not involve some provision tem of tithes to levy these arrears; and for the settlement of the arrears. here was another source of discontent and immediate object of the acts which had disaffection. He knew that insurrection been already passed was, to promote the in Ireland would be put down. He should peace and tranquillity of Ireland, by subbe sorry to think, that it should not be sup- stituting a payment to the clergy from the pressed. No undisciplined force could re- landlords, the majority of whom were sist the mighty army of this country; but Protestants, for a payment by the occupysince they talked of their wish to con- ing tenants, who he was ready to admit ciliate, he took them at their word. He were very little able to bear the burden, called on them to do so, and to agree to and were, besides, of a religion different their resolving themselves into a Com- from that of the Established Church. mittee with an express instruction to take his opinion the whole benefit to be derived this matter into consideration. He hoped from the bill must depend on the condithat his plan was wide enough to embrace tion, that from the period when the bill the opinions of hon. Gentlemen at every shall have come into operation there shall side of the House, and he should there- be no more demands made by the Profore move, "That it be an instruction to testant clergy upon the Roman Catholic the Committee to provide for the means of population. The bill, he repeated, would discharging the arrears of tithes now due fail in its object if the House either alin Ireland." lowed or compelled the clergy, in vindication of their rights, to proceed against the occupying tenants for the arrears now due. The question for the House to consider was a grave and serious one-namely, in what manner, doing justice to all parties and injustice to none, it was possible to provide for the payment of those arrears, His right hon. Friend opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had

The Speaker observed, that the motion appeared to him to be informal, inasmuch as it was, in point of fact, asking for a grant of public money.

Mr. O'Connell replied, that he did not want the House to make any grant of money. All that he wanted was a receipt for money which had been already granted. As there was an objection to his motion

The

In

the landlords received their rents better and more satisfactorily than before. That He such was the fact was notorious. said, then, that they had derived some advantage from the state in which the law had been left by the tithe agitation and the non-payment of tithes by the occupying tenant. Having derived this benefit, the Irish landlords had no right to call upon the clergy to make a large sacrifice upon their parts, nor upon the State to make a sacrifice of the public money, and contribute nothing themselves. He understood his right hon. Friend to say, that until he knew the amount of the arrears due and payable by the occupying tenant, he could not tell whether the 360,0001. remaining would be sufficient or not. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to make the landlords liable to a certain per centage of the arrears due by the tenants. [Mr. O'Connell: Due by themselves and all solvent tenants.] He was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition would lead to a general declaration of insolvency throughout Ireland if insolvency were to be the exemption from the payment of the arrears. He thought that where the arrears were due from the landlords themselves, they ought to be paid without deduction. He hoped he understood his right hon. Friend to say, that the arrears should be paid partly by the landlord and partly by the State; that the landlords should pay a portion, say 20 per cent., of the arrears due to the clergy upon their estates, and, that in consideration of the sacrifice thus made by the clergy, a discharge be given to them by the state of the amount of arrears now due. Without some such provision, which it was the duty of the Government to propose, and of Parliament to agree to, with a view to the peace and conciliation of Ireland, the bill would fail to produce any beneficial results. His object in supporting the motion was, to express his opinion, that without these arrangements the measure would not succeed. It was most material, that after the bill came into operation, no levy should be made by the clergy upon the occupying tenants. In justice, the House could not deprive the clergy of this right, nor refuse to assist them in the exercise of it, unless they made with them some fair and reasonable compromise. He felt confident, that the clergy would not be found hard or unreasonable in the exaction of this compro

stated to the House the other day the outline of a plan for remitting to the clergy the arrears, if they would consent to remit to the people the whole of what was due to them. But it was not fair to the clergy, who had waited with exemplary patience for the fulfilment of the hopes which were held out to them of a final and satisfactory settlement of the question, and who had upon the faith of these representations forborne to put their claims in force; it was not fair to them to say, that the condition of remitting the arrears or debt due by them should be their remitting to the occupying tenants not only all the arrears due to them up to 1835, but also those which had since accrued to the present year. To exact such a condition was imposing upon the clergy terms grossly and manifestly unjust. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to relieve the occupying tenant at a grievous expense to the clergy, and none to the landlords, and without any assistance from the state. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to relieve them and the clergy to a certain extent at an expense charged to the State alone. He (Lord Stanley) knew the difficulty of dealing with questions like the present in such a manner as not to give occasion for invidious observations or irritating discussion. This he was most anxious to avoid, but he must say, that there was one consideration which both his right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dublin should not leave out. There was this additional objection to both plans, that those who pertinaciously resisted the law would obtain a benefit which those who had complied with the law would be deprived of. He admitted the force of all the arguments against calling upon the occupying tenant for the payment of those arrears, which for a long time they had been taught to hope they would not be called upon to pay. He saw the importance of the case, and he thought that the State ought to make a sacrifice if the peace of Ireland was to be obtained by it. As an Irish landlord, he would say, that they had no right to call upon the State to bear their burdens. He would say, that although the Irish landlords might not have derived any pecuniary advantage directly in their own pockets, they had yet derived an advantage to some extent. In those districts where the opposition to tithes was greatest, and none were paid,

mise, and he hoped, that Parliament | land, however, the case was different. He would do everything they could for the was assumed to be a person of intelligence settlement of this painful and embarrassing question.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed entirely with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley), that the present measure would be defective, unless they made some provision for the payment of the arrears. He also agreed with his noble Friend, in thinking the question one of great difficulty and importance. Before he explained his plan, he wished to meet an objection made by his noble Friend, but which applied to his noble Friend's suggestion as well as to his own plan. Nothing could be more plausible than to say, that the House ought not to countenance a principle the effect of which conferred a reward upon those who had pertinaciously resisted the law. He felt strongly (none could feel it more) the inconvenience of calling upon the House to affirm by Act of Parliament a measure producing such a result. He must say, however, that every plan for the settlement of this question was open to the same objection, and they could only get rid of it, by rigidly enforcing all the arrears from all the parties. His noble Friend had come to a conclusion which had certainly surprised him very much. His noble Friend had stated, that the plan which he proposed, involved no sacrifice from the state. Why, it involved no less a sacrifice by the state than giving up the right to the recovery of a sum of 640,000l. That perhaps might not be considered any very great sacrifice, but to say, that there was none, was altogether a misapprehension. He was prepared at the proper time fully to explain the proposition which he had thrown out. At the risk of anticipation he would do so now. He wished, however, first to call the attention of the House to the principle of the present bill. That principle was this-that with respect to tithes, they ought to relieve the occupying tenant. From the owner of the land they ought to collect whatever Parliament should determine he ought to pay. He admitted, that there was a difficulty, amounting almost to an impossibility, to recover the tithes from the occupying tenant. This difficulty arose partly from his being of a different religion from the minister, partly from his poverty, the smallness of the sum, and various other causes. With respect to the owner of the

and education, of the same religion as the clergyman, and therefore identified with the Church establishment, so that in respect to him, there could be no difficulty about the collection, or the effectual service of legal process. Let them apply this principle in respect to the arrears due by the clergy. In considering the settlement of this question, were there any grounds of public expediency or public policy, to require from the occupying tenant the arrears due to the clergy? It was utterly impossible to collect these arrears from the occupying tenants, without endangering the peace and tranquillity of the country. There were two inquiries to be made-first, what was the amount of the proposed sacrifice? and secondly, what was the nature and extent of the compensation given for it? If it should turn out, that the sacrifice was not great, while the compensation was considerable, he did not think there ought to be much difficulty about the adjustment. They had heard it stated by several hon. Gentlemen at the other side, that the great bulk of the tithes was paid by the owners of the land, who were Protestants. From the owners of the land the clergy could and ought to recover the full amount due to them; but did any one believe, that if Parliament left to the clergy the full power which they now possessed, they could recover the arrears from the occupying tenants? No; past experience taught them the impossibility of such a thing. For this sacrifice of those arrears Government was willing to give them compensation by the remission of 940,000l., while they would have in future to look for their payments to a new rent-charge upon the landlord. The first equivalent for the sacrifice was, in point of fact, the better security of the property created by the statute, and while the sacrifice was transitory the benefit was durable and permanent. He said, further, that there were cases in which, if the House acted with rigour, the clergy ought to be made to pay the whole amount of the advance, and get the money due to them from those who owed it. It was for the benefit of the clergy themselves, and the peace of Ireland, that the claims against the occupying tenant should not be pressed. There was a modification of his plan to which he saw no objection; he proposed the

man.

remission of 640,000l., if the clergy con- | occupying tenants of Ireland. Whenever, sented to abandon the amount, not of the then, the question was brought forward, whole tithes, but of those due from the he should be prepared to vote with the occupying tenant. The modification to hon. and learned Gentleman for an absowhich he alluded was, to allow the recovery lute remission of the 640,000l. They of the quinquennial instalments under the then came to other arrears, which were not Million Act, so far as they were due, from covered by the advance of 640,000l., and the owners of the first state of inheritance; the proposition of the right hon. Gentleand this, not for the benefit of the state, man was to waive the 640,000l., if the but as a further consideration to the clergy Irish clergy abandoned all claims on the for the sacrifice of their arrears. Occupying tenants, not only as to the arrears covered by the 640,000l., but also all arrears that had occurred since. He thought the proposition a manifestly unjust one, and he for one would never give his consent to it. The Irish Tithe Bills brought in, in 1835 and 1836, by Govern ments of opposite political opinions agreed in this, that they remitted the 640,000l., and deprived the clergy of the right to recover the arrears, and they made a provision as to the arrears which had subsequently occurred by applying to them the remainder of the million. Both bills agreed in giving 640,000l. for the former arrears, and 307,0001. for the arrears which had occurred in the intervening time. What was the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why, that, upon the remission of the 640,000l., the whole of the arrears covered by that advance, as well as the whole of the arrears for the intervening period, should be remitted by the Irish clergy. What pretence was there for making a proposal that the whole burden should fall upon the clergy of Ireland? They had not been the cause of the failure of the bills proposed, for whomsoever the blame rested, they were not to blame. He was not about to censure the course which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had so manfully taken, a course which he thought the best that could be taken,looking at the difficulties with which this great question was surrounded in Ireland. He believed really and conscientiously that they had taken the best course for the general interest of the country and the peace of Ireland. But the clergy had not been the party to obstruct the settlement of this question, and why should they bear the whole penalty of the delay that had taken place? This would be a manifest injustice. It would be just that the clergyman who had received a part of the 640,000l. in lieu of his tithes should remit the arrears to the amount received, but to expect the clergyman who never received part of the advance to give

Sir Robert Peel observed, that this discussion related to arrears due to the Irish clergy, which might be considered under different heads. First, as to the arrears which were covered by the advance of 640,000Z.; next as to the arrears which had occurred subsequently, and for which no provision had yet been made by Parliament. Singular as it might seem, he was disposed to give his support to the proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He had no hesitation in saying, that as far as the proposition referred to the 640,000l., he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned GentleHe conceived it to be utterly impossible to exact from the clergy of Ireİand that 640,000Z.; because exacting it from them would give them a corresponding right to recover the arrears. He, fo the sake of peace, and to avert the ill consequences that might arise from an attempt to recover the arrears, was prepared to say, that any attempt now to recover these arrears would be fraught with injustice. They ought on that point to relieve the occupying tenants and the clergy there could be no question about it. The clergy of Ireland saw successive Governments bring in bills for the remission of the 640,000l., and the occupying tenants were placed under the impression that it would be remitted. Could it, then, be possible, after a delay of three or four years, to say to the clergy that they must proceed for the arrears? It would be absolutely impossible. An immense majority of that House thought that it was absolutely necessary for the treasurer to remit the claim of 640,000l., and also to deprive the clergy of recovering the amount of arrears covered by the 640,0007. He must also say, that where the clergy had recovered the amount of the arrears, they ought to repay the amount they had obtained. He was prepared, then, to defend this course, not merely as a favour to the clergy, but as one of justice to the