balance to the legal claimant. Where the arrears were due in a compounded parish, the sum to be advanced was to be regulated by the composition; in other cases, where there was no special agreement, by an average of the bona fide produce of the tithe to the incumbent for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. As the crown, on making the advances, was to become entitled to the arrears, it was recommended that the Attorney General should be empowered to sue for them either by petition in Chancery or Exchequer or by civil bill at the county Quarter Sessions. -Although the committee was not yet prepared to report upon the system in general, they added they had already seen enough to satisfy them "that, with a view to secure both the interests of the church and the lasting welfare of that country, a permanent change of system will be required; that such a change, to be safe and satisfactory, must involve a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of the church (as far as relates to tithes), and at the same time to remove all pecuniary collisions between the parochial clergy and the occupiers of land."

On the 8th of March, the marquis of Lansdowne moved, in the House of Lords, resolutions adopting and embodying the recommendations of the report. No opposition was offered to them. The peers who were most zealous on the side of the church agreed that some measure of this kind had become necessary in order to relieve the clergy who had in the

mean time been deprived of their incomes; and the only resolution which went farther was that which embodied the opinion of the committee of the necessity of extinguishing tithe by converting it either into land, or into a rent or charge upon land, but without pledging the House to the one or to the other. In its present shape, therefore, it was not formally opposed. The marquis of Lansdowne said that Ireland furnished great facilities for providing for the clergy either in the one way or in the other; but he thought it clear that no man, who read the evidence taken before the committee, could think of proposing that tithes should continue on their present footing. The evidence of the archbishop of Dublin was decisive on this point: "As for the continuance of the tithe system, it seems to me that it must be at the point of the bayonet-that it must be through a sort of chronic civil war. The ill feelings, which have so long existed against it, have been embodied in so organized a combination, that I conceive there would be continually breakings out of resistance which must be kept down by a continuance of very severe measures, such as the government might indeed resolve to have recourse to for once, if necessary, but would be very unwilling to resort to habitually, so as to keep the country under military government: and the most intelligent persons, and the most experienced I have conversed with, seem to think that nothing else will permanently secure the payment of tithes under the present system."

The earl of Wicklow said that he would strenuously object to the proposal for converting the tithe

into a rent charge. To constitute the landlords of Ireland titheproctors to the church would be fraught with the worst consequences. The other plan, that of commuting tithes by exchanging them for land, was infinitely preferable, and was not by any means an impracticable measure. He hoped, however, that, in any arrangements which might be adopted, church cess would be included as well as tithe. The bishop of London, who had been on the committee, and the archbishop of Canterbury, approved of the resolutions. No other prelate stated any objection; and therefore the duke of Wellington was willing to assume that the plan involved no substantial injury or injustice to the church; but still the manner of making the permanent conversion would require much consideration. Would it be fair or just to throw the tithes on the landlord during existing leases? and was it probable that the landlords would be inclined to recover them from the present occupiers of the land? It might be very fair and just to do so as regarded future leases, as had been done by the Composition Act; but it would not be equitable to throw the tithes on the landlord, under existing leases, when he could not indemnify himself except by the vexatious process of recovery against the present occupier. To the purchase of land, to take the place of the tithe, he saw no objection, if the bishops had none; but, in that case, the government must collect the tithes, or throw them on the landlord. The earl of Eldon expressed his disappointment that the bishops should have concurred in a measure which went to annihilate existing church property, while it was left altogether VOL. LXXIV.

undecided what sort of a thing was to come in its place. He saw that opposition was useless, but the measure should not have his assent. It would be absurd to suppose that what was to take place in Ireland in this instance, would not be sure afterwards to take place in England also. The earl of Aberdeen could not underderstand why, when the House was not asked to pledge itself to either of the two plans mentioned by the committee, it should be asked to pledge itself to the extinction of tithes, on one of two principles, neither of which the government itself had yet adopted. Might not, in the course of discussion, a third plan arise, more desirable than either? The marquis of Lansdowne explained that, if a third and better plan should be suggested, the House would not be barred from adopting it. All that was aimed at by this part of the resolutions was, that there should appear on the part of the House a determination to take up the question with a view to an equitable accommodation-an accommodation to be proposed after carefully considering all the various modes in which the amount of the tithe could be taken from the land-and from the land only could it be taken. This was the principle on which the report proceeded. All the committee had as yet intended to do was, to state their opinion that the burthen should be laid upon the land for the purpose of preventing those collisions between the clergyman and the tithe-payer, which, at present, were unavoidable.

On the same day Mr. Stanley brought the subject before the House of Commons, where, however it did not pass over by any [Q]

means so smoothly. As he intended to state the whole plan which government had in contemplation, with all its details, he moved, for that purpose, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the report, a course which appeared to him most advisable, putting it in his power to give every explanation which might be required, and to take the opinion of the committee separately on each of the resolutions. The motion was vehemently opposed by the Irish members, who disliked what was known of the plans of government, because they did not go far enough, on the ground that the propositions intended to be brought forward ought to be fully explained, before the House was asked to go into committee upon them; and forthwith they proceeded to discuss in the House the very measures, their pretended ignorance of which was made the ostensible cause of resisting the motion. The attack was begun by Mr. Brownlow, one of the members for the county of Armagh, and once a violent AntiCatholic Tory, but, of late, an ever-changing liberal. Professing ignorance of any thing more than was contained in the report, he maintained that it was too partial and imperfect to be made the subject of consideration in committee. Why not wait till all the evidence had been taken, and the whole subject investigated by the committee? Why thus press forward to consider the case of the parish clergymen, without entering into the consideration of the other interests involved in this question? The case of the incumbent and of the tithe-payer should be considered together. It was only in that way that satisfaction could be given to all parties, and something like a

settlement effected. The resolutions founded on the report, went to this fearful extent,-that laws of severity and coercion were to be entrusted to the authorities in Ireland, to recover the dues of the parish priest. Now this was a proposition which would not serve the parish clergyman, and which would rather injure than advance the object which the government professed to have in view. Would laws of coercion and severity dry up the bad blood which, there was now between the church and the congregation? The mere announcement of the intentions of government on this subject would act as an excommunication between the parish clergyman and his parishioners. He believed that no motion could be more injurious to the Protestant establishment in Ireland than that which should be founded on this report. The only way to save the Protestant church in Ireland was to remove from it the cause of injustice, of tumult, and, it might be, of civil war. He did not mean that the sums due to the clergy under the old law were not to be at all recoverable under the new; but this he did state, that, if the object was, to protect the parish clergy and to recover their incomes for them, government was entering upon a wrong course in adopting measures of severity and coercion. Government should come manfully forward, and, by the side of severity and coercion, should state in distinct terms that it was prepared to make, not only a reform, but a radical change and amendment in the church of Ireland. Then he for one should say that he had no objection to measures of severity for a season, provided that he saw government winning the hearts of

the people to itself by measures of conciliation and reform. It was very desirable to know-and therefore he complained of the partial nature of the report-whence had sprung the opposition to the payment of tithes in Ireland. Here was a committee appointed to inquire into the subject of tithes, and yet not one word was as yet to be found upon its minutes explanatory of the origin of this opposition. Whence arose the unanimous resistance to the payment of tithes? In his belief the opposition by no means sprung, generally speaking, either from severity or oppression in their exaction. Such undoubtedly was not the case in respect to the clergy of Ireland; for generally speaking that body had exercised their rights with singular moderation and temper in all the difficulties by which they had been surrounded. It should be distinctly understood that the resistance to the payment of tithes could not be said to emanate from severity on the part of the clergy of Ireland. Whence, then, did it arise? and in replying to that query, he would ask another question-Whence arose the Reformation in this country? It arose from this fact, that the sober people of England, at that time having adopted a new religion, could not be brought to see the wisdom or common sense of being of one religion, and having religious pastors of another. Such was now the case in Ireland, where the great majority of the people were of one religion, and the great body of their pastors were of a different faith. He begged, however, not to be understood as confining the opposition to the payment of tithes to the Roman Catholic population, for that was by no means the ex

tent of the opposition. The voice of the Presbyterians, a numerous and respectable body, was for a free trade, if he might so call it, in religion-and that every man should pay the minister of the church to which he was attached, without being called upon to contribute to the support of the mi nisters of any other creed. With respect to the opinions entertained by the members of the Protestant established church, what would be the conduct and demeanour of the Protestant of the north of Ireland, if he were called on to pay for the support of the Presbyterian minister and the tithe-proctor of the popish priest? The sturdy yeoman of the north would soon say he bore the king's arms, and would use them sooner than submit to such insult and injustice. But, even supposing that all tithe was to go as at present to the maintenance of the church establishment, would they be satisfied to uphold the dignitaries of the church in pomp, wealth, and splendour, while their working clergymen received such a miserable pittance as that which now was held to be a remuneration for their multifarious and onerous duties? The outcry of the Protestants was against a system under which the poorer clergy of their church was so miserably remunerated; and hence the Protestants sought a change in the system. Such a system could not long. continue. Something must be done, and done speedily. If the government hesitated to come forward with a popular measure, they would inevitably lose their hold on church revenues and tithes. He therefore moved"that thedebate beadjourned, until the committee had gone into a full inquiry into the subject of

tithes, and the appropriation of church property in Ireland, and until the evidence and report of the committee came before parlia

ment.

Mr. Sheil, in support of the amendment, said, that he and those who thought with him did not oppose the resolutions, for they had not sufficient sagacity to conjecture what course government meant to take. Wait, they said, for the final report: do not decide on a document resting on evidence all on one side. Catholics had been excluded from the committee. This was unfortunate enough; but, to complete the calamity, out of eighteen they had examined only one Catholic witness, and then they produced their report, and went on with their examination. It was as if the jury were desired to retire on the closing of the plaintiff's case: they find their verdict; judgment (the report) is pronounced; and then the defendant (Ireland) was requested to proceed with her case. Was this just, was this fair dealing? Eight clergymen, four policemen, a secretary to an ecclesiastical commission, a register to an ecclesiastical court, had been examined, and on such evidence, a report recommending coercion of the people, and largesses to the clergy, was produced. If the committee had confined themselves to the recommendation of charity to the clergy, the Irish members could not complain; but they came here with a purse of gold for the church, and a rod of iron for the people. "Infatuated men!" exclaimed Mr. Sheil, what are you doing? "Look before you, you are walking blindfold upon the brink of a gulf. You will exasperate Ireland,

you will array the nation against

you; then will come a general election in November; reform will have thrown the close boroughs open; the democracy will have become gigantic,-then will the people have their revenge. The poisoned chalice will, in just retribution, return to your own lips. It is your turn this session, but it will be ours the next. What are you doing? Succouring a clergy from whom you expect nothingaffronting and irritating a nation from which you look for muchopening the boiling fountain of popular indignation-leaguing a nation against you by your threats of coercion. We have served and supported you, and stood by you in many an emergency, and have received your praise for our zeal, our vigilance, our devotion to your interests;-but, alas! what can we do for you in the hurricane of popular passion which you are about to raise? Our voices in your behalf will be like whispers in a tempest; our arms are not strong enough to swim against the tide that knows no returning ebb, and if we attempt it, we shall be swept before it. Reform, an election in November, and Ireland exasperated for the sake of certain persons of the Establishment! Awake! you are on a precipice, and you must be rudely shaken, to rouse you from your perilous slumbers." Mr. Sheil then proceeded, in the same fervid style, to discuss the plan which was supposed to be unknown, and to let out the true ground of objection, viz., that the Protestant church of Ireland was still to be preserved. "We are told," said he, "that relief is offered. What relief? It is a mere mockery of the national understanding. Tithes are to be abolished. How? By providing for