a fair and just settlement of the question.' Does the noble Lord pretend not to know the beneficial effects which the rescinding of that resolution would have? Does he not know that the minds of the clergymen of Ireland will be disturbed, and their fears excited, as long as he keeps that resolution hanging over their heads; and that on rescinding it, they would consent to a settlement proposed by him, even though the greatest pecuniary sacrifices might fall upon them? Does he not know that the greatest objection to the introduction of the Municipal Bill into Ireland rests upon this? for before that measure is consented to, it is desired to see greater security given to the Church. The noble Lord declines to withdraw his resolution. It remains then over the heads of the clergy; it fetters legislation, and it places a vast gulf between him and us; for it may lead to and facilitate ulterior views."

Lord Morpeth followed Lord Stanley. His Lordship complained that the purport of the measures before the House had been much mis-represented by the clergy. It had been stated that the stipends of the church were to be paid by annual votes of the House. Now, what were the facts? It was proposed to place the clergy on the same footing as the judges, and the great Officers of State, on the same footing as that on which the Civil List of the Crown itself was by law guaranteed. This would be done by Act of Parliament, which could not be reversed, but by the collective consent of the legislature. The proposed arrangement could not in any point of view, be considered as unfairly pressing on the clergy.

The debate was then adjourned

till the following day, when Mr. Litton in renewal of the discussion, delivered a speech in favour of Sir T. Acland's amendment.

Mr. Lascelles followed on the same side; Mr. Redington and Mr. Townley opposed the amend ment, which was supported by Mr. Young, and Lord Sandon. Mr. Bennett remarked that he had voted against the Appropriation clause, in opposition to those with whom he generally acted; but he was not, and never had been a party man, and he considered Sir T. Acland's motion to be made, not with a view to remove an objectionable resolution from the journals of the House, but for the purpose of a great trial of party strength. He desired it to be understood, that, in opposing this motion, he did not depart from his ancient opinion. He admitted that Lord John Russell's resolutions were not very clear; but after carefully considering them, and after the explanations which had been given, he declared that he could not discover a vestige of the Appropriation clause in them.

Mr. Ward (a great authority on this question) said, he had thought that he had descried in the resolu tions the germ of the appropriation principle, but he was assured by Lords J. Russell and Morpeth that that principle was abandoned on the faith of the Duke of Wellington's declaration. He deeply regretted this. He looked on the resolution which recognised that principle as strictly binding on. ministers.

Mr. Shaw stated the revenues. of the church of Ireland at 498, 1487. This did not all belong to the parochial clergy, who received

no

more than 486,7841. The residue went to the bishops,

and other dignitaries. At present there was no tithe in Ireland; a composition having superseded it. Whenever the landlords undertook to ensure payment to the clergy, they had in almost all cases been allowed 15 per cent. for their trouHe thought that the proposed reduction of 30l. per cent. was too large. He also objected to the mode proposed for investing the purchase money of the rentcharge. As to the sixth resolution, the form, if not the substance, of the appropriation clause lurked there. Taking that resolution in connexion with the tenth, which placed lay tithe on an entirely different footing, it was impossible not to suspect that a prospect was held out of some ulterior application of this fund, when diverted from the Protestant clergy. In conclusion, Mr. Shaw promised Lord John Russell his co-operation in the tithe and corporation questions, as soon as the appropriation clause was fairly abandoned.

Mr. O'Connell said, the real question before the House was, how should Ireland be governed? This was the question that had been under discussion for 700 years. Shall Ireland be governed by a section? (Vehement shouts from the Opposition.) Mr. O'Connell then continued in the following strain: "I thank you-(Noise renewed)for that shriek. Many a shout of insolent domination (Noise)— despicable and contemptible as it is-(Noise)--have I heard against my country." (Uproar continued, during which, Mr. O'Connell, with uplifted fist and great violence of manner, uttered several sentences which were inaudible in the gallery. The Speaker was at last obliged to interfere and call the House to order.) "Let them shout. It is a

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 us again. (Roars of laughter.) What would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? (Ministerial cheers, and opposition laughter.) I ask not that question for your renowned Commander-in-chief, who is himself an Irishman, but for the hardy soldiery of Ireland, who fought the battle for him. (" Question and laughter from the Opposition.) I say again, that is the question. The question is, shall the people of Ireland be amalgamated with the people of England? Refuse to receive us into that amalgamation, and abide the consequences. (Cries of "hear!" from the Opposition benches.) Sneer at me as you like, but recollect that I speak the voice of millions, who will hear again of the base insult offered to me this evening. ("Question, question!") In the sequel of his speech Mr. O'Connell admitted, that the ministerial plan did not go far enough, but he was ready to accede to it for the sake of an amicable arrangement.

Sir Robert Peel, to whom the present occasion was one of no slight triumph, then rose. He recapitulated what had passed upon this subject. He observed that he came into office at the end of 1834; and so desirous was he of settling the tithe question, that he exposed himself to the charge of plagiarism by adopting the principles of the former government. But he was met by a preliminary objection, and it was avowed to be necessary to pass a resolution embodying in it a certain abstract principle. In vain he told the noble Lord, that he might have

equally triumphed over him by bringing in a practical measure, and deprecated the introduction of a principle which would bind Parliament hereafter. It was thought fit to declare that no settlement of the tithe question could at any time be satisfactory which did not embody this principle "I told you," continued Sir Robert Peel," that your triumph, as public men, would be of short duration. I did not mean official triumph; it is possible for men to be in office and not triumphant." He then referred to the mode in which ministers had dealt with the question subsequently; reminded them how they had opposed the separation of the bill into two parts, as proposed by him in 1835, and how Mr. Spring Rice had told him upon that occasion that "it would have been much more decent if he had come down and asked them to rescind the resolution they had sanctioned in so many forms." That, according to Mr. Rice would have been the more straight-forward course. "And now," said Sir Robert, "when we adopt the very suggestion that was offered to us, we are told that we are making you pass under a disgraceful and dishonourable yoke."

With respect to the negotiations, and the alleged breach of faith upon his part, Sir Robert Peel clearly, proved that Lord John Russell's complaint of being overreached was without a shadow of foundation. On the other hand, he exposed the suspicious obscurity of the present resolutions. Did they or not, he asked, contain the appropriation principle? The noble Lord's conduct was without a precedent. He called upon Parliament to come to the discussion of a great question, upon a motion

which he intended should be the foundation of the final settlement of that question, and yet so ambiguous was the language which he made use of, that it was impossible to say for certain what was, or was not the purport of his scheme.

After a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House divided, when Sir Thomas Acland's motion for the repeal of the clause was negatived by a majority of 19. The numbers being 317 to 298,

On a following day, the 18th of May, Lord John Russell gave Sir R. Peel distinctly to understand, that the tithe measure would consist solely of a proposition, to the effect that the composition, then existing, should be converted into a rent-charge.

On the 29th of the same month, -Lord John Russell having moved that the House should go into Committee on the Irish Municipal. Corporation bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of declaring, according to his promise, his views and intentions with respect to the two great Irish questions.

After adverting to the advances made towards an amicable arrange. ment by the Duke of Wellington and himself, he went on to show that the proposal lately made by Sir Thomas Acland was in no wise inconsistent with their professions. He then stated generally his opinion of the ministerial tithe measure. He should give his consent to the proposition for converting that impost into a rent-charge. But with respect to the redemption of the rent-charge he saw great difficulties. The proposal also for investing the purchase money was by no means free from embarrassment. To convert the church.... into a great land-holder was, he

thought, a plan open to objection. He should cordially assent to the proposal formerly made by Lord Stanley, and now renewed, for the purpose of removing real abuses in the Irish church. He would consent to a reduction of the emoluments of livings where the duty was disproportionately small. Sine cures he would entirely abolish. In parishes where there were nonresidents, he would provide for a resident minister.

He then came to the subject of municipal corporations. He admitted that the corporations, if established at all, should be placed on the basis of popular election.

The bill, which had been read a second time, and the object of which was the establishment of corporations, in a schedule which was attached to it divided the towns of Ireland into three classes, described as A, B, and C; and he proposed, in the first instance, to deal with the first two schedules, A and B. These schedules included eleven towns, namely, Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry, and Sligo; and these towns were of such an extent as to contain a population exceeding 15,000 each. Now, with respect to these, he should assent to the extension of corporate rights to the whole of them; and he would assume that this was a course which was beneficial and proper for towns of their magnitude. He did not quarrel with the duties imposed on the corporations under this bill; and the material point for consideration would be, therefore, the franchise which it was intended to grant; and the House was bound to define the nature of the franchise which it was proposed to give.

He should positively insist, that that franchise should be a bond fide one.

And he conceived that the most satisfactory test of the franchise would be afforded by the valuation about to be taken under the New Poor-law Act. He was ready then to take a 101. franchise, with the condition that it should be a bonâ fide franchise. And he meant to propose as a qualification for the elector, in all the towns enumerated, that he should be rated to the relief of the poor to the amount of 101. value, either for a house or for a house and land, within the limits of the borough; and that occupation for a year, residence for six months, and payment of all taxes and cesses to which the claimant might have been rated within the preceding three months, should be required. And he should further insist upon the receipt of alms being a disqualification.

With respect to the towns in schedule C, he would leave it to the option of the majority of ratepayers to apply for a charter. But he would not impose it upon them.

Lord John Russell acknowledged that Sir Robert Peel's communication of his views had been made in a spirit and manner which showed no inclination to obstruct the settlement of these important questions. With respect to the value of the franchise, as proposed to be estimated by the right hon. gentleman, he admitted that he was not then prepared to express an opinion upon it. But they were agreed upon the principle, and the only question between them regarded a higher or lower amount of value.

On the 1st of June, the consideration of the subject was renewed, the House being in Com

mittee. Mr. Shaw moved, that schedules A and B should be consolidated, which would leave but two schedules instead of three. The first to contain the towns to which corporations were to be given, with an uniform 107. franchise the second to contain those in which the majority of the 10. householders might, according to their option be incorporated, and the right hon. Gentleman further proposed that Sir Robert Peel's mode of estimating the qualification of electors should be adopted.

Lord John Russell consented to that part of the proposition, which regarded the distribution of the towns to be incorporated, but, at the same time, intimated that it seemed to the Government that an uniform 107. franchise, to be measured by a rating to that amount, would be too high a qualification.

It was upon this article that the two parties finally found it impossible to come to terms. The question was shortly this. The bill, as first introduced, enumerated forty-seven boroughs to which corporations were to be extended. In seven of these, a 107. franchise, and in the remainder a 5l. franchise, without the test of rating, were to be established. We have seen the alterations which obtained the sanction of Lord John Russell. He also agreed to admit the test of rating if accompanied with a reduction of the 101. franchise to 51. Here issue was joined. The Conservatives measured the value of a house by the rent which it would give the landlord, he paying all such charges (such as repairs) as were necessary to enable him to command that rent: or in other words by the rent which it fetched, deducting what might be necessary to keep the premises in

a state to be worth the rent. And this is the kind of value upon which

an

assessment usually attaches. The ministerial party, on the other hand, contended that the value ought to be estimated by the gross rental. And that whoever paid 10l. a year to his landlord, together with the tenants' taxes, should be considered a 101. householder without any deduction for repairs. And they very forcibly urged that the restriction now insisted upon by the other party, was not imposed on the 107. householder who voted for members of Parliament in England, or for municipal officers in Scotland; while the English municipal bill was content to require rateability alone, without regard to the amount. By the 107. franchise nothing could be meant but the parliamentary qualification of that denomination. But Lord John Russell readily admitted that, under the existing system of valuation in Ireland, much room was afforded for perjury and fraud,* and he therefore had no objection to the assessment as a test of value

but insisted, in that case, upon a reduction of that value. He accordingly proposed an assessment of 51. as the qualification, which was resolutely refused by Sir Robert Peel, who stood out for 107. and the assessment.

It is understood that the ministry seeing the determination of their opponents, and being, to all appearances, sincerely anxious to settle the matter, if possible, took the sense of their party at a meeting which assembled at the Foreign office. But the result

See upon this point the voluminous evidence taken by the committee of the House of Commons on "fictitious votes in Ireland."