that there was the slightest chance of restoring peace to Ireland by the proposition of the noble Lord, he would readily support it. But, it appeared to him, that they had de layed this act of conciliation too long, and, in the present state of Ireland, she would not be satisfied with so paltry a concession as that proposed. With these opinions he should support Mr. Ward.

Mr. O'Connell opposed Mr. Ward's motion, because, he said, it led to a deception and delusion -because it offered to the Irish people something as the purehasemoney of a tithe bill, which bill they had refused unanimously to take. They sought no appropriation of a paltry imaginary surplus; but they called for an entire abolition of the tithe system. Their determination was not to pay tithe. Three years ago such a bill as this might have conciliated Ire land; at present it was too late. What he now required was, that provision should be made for the Established Church of Ireland out of the consolidated fund, and that the tithe fund should be applied to the maintenance of peace in the country. By converting tithes into a rent-charge, they would only be turning the landlords into tithe proprietors: " and, more than that, they would throw many landlords into the ranks of Whiteboys."

Mr. Harvey treated the question in his usual tone of sarcasm. "It was gratifying," he said, "to know that the soundness of opinions was tested by time."

He recollected three years ago, when he was denounced by Mr. O'Connell for not supporting the very motion which his learned friend was now opposing. He was told, and warned, that his conduct would forfeit to him the confidence

of his constituents. It was some satisfaction to him now to find that the position he then took up was concurred in by the very parties who formerly denounced him for it.

The conservatives, too, he observed, had become converts to the sacrilegious doctrine of appropria tion; in this bill, hon. gentlemen opposite, the champions of the church, were about to sanction the principle of taking thirty or twentyfive per cent. away from her already inadequate funds. As a Protestant, he felt called upon to express his astonishment that those who were most prominent in their remarks on the necessity for pacifying Ireland, should, with reference to the present unhallowed project, preserve such unbroken silence. But his astonishment was converted into indignation, when he considered the motive which prompted this conduct. It was grounded on that deep selfishness which led men to look to their own interest, whilst they professed an anxiety for religion, and which showed them to be prepared to sacrifice the cause of that religion when it served their earthly purposes so to do. Let them come to the question at once: had the Church of Ireland too large a revenue or not? If it had, who was entitled to the surplus? On what ground were the landlords of Ireland entitled to it, on what ground were they to be placed in a better position than the landlords of England? Far better would it be to allow tithes in Ireland to remain as they were. He recollected the shout of derision with which he was received when he asked, was not the law sufficiently strong to maintain and enforce the right of the titheowner? He was told it was impossible; that the living might be

driven, and the dead matter brought to market, but that no buyers could be found. This, at the time, he considered a blind and fanciful prediction. He believed it now to be all a fraud. The fact turned out to be quite otherwise. The law had vindicated itself, and it was found to be as competent to enforce the claims of the clergy and impropriators of tithe in Ireland as in this country. Then why not stand by the law? Were they prepared to rob their own clergy of thirty per cent.?

Mr. Harvey went on in a tone of somewhat equivocal sympathy, to plead the cause of the poorer class of the clergy, and called upon the House to interpose in their behalf, against what he affected to stigmatize as a deliberate act of parliamentary plunder.

With the exception of Lord Morpeth, no member connected with the administration thought proper to speak in opposition to Mr. Ward's motion, which was rejected by 270 to 46. Majority 224.

The House then went into committee.

To clause 3, which made a deduction of 30 per cent., Mr. Shaw moved, as an amendment, that 25 per cent. be substituted. The House divided upon this proposition, and the amendment was carried by a majority of 21. Ayes 188; Noes 167.

It will be recollected, that a few years back, a million sterling was voted by Parliament for the relief of the tithe-owners, who had been unable to obtain their dues. Of this sum 640,000l. had been actually advanced, leaving about 360,000l. still applicable to the purpose. At the time of the grant, it was intended that the advances made by government should be re

paid, as soon as the occupying tenants could be induced to pay up their arrears. That event, however, seemed unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, a new arrear of tithes had accrued since the date of those advances. It was agreed, on all hands, that repayment of the 640,000l. should not be required. But it became an additional question how the fresh arrears were to be settled. Sir Robert Peel proposed to deal with the subject in the following manner. He suggested a commission to ascertain the entire amount of the outstanding tithe, and the nature of each particular case. In proportion to that amount, and with due regard to individual circumstances, he would distribute 307,000l.* (being what really remained of the million after law and other expenses were deducted) among the respective tithe-owners in purchase of their interests. Wherever the party owing tithe was a landlord, he was not to be included in the proposition. But, where the debtors were occupying tenants, there, save in special cases of exception, he would give the tithe-owners the option of enforcing their claims, or of accepting their proportion of the fund, and exonerating their debtors. And he reserved to the government the right of proceeding against the tenant at their option.

This proposition was favourably received; and subsequently (July 16th) when the House was on the point of going into Committee upon the tithe bill, Lord John Russell, though not without reluctance, adopted it, under some modifications. After stating, that the surplus of the million, was only

Sir Robert Peel proposed to make up the sum to 500,000%.

in Ireland, so disproportionate to the wants of the community, was a stain on the institutions of the country; and he should have great difficulty in bringing himself to support the measure, if he thought it would tend to prevent that reduction of the establishment, which, at no very distant period, he hoped to see accomplished.

He should support this measure, not as the best which he could wish to have seen, but as the best which the present state of parties, held out a hope of obtaining. If the struggle against tithes were still to go on, notwithstanding this bill, the burden would be on the shoulders of those, who were best able to bear it, and who, he hoped, would carry on the war with greater effect.

Sir Robert Peel spoke at considerable length. With respect to the remission of "the million loan," before mentioned, he said, "Another modification has been introduced into the enactment which relates to the existing arrears. At first, the compensation granted was only intended to be in lieu of the arrears which had been incurred within the last two years, I decidedly objected to that, as I thought it most unjust, that Parliament should interfere to prevent those, to whom arrears were due, for the first four years, from receiving compensation. I do not say, that they are to receive an equal compensation, with those whose arrears are due for the last two years, but a proportionate one, for what they are called upon to abandon. The state of the law will then be this--that all those who have commenced suits, for the recovery of tithes, before the 16th of July last, will have the option

With them, there shall be no interference; but if they think fit to abandon those proceedings, without payment of costs, they shall be entitled to their share of compensation. The violence still done by the bill, is in that class of arrear, not covered by previous advances, out of the million, and, in which, the parties had not instituted suits."

With respect to the general question, Sir Robert said, "I will not consent to the alienation of church property, I will not consent to any violation of the principle of an establishment but this I will do if you prove to me, that in Ireland, there are districts, where the working minister is badly paid, and other districts, in which he has too much, I will consent to equalization. I will consent to what I call true reform, that is, such appropriation of the church's revenues, as will make sure, that in every district, the wants of the Protestant population, shall be adequately provided for."

After Lord Stanley, and Mr. Harvey, had delivered their sentiments, Mr. O'Connell addressed the House. In the course of his speech, he remarked, that there were two sorts of appropriation; an useful one, when it was proposed to apply the surplus to good purposes, such as education, and the like; and a bad one, when it was given to the landlords. The present bill involved the latter species of appropriation; it was a clear sacrifice of legal property. The supporters of the church of England had never aimed so destructive a blow at the temporalities of that church, as by assenting to this bill. He did not think, that they were exhibiting any

wisdom, if they thought, that the shifting of the burden of tithes from one side to the other, would render it more easy. They were resigning their right to proceed against the poor for tithes, and he could assure them, that the richer party would defeat them.

Mr. Grote, in the course of the debate, after prophesying the failure of the measure, said, that the conduct of the Ministers with regard to the principle of appropriation afforded a melancholy proof of the way in which great principles were made subservient to party purposes, and he considered, that history would record the present as one of the most discreditable instances of tergiversation ever witnessed.

Lord John Russell closed the discussion. He pointed out the impossibility of carrying the appropriation clause, in the present state of parties, and contended, that the wiser policy, therefore, was to abstain from mooting the subject. The noble Lord then addressed himself to the task of explaining away, in some degree, the strong expressions just made use of by Lord Ebrington, (who, the following year, became Lord-lieutenant of Ireland), with respect to the church establishment. Sir Robert Peel adverting to that remarkable declaration, had said "I car not understand public men who say, that they will support this bill, because they hope it will increase the evils of the church." Lord John contended, that Lord Ebrington had been misunderstood by Sir Robert. His noble Friend had said, that there would still be a contest for some alteration in the church; but that contest would be of a very different nature; because instead of being supported

by physical resistance, on the part of the poor, it would be the constitutional and moral resistance of the landowners, representing through Parliament their opinions, and having a natural influence on its deliberations.

For his own part, Lord John Russell said, he thought that this bill would be a considerable mitigation of existing evils. He could not expect that the great body of the people would be satisfied with the state of the Protestant church; but as far as that church was concerned, he thought that this bill would render it more secure.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed. The numbers being, on the division:-ayes 148; noes 30 majority 118.

Thus terminated the memorable

history of "the appropriation clause." The adoption of which had enabled the Whigs to recover, as its sacrifice assisted them to maintain, their official situation. The former act involved a violation of common sense-how far the latter was calculated to raise their character for political consistency and singleness of purpose, it is needless here to consider.

On the 3rd of August, Lord Melbourne brought the Irish tithe bill before the House of Lords. The noble Lord had the discretion to refrain from adverting to the painful topic of the clause just alluded to; he contented himself with giving a dry outline of the measure, which he designated as the best and most prudent that could be devised under present circumstances.

After giving a statement of the somewhat intricate provisions of the bill so far as regarded the million loan, and the arrears, he remarked that it was perfectly obvi