line of argument which, he trusted the House would mark with its most decided disapprobation. The hon. member for Aberdeen did not confine himself to the subject of tithes, but he denied them to be the property of the church. Now, in defiance of the hon. member, and of those who supported his opinions, he would maintain that tithes were the property of the church, and he did so upon authority much better than that of the hon. member and his supporters. He might quote the opinions of the first lawyers, of the ablest statesmen, of the first men in that House; but he would content himself with quoting the opinion of sir Samuel Romilly-a man certainly not disposed to over-rate the authority of the church. [Mr. Goulburn here read the opinion of sir S. Romilly, in which he considered tithes quite as sacred as any other species of property.] But the hon. member went further; he said tithes were not property, because they were not hereditary-because they did not descend from father to son.[Mr. Hume said, "No, no."] He did not know what meaning the hon. member attached to those words, but he certainly used them. In this doctrine, the hon. member attacked other property besides that of the church. Moreover, the hon. gentleman did not confine his attacks to the property of the church of Ireland, but he wished to extend the system of spoliation and robbery to the church property in England. He could easily account for the desire which the hon. member seemed to feel to put all church establishments upon the footing of that in Scotland; but the House, he was sure, would see that the different habits of the two countries-the different situation in which the clergy were placed -rendered it necessary for each to adhere to its own establishment, not for the benefit of the clergy, but because it was the best means of preserving to each the advantages which were derived from the respective churches. But, if the hon. But, if the hon. member were to succeed, the spoliation would not stop here. The hon. member was a moderate reformer; he in his liberality, would even allow an archbishop 5,000l. a year; but, when once the race for popularity was begun, and when every man was to found his popularity upon the quantity of property of which he could plunder the church, the hon. member would soon be left behind: some bolder reformer-some future member for Aberdeen, perhaps, would finish what the hon. gentleman had commenced. If the property of the church was to be attacked, because it was large, upon what principle would the security of all other large possessions rest? The same principle which would justify the taking away the property of the archbishop and the bishop, would place that of the duke and the earl in the most imminent danger. But the system of spoliation might not stop even there: the property of the church was easily identified; it might be followed into other hands; that which had once been an object of plunder, might, upon the same principle, be made so again; and thus the principles which the hon. member had laid down might be acted upon and enforced, until that general equality of property was produced, which some persons thought so essential to the public good. That the plunder of church property would lead to the plunder of property of every description, was not a matter of speculation. The hon. member had referred to other countries, to show with what facility this violation of all the sacred rights of property could be effected. He (Mr. G.) could also refer to other countries, and in our own times too, for examples, to show that the robbery of the church was always followed by that of the wealthy classes of the community. The church was always first attacked; but it inevitably followed, that, when once the sacred barriers of property were broken down, every species of property that was large enough to afford temptation, shared the fate of that belonging to the church. Trusting that no other hon. member would be found willing to support the hon. member for Aberdeen in doctrines so new, at least in that House, so dangerous, and so subversive of all the principles which had hitherto always been held sacred, he should conclude with giving his decided negative to the motion. Mr. Daly stated the circumstances under which he had withdrawn his motion and supported the amendment because he preferred a pledge from parliament to the partial measure brought forward by the secretary for Ireland. Mr. S. Rice referred the House to the distinct pledge given by Mr. Perceval on this subject, as well as to a similar one made by the present lord Maryborough some years since, on a question from the hon. member for Queen's county. He was satisfied that there would be no tran-mised was, that during the recess they quillity for Ireland until this question met would consider whether or not in the next with a full and deliberate consideration. session they should propose any measure If any thing was calculated to allay the of commutation. The bill introduced by present discontents, it was a pledge on the right hon. secretary did literally nothe part of parliament, that they would thing, it met not the paramount difficulexamine the whole subject. The Irish ties which attended the tithe system, it members were almost all favourable to a was almost rejected by those who introcommutation of tithes; he addressed duced it; while the stamp of the rejection himself, therefore, principally to the of the House was already fixed upon it, English members, and he relied upon as not calculated to meet the real evil their justice and generosity, that they either in degree or in kind. Was there would not resist a change of system, any thing more to be done? To that which was admitted to be necessary by question ministers would give no answer. the great mass of the Irish representation. All that they would say was, that they If parliament threw cold water on this would take six months to consider what motion, he trusted that every county, should be the direct answer. They would town, and hamlet in Ireland would demand take six months in addition to the 30 it from the justice and generosity of par- years, since which, the same kind of liament. He was satisfied that a commu- promise was given to the people of Ireland; tation of tithes was the only effectual cor- so that in the fulness of time, after 30 rective for the evils of the system in Ire- years and six months, the people of land, and he claimed the adoption of this Ireland might be again told by the gomeasure on behalf of that suffering and vernment, that the difficulties were insurinjured country. If ministers did not mountable, and that nothing could be done. exert themselves to pour balm into the And he in his conscience believed, notwounds of Ireland, measures of coercion withstanding the blind promises held out, would be unavailing. that nothing would be done, unless that House, by its recorded pledge, embarked itself into the investigation. They had precedents for so doing on the Catholic Question, on the Slave Trade, and recently on the subject of the Criminal Laws. That something must be done by parliament was as clear as the sun at noon, to every man who considered the frightful state of Ireland. Such was the pressure of the evils that accompanied delay, that they could not afford, not 30 years more, but 30 days, without coming to some resolution on that question. Such an amelioration was a debt due to Ireland for long continued misgovernment. It was not more necessary to the happiness of the people than it was to the security of government; and not more necessary to the security of the government than to the safety of the church establishment. Mr. Secretary Peel did not believe, that the present motion was calculated to promote tranquillity in Ireland; for if parliament were to give such a pledge, and should aftewards be unable to redeem it, the worst consequences might result from the disappointment of the hopes which it would excite. He objected generally to the principle of giving pledges in one session as to the course which parliament would pursue in another. He had given much consideration to this subject, and he felt himself bound to state, lest his opinions should be misconceived, that a commutation of tithes was liable, he ,would not say to insuperable, but to very great objections. He protested against the whole statement assumed in the speech of the hon. member for Montrose. Scraps of newspapers, cases in courts of law, and petitions presented to that House, were not authority to which he was disposed to pay much respect. He entirely protested against the principles laid down by the hon. member. Mr. Hutchinson said, that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) apprehended danger from the possibility of a premature pledge by that House being misconceived in Ireland. Was there not however a much more aggravated danger to be apprehended, in the state of distraction and despair to which Ireland was reduced, when the people of that illtreated country learnt that the House had refused the pledge? If that was his opinion, lord Wellesley held a different one; for in the papers before the House the lord lieutenant dwelt upon the sanction which the pledge of the House of Commons would give to the measures proposed to repress violence and disorder. Was it only in passing measures of severity that the pledge of that House was valuable? He had a very different impression of its value, and was convinced, that the pledge of that House to redress the calamitous abuses of the tithe system would be attended with the most beneficial results. Mr. Plunkett said, that the amendment proposed by his right hon. friend appeared to him to be both premature and dangerous. His hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Brougham) had stated, that the members of that House had placed the stamp of their rejection upon the proposed bill. He knew nothing of such a rejection, but he was sure that if an unjust cry was not raised against it, it would be productive of benefit to Ireland. But he should like to know what measure was to proceed from the wisdom of the gentlemen opposite. What plan were they inclined to bring forward? His right hon. friend (sir J. Newport) admitted that the clergy were not too amply paid; but the hon. member for Montrose denied that, and said that they were too largely and too liberally paid. How could they then agree upon any measure? He maintained that principles both dangerous and alarming had been laid down in that House that night, amounting to nothing less than spoliation and robbery. [Cheers.] He was glad that that position was cheered. What! would it be denied that tithes acted on the same basis as rents? Was the lay impropriator entitled to tithes ?-["Yes!" from Mr. Hume.] Then upon what principle deny that tithe to the church which was allowed to the lay impropriator? He wished to address his right hon. friend opposite. His mind was above the vulgar arithmetic which would stoop to countenance such an assertion. He was sure that his right hon. friend was incapable of maintaining such doctrines. If they were true with respect to tithes, they were true with respect to the land-holder, and the fundholder, and to every corporation: and that which was to be commenced by spoliation and robbery was to be effected by rebellion and resistance. [Cheers.] The hon. members opposite cheered; did they mean to cheat common sense of that inference? The hon. member for Montrose had said, that, if redress was not given, it was the right and the duty of the people to resist. The tithe was a grievance in its administration; but were not high rents also a great cause of the irritation in that country? At all events, it was only by a determined adherence to the principles of justice that Ireland could be benefited. With that feeling, conciliation and soothing was perfectly reconcilable. He could not support the demand of a pledge, because he felt that it might, in the interval, produce great alarm in the minds of the clergy, and the possibility that the sad reality would terminate in deep and bitter disappointment. Mr. D. Browne said, he should vote for the amendment. Sir N. Colthurst would also vote for the amendment, but disavowed all participation in the doctrines laid down by the hon. member for Montrose. Colonel French entirely concurred in the amendment, but conceived that the Irish ought first to be permitted to try the operation of the present measure. Mr. Dawson conceived the amendment was premature. Sir E. O'Brien supported it. Mr. R. Martin meant to vote against it, because he relied upon the justice and wisdom of the Irish government to investigate with all possible attention this momentous subject. They had already proposed a unanimously admitted good; and he trusted they would not stop their career of benevolent legislation. Mr. Hume said, he had little to reply to, as he always considered his case made out when, in the absence of arguments, the hon. gentlemen opposite had recourse to hard words. He was, in some degree, prepared for such a course; but he would remind hon. gentlemen, that a man could often see a mote in his brother's eye when he could not perceive a beam in his own. He would remind the hon. and learned gentleman who accused him of spoliation and robbery, that if to meddle with the tithes and to take them away from the clergy was a spoliation and robbery, he himself had, on a former occasion, concurred in the robbery of the church, by sitting in that Irish parliament which took away the tithe of agistment, and also in the British parliament which confirmed that act. So had the right hon. member near him (Mr. Denis Browne). He had distinctly stated, that he did not propose | to meddle with existing rights. It was monstrous how facts had been perverted, in order to raise an outcry against him. He threw back the expression of "vulgar arithmetic" to the quarter from whence it had proceeded. The right hon.secretary (Mr. Peel) had also talked of spoliation and robbery; but although he had not been concerned in the robbery of the church like his right hon. and learned friend, why had he not, during his secretaryship in Ireland, taken some measure_to restore the pillage of the church. Let him answer that question, before he charged him with spoliation. He believed that if the matter came to be fairly examined, the only difference between him and the gentlemen opposite would be found to be this-that they had recourse to hard words, because they were unable to answer the arguments he had advanced in support of his opinions. This appeared to be the real balance of the account. He would not take the sense of the House upon his motion, as it appeared that the Irish members, whose opinions in this case he desired to consult, approved at this period of the session rather of the amendment of the right hon. baronet, to whose judgment he was ready to defer, as he believed there was no man in that House a more sincere friend to Ireland. The House then divided: For sir J. Newport's motion 65. For the other orders of the day; 72. Majority 7. List of the Minority. MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] On the motion of lord Ellenborough, the House resolved into a committee on this bill. Lord Redesdale stated the purport of some further clauses which he intended to move. Their object was, to prevent fraudulent marriages, either by licence or banns. If persons married under false names, he proposed that, their identity being proved, the marriages should stand good. An affidavit to be made on taking out banns as well as licenses, and perjury in either case to be punished. The affidavits for banns to be made before a magistrate, and the expense of the proceeding to be only one shilling. His wish certainly was, that they should be granted free of expense. Lord Ellenborough expressed his gratitude to his learned friend for his valuable suggestions, which he was most happy to adopt into the bill. Lord Redesdale expressed his apprehension that the retrospective clause would have a tendency to introduce new subjects of litigation into families. The Lord Chancellor never could agree to the retrospective clause, unless other qualifications were introduced into it, and feared that great mischief would ensue unless care was taken to protect the rights of property. The Bishop of Chester gave notice, that, early next session, he would move an amendment to the marriage act. He did not do so now because the object he had in view was totally different from that which the present bill embraced. His object was, to authorize the celebration of marriages in the chapels of populous parishes, where they could not take place HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 20. CANADA GOVERNMENT AND TRADE BILL.] Mr. Wilmot brought in a bill "to make more effectual provision for the Government of the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, and to regulate the Trade thereof." Mr. Ellice considered the bill of great importance, and suggested, that the discussion on it should be taken in the committee upon some open night. Mr. Wilmot approved of the suggestion of the hon. member, and would fix the committal of the bill for the 1st of July. SCOTCH JURIES BILL.] Mr. Kennedy moved the second reading of this bill; and called upon the lord advocate to prove that the measure proposed was unwise and uncalled for. His objections to the existing mode of appointing criminal juries in Scotland were briefly these. In the first place, the lord advocate had the power of committing for trial, without the intervention of a grand jury. Secondly, in the high court of justiciary, the selection of petty juries lay almost entirely with the judge. The sheriffs, before circuit, sent lists from their various counties to the judge; the judge from those lists, nominated the 45 jurymen who should meet him at each assize town for the purposes of business; and the very same judge afterwards, in court, selected from his own list of 45, the jury of 15 by which prisoners were to be tried. The third objection was, that neither prose, cutor nor prisoner, as the law now stood, had the power of challenge except for cause. There was not that right of challenge so necessary to the purity of trial-the challenge for supposed prejudice, favour, or affection. If these practices were objectionable in the high court of justiciary, in the minor, or sheriff's court, their operation was still more dangerous. The sheriff, who was judge of that court, selected the jury altogether: he made out the first list, struck the 45, and selected the 15: after this, the verdict was only the decision of a majority; and yet there was no challenge, except for cause, allowed the parties. In Edinburgh, where the sittings of the court of justiciary were permanent, the principle was the same: the judge picked the jury of 15 from lists supplied to him by the clerk of justiciary. The measure by which he proposed to remedy these evils was extremely simple, though two-fold in Mr. Wilmot regretted that the hon. and its operation. He meant to deprive the learned gentleman should pledge himself judge of the power of selection from the to oppose the bill before he had heard the 45, leaving the choice of the 15 to be depeculiar circumstances which rendered it termined by ballot; and, of course, as a necessary. He did not think it was ne- corollary upon that proposition, the right cessary to apply to the people of the pro- of challenge for favour would follow. The vinces for their consent to the measure, hon. member then complained of the opsince their present constitution was de- position which his bill had received from rived from an act of the British legislature. the lord advocate, and read a circular He trusted that when the hon. and learned which that learned person had transmitted gentleman came to hear the statement to the sheriffs of counties just previous to which he (Mr. W.) intended to submit to the head courts of May, 1820. In that the House, he would withdraw his ob- circular, the lord advocate invited county jections to the passing of the bill. discussions upon the measure, and intimated that his own opinion was by no Sir J. Mackintosh agreed, that the bill was a most important measure, since its object was, to consolidate the two provinces of Canada, by effecting a union between them, and incorporating their legislatures. He did not mean to object to the course of proceeding suggested; but, without bringing into question the competence of parliament to pass such a bill, or the convenience which might be expected to result from it, he felt an insuperable objection to agree to the measure without affording ample time to the people of the provinces, and the legislatures by which they were represented, to express their opinions with respect to it. He felt alarmed at passing a bill affecting the most sacred rights of the people of the provinces at so late a period of the session. It was the practice of the House, not to pass a private bill affecting the rights of only two individuals before the parties had been sufficiently informed of its nature; surely, then, it would not sanction a measure for uniting two provinces, without affording to the inhabitants the fullest time for expressing their opinions with regard to it. He would oppose the passing of the bill during the present session. The bill was read a first time. |