[ [!-- H2 anchor --] ]

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE—MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR SETTLING THE TITHE QUESTION.

On the 14th of May Sir Thomas Acland moved for the repeal of the appropriation clause. Lord John Russell had previously given notice that he would bring forward his resolutions concerning Irish tithes; and in moving that the speaker should leave the chair, the noble lord said that it had been his original intention to refrain from saying a single word, and to reserve his remarks to the time when the house should go into committee. It had pleased the gentlemen opposite, however, to give notice that they meant to interpose another question in order to raise a debate, and produce a division, before allowing the resolutions to be considered in committee. He should consider the proposition made by Sir Thomas Acland in two points of view; with reference to its object of producing discord and bitterness of feeling in the house, and how far such a course was conformable to the professions made by gentlemen opposite with respect to the Irish church. After descanting at considerable length on the subject of the alliance of the church and state generally, and the small influence which the Irish church exercised over the people, the noble lord went on to unfold his scheme. The existing tithe-composition, he said, would be converted into a rent-charge at the rate of £70 for every £100; and he proposed that the rent-charge should, with a saving of existing interests, be redeemed by the government at the rate of sixteen years’ purchase on the full sum of £100. The money received in redemption of the rent-charge he proposed should be invested in land, or in such other way as the ecclesiastical commissioners should advise; and the rent-charges themselves, when purchased, should go towards a fund, from which £160,000 should be paid yearly to the constabulary force of Ireland; £20,000 to the Dublin police; £70,000 to the expense of criminal informations; and £100,000 for the purposes of education, instead of the £50,000 now voted annually for that purpose; any surplus was to be applied to charitable purposes. After developing his plan, Lord John Russell descanted on the obstinacy and exorbitance of the clergy, and then attacked Sir T. Acland’s motion. He commenced this part of his speech by quoting the Duke of Wellington’s declared desire to see the Irish questions brought to a settlement, contending that the present motion was not in accordance with that declaration. With respect to the principle of the appropriation resolutions, his opinion was unaltered: it was a wise and just principle, and he could not consent to its reversal: it would imply a stigma upon ministers which he could not endure. Sir Thomas Acland, however, rose to move that the resolutions of the 7th and 8th of April, 1835, should be read; and after addressing the house at considerable length, he further moved that they should be rescinded. The motion was seconded by Sir Eardley Wilmot. After a long speech from Lord Stanley, and a few words from Lord Morpeth in defence of government, the house was adjourned till the following day, when Mr. Litton renewed the discussion by delivering a speech in favour of Sir T. Acland’s amendment. Messrs. Young, Laseelles, Bennett, and Lord Sandon also supported it; while Messrs. Redington and Townley opposed it. Mr. O’Connell remarked that the real question before the house was, how should Ireland be governed? This was the question that had been under discussion for seven hundred years. Should Ireland, he asked, be governed by a section? A loud shout interrupted the speaker, and in the midst of continued uproar, he continued thus:—“I thank you for that shriek. Many a shout of insolent domination, despicable and contemptible as it is, have I heard against my country.”—[Here the speaker interfered]—“Let them shout; it is a senseless yell—the spirit of a party. Ireland will hear their shrieks. They may want us again. What would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? I ask not that question for the renowned commander-in-chief, who is himself an Irishman, but for the hardy soldiery of Ireland, who fought the battle for him. I say again, that is the question.” In conclusion, 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 and other members addressed the house, a discussion ensued, when Sir Thomas Acland’s motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against two hundred and ninety-eight. On the following day Lord John Russell gave the house distinctly to understand that the tithe measure would solely consist of a proposition to the effect that the composition then existing should be converted into a rent-charge.

[ [!-- H2 anchor --] ]

COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UPON THE IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL—THE BILL REJECTED, ETC.

On the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into committee on the Irish municipal corporation bill. Sir Robert Peel then rose and stated his views and intentions with respect to the two great Irish questions.

The consideration of the subject was renewed on the 1st of June, when, the house being in committee, Mr. Shaw moved that schedules A and B should be consolidated, so that there should be but two schedules instead of three; the first to contain the towns to which corporations were to be given with an uniform ten-pound franchise; and the second to contain those in which the majority of the ten-pound householders might, according to their option, be incorporated. Mr. Shaw 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 towns to be incorporated, but at the same time intimated that government considered an uniform ten-pound franchise too high a qualification. On this point, indeed, the two parties were at issue, for Lord John Russell proposed a five-pound assessment as the qualification, while Sir Robert Peel advocated the ten-pound assessment. On the 11th of June Sir Robert moved to substitute the latter for the former sum; but on a division it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against two hundred and sixty-six. The bill came on for the third reading on the 25th of June, when Lord Francis Egerton moved that it should be read that day three months; but on a division the bill passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and thirty-four.

The bill came under deliberation in the house of lords on the 12th of July, and it was read a third time on the 27th of the same month. The lords, however, had, on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, substituted the ten-pound for the five-pound franchise, and had also made further alterations in the bill at the instigation of the same noble lord. When the bill in its amended shape came under the consideration of the house of commons on the 2nd of August, Lord John Russell entered into a detailed examination of these amendments. In order to settle the question of the franchise, he proposed that a rated house of eight pounds rent should confer it; and he carried this by a majority of one hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and fifty-four. A variety of alterations were then introduced into the other amendments of the lords, and the bill was once more sent up to that house. A conference took place, but with no effect, and the matter ended by Lord John Russell moving in the house of commons that “the lords’ amendments should be further considered that day three months.” The bill, therefore, was again laid aside, and that for the most part from a difference of a pound or two in the qualification. The great principle of granting popular corporations to the Irish towns was conceded by the Conservatives; but they would not overlook the trifling difference contested by them and their opponents in the qualification.

[ [!-- IMG --] [ENLARGE]