sity of a vote for the purposes of education in Ireland was proved, he was ready to agree to it, whatever might be the amount. When it had been proposed that, since they were unable to educate the young in the principles of the established church, and unwilling to educate them in those of the Roman Catholic faith, they should resort to the only alternative left -an education founded upon the great principles of Christianity, without attempting to gain converts to any particular persuasion, he had never hinted an objection. He knew that objections to this scheme of education were felt by many persons, and he was therefore the more anxious that the promises made to them should be rigidly fulfilled. If the original purpose of the grant were strictly and inviolably preservedif the scruples of Protestants were respected as well as those of Roman Catholics-if education was based on the fundamental principles of moral duty and the leading truths of our religion, in which all concurred, then to any amount that might be required for the purpose, he would not withhold his consent, though he should object to derive the necessary funds from an alienation of ecclesiastical revenues. It was not fair, therefore, to tell the industrious farmer and the poor tenant that the question was, whether their families should be deprived of education; the question was merely, from what source the expenditure required for that education should be derived? But they were told that, unless the bill was preserved in its original form, there was no hope of any satisfactory settlement of the question. Could any rational man, who had heard and read the declarations of the supporters of this bill, entertain a hope that the Catholic, who was called on to pay 5d. as a charge in lieu of tithe, would be perfectly satisfied to pay 4d. out of the 5d. towards the support of the established church? Would he do so because the other penny was to be devoted-to what purpose?-to immediately provide education? Not at all. The claim of all existing incumbents must, in the first place, be provided for. Then, was education necessarily provided for at all? Not in the least. It was from the consolidated fund that they were to provide education. The bill provided that the penny should be devoted to repay to the consolidated fund what they should have advanced for the purposes of education. Was it to be believed that, if they acquiesced in the principle that the church had not a right to this property, there would not be a similar unwillingness to pay the four-fifths of the demand, after the other fifth had been given up? He did not look merely at the amount. His objections were infinitely greater to the principle of alienation, and to the mode in which it was meant to be applied. He could conceive that in some great national calamity they would be justified in taking from men, contrary to the usual course of law, part of their property. In time of war such a proceeding might have been forced upon us. Even then it would be bad enough; it would be a hardship and an injustice. Still, when the demand was limited and definite, and the right was rendered clear and unquestionable, they had, at least, this protection-that the tyrant's plea, an overruling necessity, had been a justification of the alienation, and seats did on the last, or would on the present occasion, vote in the proportion of sixteen to fifteen. Thus they were as nearly as possible equal, instead of remaining more than double. Considering these indications of public opinion, as far as they could be collected from the intervening elections-considering this bill, which they all must admit to be a great improvement of the present system, was sent down to them from the House of Lords-and considering that it was in consonance with the opinions of a very powerful minority in that House, a minority approaching, in point of number, within twenty-six of the number which voted for the settlement of this question on another basis, he could not see that the majority were bound in honour to an adherence to the former principle embodied in the resolution, and to reject this attempt at a settlement, because it did not contain all that that majority voted for. If they did not think that there would be a clear surplus-if they doubted whether any surplus would exist for many years, they should not insist upon the practical enforcement of the principle of appropriation; they should rather consent to attain a great degree of practical good, not assenting to the abandonment of the principle of appropriation, but reserving the practical enforcement of that princide to a future occasion, when the necessity of settling the question should arrive. If there was not, in their opinion, any surplus, and if the occasion for the practical enforcement of the principle had not arrived, was it, he would ask, consistent with the policy of prudent and wise statesmen to reject attainable good, because the shadow of some future good could not be obtained? He moved as an amendment, that the Lords' amendments should be now taken into consideration. The original motion was supported by Mr. Hume, Sergeant O'Loghlin, and Mr. Sheil; and the amendment by Mr. Shaw, Sir James Graham, and Lord Stanley. Mr. Hume frankly admitted, that even the ministerial bill did not satisfy him; it did not go far enough; it could not possibly be a final measure, and even if it passed, he would not consider himself precluded from urging farther demands, when the proper time and circumstances should have arrived. The motion for rejecting the bill was carried by a majority of twenty-nine; the votes for it being 260, and for Sir Robert Peel's amendment 231. CHAP. IV. Commutation of Tithes in England-Provisions of the Bill for commuting Tithes-Views of Lord John Russell and Sir R. Peel-Discussion as to Voluntary and Compulsory Commutation—Debates in Committee-The Bill passes the Lords with Amendments in which the Commons concur―. -Bills for Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and for the celebration of Marriage-The Bills pass the Commons, and pass the Lords with Amendments to which the Commons agree-Reports of the Commission on the Church of England-Bills brought in founded on the Report-Ministerial Bill to alter the Revenues and territory of the different Sees opposed by the Radicals-Debates between Ministers and the Radicals in regard to the Bill-Ministers carry the Bill, and abandon the other Bills, connected with the same subject-Discussions on the Bill in the House of Lords-The Lords pass the Bill-Bills to abolish the Secular Jurisdiction of Bishops-Bill to regulate Ecclesiastical Leases. T ment that followed him did not proceed. His predecessors had introduced a measure for the regulation of the marriages of dissenters; but it had been withdrawn, because it proved extremely unpalatable to the dissenters themselves. Sir Robert Peel had proposed a bill, which was received by the dissenters with great satisfaction, but it likewise was dropped on his retirement from office. The government now undertook to deal with all the three topics. The ministerial plan for the commutation of tithe was brought before the House of Commons by lord John Russell on the 9th February. The subject, he said, consisted of two parts, viz., the principles on which the commutą tion should be made, and the machinery by which it was to be carried into execution. The machinery of the intended bill would be borrowed from sir Robert Peel's bill of last year. There would be a central board of commissioners, consisting of three persons, for the purpose of arranging the question of commutation, of whom two would be appointed by the crown, and one by the archbishop of Canterbury. This board would have power to appoint assistant-commissioners to a certain extent and in certain cases, in the same manner as the poor-law commissioners. The selection of the principle on which the commutation should proceed was, he admitted, a subject attended with much difficulty. One principle which had been proposed was that of taking the amount of the gross value of tithes in every parish, and giving the owners of land the power of redeeming it on a scale formed upon the average value of tithe throughout the kingdom. But although that plan was simple, ministers agreed with sir R. Peel that it was hardly practicable. There were many parts of the country in which tithe was levied in kind-there were some parts in which the composition for tithe was high, and others in which it was exceedingly low. In the latter districts, those who paid a low rate of composition would object to any increase in their payments. So far from intending to pay an increased amount, they expected a diminution; so that a plan of that kind would certainly produce dissatisfaction. Another principle, and one on which a tithe bill introduced by lord Althorp was founded, was the principle of taking the payment of tithe univer sally for the last seven years, and commuting them on that valuation. There was this objection to that principle, that it gave to those incumbents who had been the most severe in the exaction of their tithes the full amount of what they had received; whilst it would prevent those, who had been lenient and indulgent towards the tithepayers, from receiving that augmentation to their income to which they were fully entitled. Another plan of lord Althorp had been this— to take the amount of tithe paid in each parish in certain counties, to strike an average for them all, and then to make the amount of tithe bear a fixed proportion to the rent of the land in each parish, instead of being dependent, as it was at present, upon the produce of the land, But there was here one difficulty, which could not be overcome, and that was, that there would be no justice in converting the payment calculated on the proportion to the produce, which a man by law was obliged to make, into a payment calculated on the proportion to the rent, which by law he was not obliged to pay, and which he had not even contracted to pay. To solve all these difficulties, the preceding administration, in their bill of last year, had adopted the principle of voluntary commutation; but he could not consider this satisfactory, because he was convinced that in a great number of instances, where the exaction of tithe had been most oppressive, there would be no commutation; the old sores would remain, and bad feeling would be continued. In the plan which government now proposed, their object had been, to produce as little disturbance as possible in existing interests, not |