the day, Mr. C. Wynn objected that the bill was a
tax-bill, and therefore could originate only in a committee of the whole
house. This view was combated by Lord Althorp, Mr. Stanley, and the
solicitor-general; and supported by Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs.
Goulburn and others. The objection was so strong that Lord Althorp found
himself under the necessity of discharging the order for the second
reading; and, on the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, a select committee was
appointed to search for precedents, and report its opinion whether the
bill should, according to the rules and orders of the house, originate
in a committee of the whole house. This committee reported that the bill
was a tax-bill; and in consequence of this decision Lord Althorp, on the
1st of April, moved three resolutions with reference to the Irish church
in a committee of the whole house. These resolutions having been agreed
to, the bill relating thereto, which was a counterpart of the former,
was read a first time. The second reading was fixed for the 6th of May,
on which day Mr. Shaw met the motion with an amendment that it should be
read that day six months. He opposed the bill, he said, because it
would violate the rights of property, and because it tended to lower the
character of the clergy. If property so fenced by acts of parliament,
as church property was, could be assailed, he asked, what species of
property could be safe? He admitted that it was desirable to change
the system of church-cess; the Irish clergy themselves would not
have objected to a proper remedy for this; but he would have sought a
substitute for it in the reduction of the incomes of the bishops, and
not in the diminution of their number. The amendment was seconded by Mr.
Estcourt, one of the members for the University of Oxford, who thought
that where the principles of the bill were not mischievous, as involving
the first example of a confiscation of property, they were fallacious
in the results which it was promised they would produce. Sir Robert
Peel said that he approved of many parts of the bill--as that part which
required that the spiritual duties of the clergy should be personally
discharged, and of that which provided for the abolition of the
church-cess. At the same time there were other parts of the bill, he
said, which he disliked. Lord Althorp and Messrs. Stanley and Grant
maintained that there was no ground for denying the right of parliament
to interfere with the chur