upon a national system, comprehending all sects
and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to
propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves
to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with
moving, "That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a
rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make
further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties."
The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the
house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth's resolutions was
read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly
inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion
was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The
decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing
further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of
June precluding all further consideration of it.

QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the
arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the
chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of
commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee
for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that
the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:--"By the law
as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent
to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or
satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches
of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their
assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of
the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year
1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll
took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six
or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a
scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and
1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against
the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be
minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision,
or levy the rate t