HC Deb 04 July 1823 vol 9 c1434

On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,

Mr. Calcraft

said that finding if he pressed the insertion of the compulsory clause, it might retard the bill, and being desirous to see it in operation, he should forego the intention he had formed of introducing that clause. As he was sure that, in the next session, the bill must be considerably altered, he should postpone until that period, his proposal for adding those provisions which were necessary to complete the measure.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald

said, that having been one of the first to bring the subject of Irish tithes before the Housed he could not resist the opportunity which was afforded him of expressing his exultation at the success of the measure. He thought the country was much indebted to his majesty's ministers, and he hoped that no alterations would be made elsewhere which could have the effect of defeating its wise provisions.

Sir J. Bridges'

objected to the bill in toto. For, what was it? Neither more nor less than an invasion and subversion of the rights of the ecclesiastical establishment, in violent opposition to the opinions of the clergy, who had not been heard. It had been said, that the hierarchy alone were in opposition to the bill; but such was not the case, for the whole diocese of Armagh was, with scarcely an exception, against the measure.

The bill was read a third time.