274 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1834- of the kind, and insisted upon all their amendments ; on which Lord John Russell moved that the amendments be taken into consideration that day three months, which was carried, and the bill thereby dropped. A similar fate befel the ministerial attempt to deal with Irish tithes. On the 2 5th of April Lord Morpeth moved a resolution and explained the nature of the proposed bill, which was to include clauses providing for the appropriation of surplus church revenue to other than church purposes. The second reading was moved on the 1st of June, and, on a division on the 3rd, was carried, over an amendment moved by Lord Stanley, by 300 to 261, giving a majority of thirty-nine. No material alterations were made in committee, and on the 1 5th of July the bill passed. It was read a second time in the House of Lords on the 22nd of July, and went into committee on the 25th, when all the appropriation clauses were struck out, and in the altered shape it went back to the Commons. As agreement was impossible, the same course was taken on the 2nd of August as was adopted with the Municipal Bill, and the measure dropped. The Ministry were equally unfortunate in an attempt to amend the English Municipal Act, especially the part relating to the administration of charitable trusts. The peers objected to the elective principle being introduced, and the Commons would not consent to matters remaining as they were. The differences between the two Houses were strenuously debated, two free conferences being held between them ; but in the end the Peers refused to give way, and this bill also was abandoned. That ministers should accept these defeats and remain in office, as though nothing particular had happened, was fatal to their character. It has been, unfortunately, a matter of necessity that Liberal Governments have had constantly to submit to the alterations, and often to the rejection, of their measures by a House in which there is a permanent Tory majority, which can be moved only by fear to assent to any Liberal legislation. But there have, in the case of every Government, been questions involving serious principles
