§ The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply to which the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates were referred. Mr. Goulburn moved, "That 17,000l. be granted for defraying the expense of the Protestant 830 Charter Schools of Ireland, for one year."
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had expected to see a considerable reduction in the Irish estimates of the present year. He regretted that he did not see upon the table certain returns for which he had moved, showing the revenue and expenditure of Ireland during the last three years. From those papers, when produced, it would appear that the expenditure of Ireland exceeded her revenue by 2,500,000l. He found, by the articles of the Union, they were bound not to reduce the allowances for charitable purposes below the average of the six preceding years. The subject had been discussed in 1817; and at that time it was agreed, that the charitable grants ought not to continue at the rate at which they then stood. From this admission, he had been led to hope for a nearer approximation to the average stipulated in the articles of the Union. That average, calculated on the six years preceding the Union, was 47,284l. This sum went on increasing, until it had reached 205,000l. in the year in which the committee sat. It had now been reduced to 123,000l., which he still thought too much. He objected generally to the principle of the public attempting to provide for and manage charitable establishments. A great deal of the money granted for such purposes was diverted from the proper channel. To the specific proposition, he could not assent. He would never grudge money for giving education to the children of the Irish people. On the contrary, he would advise some general system for that purpose; but then he would have it adapted more to the necessities of the whole people: he would have the means secured for imparting education to the Catholic population, which formed five-sixths of the whole people. He would move for a reduction of the vote to 10,000l., with the hope of seeing the other 7,000l. applied to some plan of education more consistent with the general interests of the people.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, it was true that this vote was for an establishment for Protestant education; but it was not exclusively for the benefit of Protestants. It was an establishment in the strictest and most general sense charitable. So far from interfering with the duties of parents, the greater portion of the children were orphans.
§ Sir J. Newportthought there might be a more judicious application of the grants for the education of the Irish people, and hoped to see some beneficial alteration. He thought it would be advisable to reduce the number of scholars on the establishment, which was too exclusive and separate, and apply the grant to one of more general usefulness. Still, the modification must be left to the discretion of the public functionaries.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, he would take the subject into his consideration, with a view to the adoption, if possible, of some more advantageous plan for the application of these grants. He did not think that more than a due proportion of these grants was allotted for the education of Protestant children.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that in consequence of the explanation which had been given, he would withdraw the amendment he had proposed, and substitute in its stead a resolution, that the grant should be reduced to 13,000l.
The question upon the latter amendment was then put, and the House divided: For the amendment, 15. Against it, 42. On the resolution, "That 1,930l. be granted for defraying the expense of the Female Orphan House in Dublin, for one year,"
§ Mr. Humeadverted to the periodical increase of the sums granted to this institution, as an illustration of the system of charitable grants to different institutions of Ireland. At the time of the Union, the grant was only for 500l.; it was now 1,930l. He trusted the expense would only be applied to the support of those who were now actually supported, and that in future the principle of exclusion would be applied, so as ultimately to get rid of these grants altogether. It was a severe burthen on the great mass of the community that it should be burthened with demands for the support of a small part of the population. If the government did not exert itself to accelerate that result, he trusted the House would, in the next session, take up the subject.
§ Mr. Goulburnprotested against the general principle of the hon. member, that, because it was impossible to support the whole of the pauper population, no support of the kind should be bestowed.
§ Mr. Dawsonadverted to the great increase that had taken place in the population of Dublin and other parts of Ireland.
§ Mr. Grattandisapproved altogether of any interference with the Irish charitable institutions: and bore his testimony to the judicious administration of the houses of industry in Dublin.
§ Mr. Moncksaid, the hon. member for Aberdeen's proposition was perfectly correct. There was no distinction more obvious than that between duties of perfect and imperfect obligation. Nothing could be more unwise than an attempt to enforce, by legislative enactment, the performance of duties of imperfect obligation. The poor laws of England were a remarkable instance of this. His hon. friend did not propose that the children should be abandoned; but that they should be supported by the contributions of the rich, and not by the public purse. If the public performed this duty, it would have the effect of stifling the operation of charitable feeling, and would furnish an excuse to those who could afford it, to withhold their donations.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, that the Union having withdrawn the rich proprietors, prevented their charity from having that effect in Ireland which it would otherwise have. If the three millions annually brought over to England from Ireland, were expended in the latter country, not only would the poor be relieved, but every charitable establishment be adequately supported.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could, from his own knowledge, assert, that more liberality, or a greater portion of charitable feeling, did not exist in any community than was to be found in Dublin. The hon. baronet had spoken of the disadvantages under which Ireland laboured, in consequence of the absence of many individuals of wealth and rank, whose duties obliged them to reside principally in this country. But there was another point which bore particularly hard on the city of Dublin. A great number of persons, from every part of Ireland, proceeded to Dublin, on their way to this country, where they hoped to procure a livelihood. The consequence was, that the poor of all sorts congregated there, and the ordinary sources of charity were inadequate to their support. He had himself officiated on charitable occasions in Dublin, and he never knew larger funds to be raised in any place for purposes of charity and benevolence. He had seen from 600l. to 800l. collected at a charity sermon. These donations supplied, in some degree, the place of the poor laws.
§ Mr. Humesaid, it was very true, that many Irish gentlemen came over to this country; but did their land come with them? Why should they not apply a portion of their revenues to the support of these charities? Why should the public be called on to supply the funds? Such charitable grants were really not beneficial. If we wished to make Ireland happy, we must give them education, revise the existing tithe system, and discourage, as much as possible, the tendency to become absentees.
§ Mr. Dawsondefended those Irish gentlemen whose public duties compelled them to remain in this country, from the imputation thrown out in so general a manner. If charities were to depend merely on individual bounty, we should soon have but few efficient charitable institutions. The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 2000l. be granted for defraying the expense of the Royal Cork Institution,"
§ Mr. Humeasked why, if such an institution were good in Cork, it would not be equally good at Limerick, and other places? Why not, instead of burthening the public with the expense, let the persons who attended the lectures pay for them.
§ Sir J. Newportdefended the institution, and said it had done great service, not only to Cork, but to other parts of Ireland. When first established, however, he allowed it was expected that it would eventually support itself.
§ Mr. Humecalled on government to say, why the institution had not supported itself, and why the public were still called upon to support it.
§ Mr. Goulburncontended, that the institution had greatly tended to the improvement of the various manufactures of Ireland. It was impossible that it could maintain itself, because the subordinate classes of the people who received instruction from it, had no means of allowing any remuneration for the advantage.
§ The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 7,000l be granted to the Royal Dublin Society,"
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had last year taken the sense of the committee on this vote, because he conceived it to be money actually thrown away; and he was now more and more convinced, that the sum demanded, could not, as laid out by the society, operate any benefit to the coun- 834 try. The society was founded in 1731. It was intended not to promote one, but several objects, the chief of which were, agriculture and manufactures. Now, there were other societies established for the same purpose; and why should they divide the public funds in this way? Last year, the right hon. gentleman had expatiated on the useful publications which had emanated from this body. He should be glad to know what great literary productions the society had sent forth in the last year? He believed it was more a political club, where gentlemen met to read the newspapers, than a literary society.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, the society was not merely founded for the purpose of preparing literary works, but to patronize lectures on different branches of art and science. There were six professors, who lectured on chemistry, botany, natural philosophy, &c. Those lectures were extremely well attended. Since professors had been appointed, many improvements in the useful arts had been effected, the benefit of which was felt by a large class of persons. There was another branch of the institution which had for its object the cultivation of the fine arts; and many individuals who had attained to great proficiency in those arts, owed their first advance to the instruction which they had received in that society. As soon as their funds allowed it, two students would be selected to prosecute the study of the fine arts in Rome.
§ Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. gentleman, when this subject was last before the committee, had appealed to the valuable publications that had been sent forth by the Dublin society, as a proof of the utility of that body. Where were those publications? He had indeed picked up some of their proceedings, and they certainly were the most childish proceedings he ever met with. He had the minutes of six of their proceedings, and they were really puerile. In one instance, a motion was made to pay 5l. to the clergyman, as tithe of an acre and a half of land belonging to the institution, for the produce of which they only received 8l. He called on any Irish gentleman to declare, what was the opinion entertained of the society in Dublin. Was it not considered a mere job? and were not the proceedings childish in the utmost degree? He saw amongst the proceedings votes of 1l. 10s., 3l., and 4l. as premiums for the improvement of 835 the fine arts. This was all a mockery. But the right hon. gentleman said, that students would be sent to Rome, to study the fine arts. What had they to do with sending sculptors to Rome? They were already overloaded with sculptors and artists of every description. By proceeding in this course, they would create a greater number than the demand required; and the effect of such an expenditure of money would be, to injure those who were already connected with the arts. Why were not students sent from London to Rome? Why did not the right hon. secretary for the home department move for a sum of money to send young men from London to Rome on the same principle? With respect to the useful publications of the Dublin society, he was not content to lavish the public money on bookmakers. If necessary, many persons could easily be found, who were ready to make them, and whose manufacture would be much better than that of the Dublin society. He certainly should propose a reduction of one-half the grant. No less than 1,271l. was paid in rent and taxes, for the house of the establishment—a sum which, if applied properly, would be of more use in spreading knowledge through different parts of Ireland, than all that had been done by the Dublin society. He would, by reducing the grant, put it out of their power to send artists to Rome, or to purchase periodical publications; and, if he succeeded now, he would move a further reduction next year. He then proposed that 3,500l. should be substituted for 7,000l.
§ Sir J. Newportobserved, that the efforts of the society had produced a great improvement in agriculture.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that when money was voted to an institution for one purpose, it ought not to be appropriated to another. If the improvement of agriculture was sought for, they had a Farming society, and why not directly vote money to them for that purpose?
The amendment was withdrawn, and the resolution agreed to. On the resolution, "That 9,230l. be granted, for defraying the expense of building churches and glebe-houses, and of purchasing glebes in Ireland,"
§ Lord A. Hamiltondid not rise to oppose the amount of the sum, but to express his dislike to the principle on which it was called for. The grant was for the establishment of the church of 836 Ireland; and, as they had heard last night, the first fruits, which should be made available for that purpose, had of late never been collected. But, the ground on which he opposed the vote was, that the church of Ireland was already overpaid—that it was remunerated more largely, in comparison with the duties performed, than the church of any nation in Europe. Sorry, also, he was, to say, that the church service was worse performed in Ireland than in any other country. He did not mean to cast odium on those by whom it was so performed: he would let those individuals and the government divide the odium between them. The facts were, however, before the House. They might see, by examining the documents on their table, how many parishes were without clergymen; they might also see, that various parishes were so united, that it was impossible, the duty could be performed. They found a considerable body of persons complaining to lord Blaney, that the rites of the church in their district were not solemnized. And, what was the answer?—that he had, for three years, been ineffectually labouring to remove the evil. It must also be kept in mind, that the whole of the money thus granted by parliament must be defrayed out of the taxes of this country, for Ireland was unable to exceed her present amount of contribution to the public exigencies.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the noble lord seemed to imagine that this was a vote of 9,000l. to pay the church establishment of Ireland. It was no such thing; and, until the noble lord could satisfy him that the clergy, both here and in Ireland, were bound to build glebe-houses and repair churches out of their own pockets and without this aid, he must persevere in proposing the present vote. With respect to the noble lord's observation, that no where was the church service worse performed than in Ireland, he must declare, as a constant attendant at that service both here and in Ireland, that in no place had he seen it better performed than in the latter; that in no place had he seen it more efficiently enforced, or in a manner which reflected greater honour and credit upon the clergy engaged in such duties.
§ Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that his meaning was, not that the church service in Ireland was worse performed, but that in many instances it was not performed at 837 all; and in proof of this he referred to lord Blaney's letter, and to the parliamenary returns, which showed that in many parishes there was no church at all.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, that lord Blaney's letter merely went to show, not that there was no service performed, but that there ought to have been a resident rector as well as curate.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, that the recommendation of lord Blaney to the bishop of the diocese appeared to have been made in vain, although backed by the entreaties of 300 of the protestant parishioners. He meant to oppose this vote on two grounds; the first was, that it went to augment the funds of the higher orders of the clergy of Ireland, who were already greatly overpaid, and who, if not bound by law, were yet bound in honour to defray those expenses incidental to the performance of their duties, more particularly when it was considered that the hierarchy of that church received out of the pockets of the people hundreds of thousands more of emolument than was received by any other clergy in Europe. Would the world believe, that the three principal personages of the Irish episcopacy, who had died within the last fifteen years, had bequeathed to their families upwards of 700,000l. every shilling of which enormous property they had acquired by their sees in Ireland? Such a fact ought to bring down shame upon the episcopal order, when the members of it called for parliamentary aid to repair their glebes? His second ground of objection to the vote was, that by the statutes of Geo. 1st and Geo. 2nd., it was enjoined that every clergyman possessed of a benefice exceeding 100l. a year in value, should be obliged by his archbishop or bishop, within three years to build a glebe-house; yet, notwithstanding these provisions of the law, he knew instances in which glebes containing 1,500 and 2,000 acres of land, were held for five, seven, and ten years, and no glebe-house ever built upon them. This was the case in the parish of hilly-begs, in the diocese of Raphoe; and the bishop, who was the present primate of Ireland, had not enforced the law, and why? Because the rector was a pluralist and non-resident. It was too hard upon the catholic population of Ireland to be taxed in this manner for building and repairing protestant churches, while they knew that the protestant clergy derived such enormous revenues for the perform- 838 ance of such inadequate services. That a wretched and impoverished catholic peasantry should be oppressed by sesses levied for such a purpose was a disgrace to the established church.
§ Mr. Humedenied that the Irish government had reformed the abuses of the Irish established church, which he would contend remained at the present day, as notorious as they were when Mr. Grattan brought the subject before the Irish legislature. Since the year 1800, no less a sum than 703,994l. had been granted for these church buildings. Such a demand, particularly upon the people of England, was monstrous, when the Irish church possessed such enormous revenues. He would take the sense of the house upon the vote.
§ Mr. W. Smithsaid, that were he a bishop, he would look upon the proposer of such grants as these as the worst friend of the established church, for the effect of such propositions must be, to alienate men's minds from the establishment. He had heard from undoubted authority that in Ireland the number of the catholics was increasing, while that of the protestants was on the decrease. Where, then, were the practical benefits conferred on Ireland by the church establishment, adequate to the enormous amount of its expense, and the contention for the payment of its tithes?
§ Mr. Grattanconfirmed the statement respecting the numerical decrease of the protestants, which he attributed to the manner of upholding the established church more by the amassing of enormous wealth than the adequate performance of religious duties. It was too much, under such circumstances, to come to parliament for grants which must be defrayed out of the pockets of the people, already too much oppressed by the intolerable weight of a system fraught with the elements of permanent disturbance in Ireland.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the money for glebe-houses was only called for in advance; it was afterwards to be repaid to the public by the incumbents. The revenue of Ireland might not be equal to all the expenses of that kingdom; but the question ought to be considered with reference to the whole empire. It ought to be viewed, not so much one of a local as of a general nature. Wherever the government had built glebe-houses, and there had been a resident clergy, the effect had been to increase the num- 839 ber of the protestant community, and the object of the vote would be to collect, as soon as possible, the whole of that community in Ireland, under the care of a resident protestant clergy, and thereby to confer a lasting benefit, not upon Ireland only, but on the whole united kingdom.
§ Sir J. Newportobserved, that, in the diocese of Ossory alone, from 1737 to 1302, there had been an amazing decrease of protestants. So lately as in 1816, there had been an instance in which six vicarages were united into one benefice. He pledged himself that next session he would move the House to go into a committee on the state of the established church in Ireland, and to consider the report of the bishops thereon.
§ The committee divided. For the resolution, 13, against it, 19.