HC Deb 06 June 1823 vol 9 cc802-10

On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,

Mr. Dominick Browne

strongly objected to the bill, the provisions of which, he contended, were calculated rather to irritate than conciliate the people of Ireland. He thought it would be better not to press the bill now, but take time to consider the subject; and with that impression on his mind, he must oppose the Speaker's quitting the chair. He should, instead of the House now going into a committee, propose, that the further proceedings on this bill be postponed to this day six months. He had two great objections to the measure in its present shape. The first was to the mode of constituting the vestry, and imposing the tithe. By the bill as it now stood, a majority of the payers of tithe would be taxed without being represented in the vestry. This was one objection which he had to the present measure. The second was, the power given to arbitrators, or assessors, to raise any living one-third of its present value at their discretion. He would rather the tithe system should continue in its present state, than have it thus regulated at the expense of the rights and properties of individuals.

Mr. Dennis Browne

said, he did not wish to revive angry recollections, but he would say, that the former policy of England towards Ireland was fraught with injustice and oppression. Ireland had a flourishing woollen manufacture, a branch of trade which, if encouraged, would have gone on progressively advancing, and would of itself have been a source of national prosperity. Yet king William promised his parliament to put down that trade; and his majesty kept his word. The Irish woollen manufacture was destroyed, and a fatal blow was thereby given to the prosperity of Ireland. The growth of tobacco was also prevented; and Ireland was prevented from disposing of her wool to any country but England, and to England only at her own price. The hon. gentleman went on to explain the motives which induced the Irish parliament to take away the agistment tithe. The regulations on this head were most objectionable in principle, and would prove most burthen-some in operation. He strongly objected to the power being given to the arbitrators, to advance the claims of clergy at their own discretion. The bill was so objectionable, that he should oppose its proceeding any further at present. He thought the measure should rest where it was till the next session, and that a parliamentary commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the several parishes in Ireland, and to report their observations to the House.

Mr. Abercromby

said, he was one of those who felt that some of the provisions of the bill were highly objectionable; still he was most anxious that the measure should go to a committee. The bill contained principles to which he never could agree; and if it were not amended, it would be his painful duty to oppose it. The mea- sure, countenanced as it was by every description of persons in Ireland, the rich as well as the poor, had given rise to strong expectations. The duty, therefore, of that House was, to give it every possible consideration. Should they be obliged ultimately to reject it, they would then have the consolation of feeling, that they had done their duty.

Sir J. Newport

was of the same opinion. He thought if they now stopped the bill, it would have an ungracious appearance. They had not yet reached the clauses which were the most objectionable. He was of opinion they should go through the committee, and render the bill as efficient as possible; and after it came out of the committee, every gentleman would be at full liberty to reject or support it as he thought proper.

Mr. W. Bankes

disapproved of the bill as it now stood; but, in deference to the Irish gentlemen, he would not oppose its going into a committee.

Mr. Wetherell

repeated his objections to the measure. If it was at all events to be rejected, he thought it was immaterial at what stage the rejection took place. He should therefore oppose going into the committee.

Mr. Secretary Canning

said, it was scarcely possible that a measure of such magnitude and importance, involving so many opposite interests, and exciting so many apprehensions, should not be liable to some objections. If the hon. and learned gentleman thought the bill incapable of amendment, the most parliamentary course would be, to suffer it to go through the committee with all its defects, with the avowed intention of opposing it when it should come out of the committee; but it would be most unusual and unfair to strangle the measure in its present stage. If the bill were thrown out in the present stage, the disquietude out of which it had originated would necessarily be increased, and its rejection would not merely be the loss of a good, but a great practical misfortune.

Colonel Barry

did not think the measure could be rendered acceptable by any modification. If the compulsory clause were abandoned, he should have no objection to the measure, being rendered as unobjectionable as it was capable of being rendered; but, if that clause were persevered in, he should resist going into the committee; for he was satisfied that the measure, so far from having a conciliatory effect, would extend disquietude to every part of Ireland.

Mr. Peel

said, that his right hon. friend's objection to the compulsory clause was not a valid reason against going into the committee, because he would have a full opportunity of discussing that clause, and stating all his objections to it, in the committee. For his own part, if the compulsory clause were omitted, he would lend his aid in endeavouring to make the bill as perfect as it was capable of being made; but he would not consent to any principle of compulsion, unless the full rights of the church were secured.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald

net only objected to the compulsory clause, but thought the principle of the bill so objectionable, that even if that clause were withdrawn, he should still feel it his duty to oppose it. He would consent to go into the committee, with the declaration that his objections to the measure were not only unabated but increased, and with the anticipation that he should be ultimately compelled to vote against the whole bill.

The House having resolved itself into the Committee,

Mr. Goulburn

called the attention of the committee to an amendment which he thought founded in justice. The object of it was, that where tithes had been paid or agreed for, and the sum so paid or agreed for was not adequate to the just claim of the clergyman, it should be in the power of the commissioners to add to their award a sum not exceeding one-third of the amount of the tithes.

Mr. Calcraft

thought it would be sufficient to give the commissioners a power to add one-fifth.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald

thought the mode of appointing commissioners so vicious, that he should not consent to give them any discretionary power. The effect of this amendment would enable the commissioners to give the clergyman a compensation for tithes which no one had ever thought of demanding.

Colonel Barry

said, it would remove some of his objections to the bill, if an appeal, were given from the decision of the commissioners, to, the lord-lieutenant in council.

Mr. Goulburn

said, he-should oppose any such amendment, because he thought an attempt to reach such a nicety in legislating upon this subject would have the effect of making the bill inoperative. In some parishes there were 2,000 persons paying tithes, most of them low and ignorant' men. Now, how could they conduct an appeal? Besides, the lord-lieutenant and council were hot accustomed to hear and determine appeals, and were not always sitting. If this amendment were adopted, there would be an appeal in every case where there was a difference between the clergyman and his parishioners, which would add greatly to the expenses of the parties.

Mr. Goulburn's

amendment was agreed to.

Upon the clause giving to the umpire the power to fix the amount of composition to be paid by any parish,

Mr. S. Rice

contended, that the rule by which the rate of composition was fixed, should be the amount received by the clergyman on the average of the last three-years. He alluded to the resolutions adopted at a meeting of the noblemen and land proprietors of Ireland, held some time ago at the Thatched-house tavern, and contended that the basis of those resolutions was the same as that on which he now wished to have the present mode of valuing tithes in Ireland established. It should be recollected that the cleryman would gain a considerable advantage by having his present precarious income made certain.

Mr. Goulburn

protested against the course which the hon. member proposed to adopt. When he proposed to take the last year's receipts as a standard, did he recollect what was the present state of man parts of Ireland? the difficulty there had been in collecting any tithe at all, and how unnaturally the incomes of the clergy had, in many instances, been reduced? He denied that the resolutions adopted at the Thatched-house tavern would bear the construction put upon them by the hon. gentleman. Those resolutions stated, that, for the tranquillity of Ireland, it was desirable that, for the present pre carious income of the clergy, a certain equivalent should be given them of the full value of their tithe. Now, a full equivalent must mean something equal to what they were entitled to under the law: it never could be meant that the precarious income of the last year or two was to be taken as the standard of full equivalent.

Sir J. Newport

said, that the object of those who agreed to the resolutions which had been adverted to, was, to give to the clergy a certain, instead of a precarious income, and that in such a manner as not to set the clergyman and his parishioners in opposition to each other. When the right hon. gentleman talked of the reduced incomes and deprivations of the clergy, he should not forget the deprivations which the landlords had suffered, and the reductions of rents which they had been obliged to submit to. The proposition of his hon. friend only related to compensation to the clergyman, and not to future composition, which was to be fixed on the average of the last seven years, and would give to the clergy an income far above the standard of the present price of corn.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald

thought the clergy would obtain a great advantage by getting security for their incomes on the land of Ireland, instead of precarious payment as at present, from an insolvent peasantry.

Mr. Dawson

objected to the proposition. Did the House know what at present was the state of the South of Ireland, and of the clergy in that part of the kingdom? He had that day received a letter from an individual In that quarter, upon whose statements he could rely: and, amongst other instances, the writer stated, that the clergyman of a parish valued at 800l. a year, was now in a state of great distress, having 7,000l. due to him for tithes. In another parish, valued at 1,200l. a year, the clergyman was in the same situation, and was now deliberating whether he should or should not throw up the living. The writer of the letter himself, who was the incumbent of a living estimated at 1,400l. a year, had, in the last year, received no more than 160l., and had several thousand pounds due to him for arrears. Under this state of things would it be just, to estimate the amount of compensation upon the receipts of last year?

Mr. S. Rice

had never contended that the value of the living was to be estimated upon thereceipt of last year; but in speaking of compensation to a man for what he had never had, he contended they were not called on to give a compensation for what it was not likely the clergyman would ever recover. He would give as much in the case of the 7,000l. arrears mentioned by the right hon. gentleman as the 7,000l. was fairly worth.

Mr. Peel

condemned this mode of valuing compensation, as cruel and unjust to the clergyman.

Mr. Grey Bennet

said, that a three years' average out of the last seven years might be so selected, as to give a much higher price of corn than we could look to have kept up in future. If the landlords of Ireland could be brought to agree to such a contract, he had only to wish them joy of their bargain.

Mr. Ricardo

thought the composition should be regulated every three years, and that such regulation should be fixed on the average price of corn for the last three years.

The clause was then agreed to.

On the clause for regulating the mode of the award by the commissioners,

Colonel Barry

proposed, that a right of appeal should be allowed to persons who paid 5l. in tithes, if dissatisfied with the award, to the lord lieutenant in council.

Mr. Wetherell

felt objections to placing these new powers in the commissioners, and was still more opposed to giving so large a power to the appellant jurisdiction with which the lord lieutenant, with his council, was to be intrusted. He considered that those powers were at variance with all the existing laws for the regulation of church property.

Mr. Plunkett

said, that examples of arming the Irish government with a similar power might be found. The lord lieutenant and his council were the court of appeal for cases in which salvage, which had been awarded by the parish officers for useful service in rescuing from ship wreck, should be called in question. They had the same power in the case of minister's money and in several others. He thought the appeal was necessary to pre vent the corruption or misconduct of the commissioners of award.

The clause was agreed to. The next clause proposed was that, which has been termed the compulsory clause. The object of it was, in cases where the vestry and the minister differed as to the appointment of an umpire, to empower the lord lieutenant to appoint a commissioner to make a composition, according to the quantity and value of the land in the parish.

Colonel Barry

objected to this clause, because it would convey to men who were not likely to be well qualified, the power of judging in all questions of tithe many of which involved nice and subtile points of law.

Mr. S. Rice

strongly objected to this clause, which went to give the clergy their, extreme rights, and greatly to extend their present incomes. In eases where the clergy were to pay, this question of extreme right was never heard of; but where they were to receive, it was never forgotten. If they were to be paid their extreme right, it was the duty of the House to call on them to do all which the tithe was granted for. He especially alluded to their duties as regarded the education of the poor. It had been the intention of the present lord Maryborough, had he remained in office, td have proposed the imposing a duty of 2½ per cent, on the incomes of the clergy, to raise a fund to be applied to educating the poor. He would take the sense of the House upon this clause of the bill, and hoped that not a single Irish member would be found to vote for giving this extreme right to the clergy.

Mr. Hume

wished to know if it was intended to introduce a clause into the bill, declaring that no clergyman should be entitled to composition who did not reside on the living?

Mr. Goulburn

replied, that he had no such intention at present. The bill was already sufficiently incumbered with provisions, and there were besides other reasons which rendered it inexpedient to add regulations upon a subject which could not be said properly to belong to it. Nobody could be more anxious than he was to enforce the residence of the clergy of Ireland. During the short time he had been in that country, his efforts had been directed to promote so desirable an object; and although he would not pledge himself to take any particular steps at present, he was convinced that some such measure was necessary to secure the permanent improvement and amelioration of the people.

Mr. W. Bankes

said, he must object to this clause, which went to constitute the lord lieutenant in council a court of equity.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald

objected to the clause, which, in two-thirds of Ireland, would give to the clergy a payment of tithe never contemplated. The bill, in its present state, would endanger the very existence of the Established church, and, instead of a measure of conciliation, be one of irritation.

Mr. Welherell

opposed the clause, because it would compel the government to take in some cases a bad title, and yet give to the clergyman a larger tithe than he would otherwise have had.

Mr. C. Grant

thought great credit was due to the government, for having origin- ated this measure, which would go far to alleviate one of the greatest evils which Ireland was afflicted. He objected, however, to that part of the compulsory; clause, which would give the commissioner the power to enforce the full legel tithes.

Mr. Goulburn

said, there were two questions before the committee; namely whether they should adopt the amendment, or resist the clause altogether. To adopt the amendment would be dangerous, as it would be to adopt a principle which might be applied to other species of property. It would be better to leave out the clause altogether.

Mr. Abercromby

, though he was a friend to Catholic emancipation, was no' friend to Catholic ascendancy. If this clause should pass, he agreed that the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland was not worth five years' purchase. He objected to it, but approved of the bill. He hoped some arrangement might be come to, which should send it forth as a relief to the clergy in Ireland.

Mr. Peel

was desirous that the compulsory clause should be committed altogether. If he were asked, whether he wished for a commission to estimate and to give to the clergy the full value of their dormant rights, he replied at once, that he wished for no such thing. But he was opposed to the compulsory clause upon principle.

The Committee divided: For the Amendment, 39. Against it, 84. The clause was then agreed to, and the House resumed.