TITHES (IRELAND). (Hansard, 14 December 1831)

Mr. Hume
said, that in consequence of a Return having been ordered on a former evening on the motion of the hon. member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis), respecting the Tithes which were the property of Laymen in Ireland, he wished, in order that the Returns might be complete, to obtain a similar Return respecting the Tithes which were in the hands of Churchmen in that country. He therefore begged leave to move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a Return, by the Registrar in each diocese in Ireland, of the number of parishes, the tithes of which, or a modus, are in whole or in part the property of, and paid to the use of any Bishop or person in Holy Orders, specifying the name of such Bishop or person in Holy Orders, and the amount of the income which he has derived from tithes, or from a modus, from each such parish or extra parochial place, on the average of the last three years on account of tithes and modus, stating, if under the Tithe Composition Act, or not; distinguishing whether the tithes be rectorial or vicarial, and the amount levied on arable and pasture land, respectively."

Mr. Goulburn
said, this was a most 224 tremendous Motion, and if it were agreed to he knew not how it could be executed.

Mr. Hume
said, there was no other novelty in the Motion than that it distinguished the arable from the pasture land, a distinction he was ready to expunge, if there was any objection to it.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
said, he did not understand the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to lie so much to the information called for, as to the means of obtaining it, and he was also of opinion, that there would be the utmost difficulty in procuring it, particularly with the nice distinctions required.

§ Sir Richard Vyvyan
declared himself equally hostile to the motion of his hon. friend the member for Oxford, and to the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. But as the motion of his hon. friend had been granted, he did not see how the other Motion could be resisted. Both attacked the rights of property. It was not, however, surprising that the hon. member for Middlesex should press for this Return, because he had always avowed, that he considered the property of the Church national property. He held different opinions. He looked upon Church property as the property either of individuals or of Corporations, and if the House demanded these Returns, it might with equal justice demand from every Gentleman in that House the amount of the rents which he received for his estate. Indeed many estates were held on the same tenure; if therefore the property of the Church of England belonged to the State, so also did that part of the Church property which had been purchased by individuals as well as that which had been granted to noble families in the time of Henry 8th; rather than see the principle acknowledged, that tithes were national property, he would prefer seeing his hon. friend's order cancelled, and the question now before them withdrawn.

Mr. Hume
said, all he wanted was, to have both Motions put upon the same footing; if the hon. Member would give notice of his intention to withdraw his motion, he (Mr. Hume) would most likely follow his example.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
also objected to the Motion, but was not surprised, that the hon. member for Middlesex had made it, considering the doctrines which he had propagated so sedulously regarding Church property being national property. If the object of the hon. Member's Motion was to 225 form a kind of schedule to facilitate the carrying of that point, he would at once say, the House could not concur with him.

Mr. Hume
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had put a construction upon his Motion which the words would not bear, but if the object of his Motion necessarily was, to despoil one class of persons, the motion of the hon. member for Oxford was open to the same objections. He was not in the House when that motion was made, but on seeing it he thought it quite right to have the whole view of the case before them.

Sir Robert Inglis
said, he must protest against the insinuations that the motion he had made was unfairly carried, or that it could be attended with any danger to the Church establishment. He had moved for the same Return in April, 1830, and then had no idea there were objections to it; but on the re-assembling of Parliament, as he had found no Return had been made to his former motion, he had renewed it, when he understood there were difficulties which prevented such a Return being made out. No objection, however, had then been urged to its principles. On that occasion he had stated, that he had objections to the interference of the House with property of any kind, but as invidious attempts had been made to drag the clerical holders of tithes before the public, he wished to have the same measure of justice dealt out to the lay holders. His object had been limited to that point, and to ascertain if the lay-holders possessed any stipend which ought to belong to the clergy.

§ Mr. Crampton
said, that it was impossible that any Return could be made either to the motion of the hon. member for Oxford, or to that of the hon. member for Middlesex. To whom was either order to be addressed?—by whom was it to be obeyed? They might as well ask every Gentleman in Ireland to tell them the amount of the rents of his estate, as every lay or Church impropriator to tell them the amount of his tithes. Besides, what authority had they to compel such a Return from either Church or lay impropriator? They might order every lawyer in Ireland to tell them the amount of his fees, but by what authority could they obtain an answer to such an order? He thought it advisable that the hon. member for Oxford should move, that his order be rescinded, and then he thought that the hon. member for Middlesex would not object to withdraw his Motion. At the 226 same time, he wished for the information as much as the hon. Members themselves, for he was satisfied, the more the state of Church property was investigated, the less reason would there be found for the exaggerated accounts that had gone abroad respecting its property.

Sir Robert Peel
said, he entirely acquiesced in the very sensible and judicious view of this question which had been taken by the Solicitor-General for Ireland. If the motion of his hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, was persevered in, for a Return from the lay impropriators, that furnished a sufficient precedent for a Return of tithes held by the clergy; but there were strong objections to publish the names of the clerical holders of tithes in the present excited state of the public mind. As the Secretary of State for Ireland had given notice of a motion relating to tithes, perhaps the whole question had better be left in his hands. At all events, he should recommend his hon. friend to give notice to have his order cancelled, and he had no doubt the hon. member for Middlesex would withdraw that before the House.

§ Mr. Shaw
said, if these Motions were persevered in, he should make a similar motion with respect to England, for surely Church property in each ought to be placed upon an equal footing.

Mr. Sheil
did not see what good ground of objection existed to the Motions. Returns had been already made from 1,191 clergymen who had made composition for their tithes, and the amount for which the composition was made; and he did not see why Returns should be refused from those parishes where no such composition had been made. Why such objections were made when they had obtained Returns from all the Irish Bishops, except three, he could not imagine. These Returns, too, be it recollected, gave the actual amount of these sees. When they had lately got so much insight into the temporal affairs of the Irish Church, he was surprised that such impediments were now started to their obtaining more complete ones, especially as the Irish Primate himself had allowed that it was advisable such Returns should be furnished, to convince the public that the revenues of the Church had been much exaggerated.

Sir Robert Peel
said, there was a great difference between the Returns now sought for, and those made pursuant to Act of Parliament. Under the Tithe Composition 227 Act, the amount was registered, and there could be no difficulty in obtaining it in each case.

Sir Robert Inglis
said, he did not see why the hon. member for Middlesex had coupled their Motions together; however, he was ready to give notice that his should be rescinded.

Mr. Hume
said, the whole proceeding only shewed, that the hon. member for Oxford could meddle with the Church without any question, while the hon. member for Middlesex was forbidden to do so. He would therefore postpone his Motion, and when the hon. Member gave notice of the discharge of his, he (Mr. Hume) would be prepared to shew the necessity for the Return he required. At all events, three preceding Parliaments had sanctioned the principle of such a Return.