§ On the Motion of Mr. Littleton, the Order of the Day was read for the House going into Committee on the Tithes Arrear (Ireland) Bill.
§ The House went into Committee.
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, that in submitting the statement which he was about to lay before the Committee, it would be necessary for him, in the first instance, to give them an estimate of the amount of arrears of tithes that remained due in Ireland for the years 1831 and 1832, and also of the amount of arrears of tithes due for the year 1833, for the total amount of which the measure he was about to introduce went to provide. Some weeks ago his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had called the attention of the House to this subject; but at that time his noble friend was not prepared to state the precise amount of the sum that Parliament would be called upon to advance, and as, since that period, a desire had been expressed by the House that impropriate tithes should be included in this arrangement, it was necessary to ascertain the amount of such tithe due at present. Early in the Session an account of the amount of tithes 342 and arrears of tithes due was ordered, at the instance of the hon. member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), and that account had been presented to the House on the 11th ult. That Return had misled many hon. Members as to the amount of tithes due, and it was altogether so erroneous that he would not have alluded to it on the present occasion, had it not been referred to on a former evening by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam worth, as an authority on the subject. It was not only erroneous in this respect, that from many parishes it contained no Return at all; but furthermore, it contained no account of the amount of tithe due for the present year, nor any account of what was due for impropriate tithes. It besides included the arrears of tithes due since the 1st of May, 1829. Now, from all that had come to his (Mr. Littleton's) knowledge, he did not believe, that there was any considerable amount of arrears due for the years 1829 and 1830. According to this account, which was, as he had remarked, an extremely erroneous one, the whole amount of arrears due was 409,384l. He would now proceed to state to the Committee what his estimate was of the amount of arrears due, according to the best information he had been able to collect upon the subject. With respect to the arrears for the year 1831, proceeding upon what he considered to be pretty correct data—namely, the amount claimed by the clergy under the Relief Bill of last Session he would set them down at 104,285l. From that sum was to be deducted 12,100l., the total amount which had been recovered by the Government in consequence of taking those arrears upon them as Crown debts. That amount too, he was bound to say, had been collected with great difficulty, and with some loss of life. Deducting it from the sum he had already mentioned, it left the total amount of arrears due for the year 1831, 92,185l. To that it would be necessary to add a sum which, calculating it on the best authority, he estimated at about 20,000l.—namely, the amount of arrears due to Bishops, Corporations, and to other persons who had not availed themselves of the relief afforded by the Act of last Session. That would make, according to his calculation, the total amount of arrears due for the year 1831, 112,185l. Now, with respect to the arrears due for 1832, he had in the first instance to observe, that the total amount of the ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland was calculated at 600,000l. That, 343 he believed, was the estimate made of their amount by the best informed authorities on the subject. In the year 1832, in consequence of the great difficulties and embarrassments which had arisen in 1831 with regard to the collection of tithes, the collection of them was rendered still more difficult. A very small proportion of the tithes due for that year was collected in the southern counties of Ireland. A much larger proportion was collected in the northern counties; and, according to the best accounts which he had received from various parts of Ireland, he had every reason to believe that no less than 300,000l. for ecclesiastical tithes remained due for the year 1832. It appeared, then, that the total amount of arrears due for 1831 was 112,185l.; for 1832, 300,000l.; making a total due for those two years of 412,185l.; to that was to be added the sum of 600,000l, being the amount of tithes due for the current year; thus leaving the gross amount of ecclesiastical tithes due and unpaid for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, at 1,012,185l. The greatest difficulty had been experienced in calculating the amount of lay tithes due for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833. As much greater hostility existed to the payment of impropriate than of ecclesiastical tithes, it was very probable that a very small proportion of lay tithes had been collected throughout Ireland during that period. By an account which had been laid before Parliament early in the year, it appeared, that the number of impropriate parishes in all the dioceses in Ireland amounted to 669. By looking at those which had compounded, by which he had ascertained the amount of his tithes, he had come to the conclusion, that the gross amount of lay tithes due was 94,192l. 19s. 1d. It was, however, to be observed, that in some cases the lay tithe and rent had been added together, and in that way some of the landlords had received the value of their lay tithes. It would be necessary, therefore, to make an abatement for that consideration from the gross amount he had already mentioned. The abatement he proposed to make from that sum, in consideration of lay tithe added to rent, was 20,000l.; balance of lay tithe remaining due each year, 74,192l. 19s. 1d., which balance, multiplied by three, leaves an arrear of lay tithes for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, of 222,578l. 17s. 3d.; there by making the gross arrear of ecclesiastical and lay tithes for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, to be 344 1,234,763l. 17s. 3d. That was certainly a large amount. It would not be necessary, however, to apply to Parliament for an advance equal to that sum. He believed, that nobody would be inclined to dispute the justice of the principle, that if Parliament should come forward with a sum to pay the tithe-owners what was due to them, relieving them from the costs of collection, of valuation, and the other expenses and difficulties attendant upon the recovery of that species of property, a considerable discount should be given to the parties thus making such ready-money payment. He believed, that the Irish Members would not refuse a large discount upon the arrears for the years 1831 and 1832, as a considerable portion of those arrears must have been considered bad debts if Parliament had not stepped in and guaranteed their payment. A great difference must be made between those arrears and the tithes due for the present year. It was proposed, therefore, that while, upon the payment of the tithes due for the present year a deduction of not more than fifteen per cent should be made, a deduction of twenty-five per cent should be made upon the payment of the arrears for 1831 and 1832. The total per centage thus allowed would amount to 241,242l., which, deducted from the total amount of tithes and arrears due—namely, 1,234,763l., left a balance of 993,521l. That, therefore, was the amount to be provided for, and it was proposed to provide for it by an issue of Exchequer-bills to the amount of 1,000,000l. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to explain to the Committee the machinery of the Bill by which it was proposed to arrange the distribution of this money, and the mode in which it was to be subsequently levied on the land. Such he said were the heads of the Bill which it was his intention to propose on this subject. He would beg leave, in conclusion, to move the following Resolution:—"That his Majesty be enabled to direct Exchequer-bills to an amount not exceeding 1,000,000l. to be issued for the purpose of advancing under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for 1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of twenty-five per cent; and the value of the tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent, to such persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be desirous of receiving such advances, and that the amount advanced shall be included in the tithe composition, so as to be repaid in the course of 345 five years, being payable by half yearly instalments."
§ Mr. Shawsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) should understand, that he (Mr. Shaw) had not moved for the Return of the arrears of tithe with any reference to the present measure, but previously to the announcement of any intention by his Majesty's Government to introduce that measure, and with a view to lay open the system of injustice and resistance to the laws under which the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland were suffering. He (Mr. Shaw) did not, however, materially differ in his calculation of the amount due, and now to be provided for from that which the right hon. Gentleman had come to by a different process. Setting off the number of benefices not returned at all, which appeared to be 157, against the arrears of 1829 and 1830, which were included in the Return, but which of course were not a part of the sum now to be estimated, there remained in round numbers 500,000l. of clerical arrear due for the years 1831 and 1832. Add to that the clerical tithes of the present year, being somewhat more than 500,000l., and about 200,000l. for the impropriate tithes for the arrears of the two last years, and for the current year, the result would be as nearly as possible the same the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at—namely, that a sum of about 1,200,000l. would be due for tithes in Ireland, and remained to be provided for by the Resolution then before the Committee. With respect to the means by which the Government proposed (as just stated by the right hon. Gentleman) to raise that sum of money, and to meet the difficulties of the case, difficulties which he admitted were great, but which he (Mr. Shaw) could show were produced principally by the weakness and the folly of the Government themselves—with respect, he said, to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, he contended that its leading characteristic was that of gross injustice to each and all of the parties concerned. First, as to the landlords, it was unjust beyond all precedent to require them to pay not only what they had not been liable to by law, but a charge that they had expressly contracted should be paid by their occupying tenants and not by themselves. The case was altogether different where there was no existing lease or contract. There he (Mr. Shaw) approved of making the landlord pay, but where there was an existing contract all principle was violated in transferring 346 the payment from the party who had contracted to pay, to the party who had by express contract protected himself from the payment. Then, as regarded those who had paid their tithes and obeyed the law, they were to be put in a worse situation than those who had combined to resist the payment and to violate the law. And though he mentioned them last, the least injustice was not done to the clergy themselves, who, having been deprived for the last three years of their legal maintenance by an organised and illegal combination against them, carried on under the implied sanction, if not the direct encouragement of the Government—having abstained within the last few months from legal proceedings to recover their long withheld rights, or even from viewing the crops in uncompounded parishes, upon the express understanding of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), that these three years' tithes should be paid them, were now called upon to submit to the unreasonable, and under the circumstances, most unjust deduction of twenty-five per cent. No more cruel or oppressive conduct had ever been pursued towards any body of men than that with which the Irish clergy had been treated by the Government. In the end of 1830, soon after the present Ministers came into office, the systematic resistance to the law commenced, and those who most insidiously inculcated the doctrines which directly tended to that resistance, received not only the countenance, but the praise of the highest authorities in the Irish government. When violence and outrage were proceeding beyond the purposes of the Irish government themselves, and some attempts were made to repress them—no sooner were the consequences beginning to be felt, which in Ireland were always sure to follow a firm and vigorous Administration of the laws, than the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) used the unfortunate expression of the extinction of tithes, and again raised the outcry against them from one end of the country to the other. So matters went on to the passing of the Coercion Bill, the necessity of which was occasioned by the base, vacillating and timid policy of the Ministers; but order having been in some degree restored under its influence, and the people being led to believe, that the law had not been altogether suspended, the clergy seemed on the point of recovering their tithes by the ordinary process, when, in perfect keeping with their former indecision, and that up-and-down system 347 which had characterised their whole policy, the noble Lord caused proclamations to be posted throughout the country that all proceedings for tithes should be suddenly put an end to. The policemen, who the week before had been putting up notices at the risk of their lives, warning the people to pay under the severest penalties of the law, were now attempted to be chaired through the country, and carried in triumph by the people, distracted with the inconsistency and unintelligible conduct of the very Ministers whose duty it was to hold a steady and firm hand over them, instead of first exciting them to resist the laws, and then having recourse to extraordinary means to punish them. From every part of Ireland his information was to the same effect, that had the Government not interfered, scarcely any tithes would have been unpaid by the 1st of November. A correspondent from the county of Cork wrote, that "all payments, though in fair progress, were at once put a stop to by Lord Althorp's words in the House, and the clergy are beginning again to feel all the difficulties of destitution." Another from the Queen's County says—"Until the Government interfered the other day, the anti-tithe conspiracy had been nearly put down. The Roman Catholics in this country were paying in all directions; and I don't think there would have been any tithes due before the 1st of November, unless in cases of real inability. This, of course, is all at an end now." And from the north of Ireland a most estimable and experienced clergyman writes—"I have been on the best terms with all my parishioners; in January last they were unanimous in thanking me for the composition I entered into; but the consequence of the recent conduct of the Government has been, that my agent has not only been refused any further payment, but actually threatened with violence if he did not return what he had already received—as they said, that Government was to pay all the tithes for the last three years." Was not this holding out a premium to crime, and paying a bounty on insubordination and disorder? He could not avoid referring to a passage in the first tithe report which was then on the Table. It said the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) was Chairman, was deeply impressed with the danger that must threaten the whole frame of society if a combination against a legal impost was permitted ultimately to triumph over the provisions of the law—and was 348 triumph ever more complete than that which the Government bad given in the present case to that combination, to deprive the clergy of their legal income, which that same Report had so strongly dwelt upon? Was it not a striking instance of the evil deprecated in the Report of affording proof that turbulence could lead to relief, and that popular combination was sufficient to bear down legitimate authority? And what did the Report most truly point out as the certain and inevitable consequence? that "the security of all property would be shaken—the framework of Government and society disorganised—and a state of confusion and anarchy ensue." Yet with these truths placed before the Government by one of their own Members, at the time Secretary for Ireland, they had pursued the course to which he had alluded. As regarded the clergy, they were not in the situation of free agents—they were in a state of destitution, caused by the very persons who now proposed to make this exorbitant deduction from the arrears of an income already much reduced. Still they were not in a condition to reject any terms the Government had the injustice to impose; they were, as it were, under duress—not free to exercise an independent judgment. Was not the proposition now made a monstrous deduction to be made from their lawful and fair demands? He almost felt, that, in agreeing to the present measure, they would be accepting a temporary and insufficient relief, to the prejudice of their permanent interests, and the undoubted rights of the body to which they belonged. This, he suspected, was the reason why the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) viewed the measure so favourably—it substituted a mere passing expedient for the firm foundation of an acknowledged legal right. But he could not follow what might be his better judgment; he could not bring himself to refuse the means of subsistence to the many families he knew to be deprived almost of the necessaries of life, and what, perhaps, was more deplored by those most interested—of the means necessary for the education and permanent advancement of their children. He therefore would not oppose the Resolution—while he must raise his voice against the dereliction of duty, on the part of the Government, which led to it, and the gross and flagrant injustice of the conditions which they annexed to it.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid, before this million was voted, it was absolutely necessary they 349 should understand the principle on which it was asked for; so strange did it appear to him to be, that he really was almost convinced that he was in error himself upon the subject. The principle, as he look it, was to advance to lay and other tithe-impropriators, who might not have received their tithes for two years past, or who may not receive them for the present year, this sum of money; and the Crown was to be the party advancing, and the party claiming an equivalent for that advance at the expiration of five years, till which period the amount was to be added to the composition fund, and after all only to be paid off by instalments. Last year they had gone on another principle to that which they now proposed. They had gone on this principle—that the incumbent was unable to collect his tithe, and therefore the Crown should be called upon to levy for the clergy. Last year, when the grant of relief had been made, a very different principle had actuated and directed the proceedings of the Government with reference to the clergy of Ireland. He admitted that the state of the clergy in Ireland was such, that it was impossible for him to withhold his vote of assistance to that deserving and meritorious body. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who might be said to represent the clergy of Ireland in that House, said that the money ought to be paid to the clergy, without any deduction. Nothing could be more natural than such a proposition on his part, on behalf of the clergy; but, there was another party whoso interests must be considered—the people of England, who had already paid their own tithes. This sum ought to be paid by the people of Ireland, in what proportion by the landlord and tenant, he would not stop to discuss; but if this legal charge was to be transferred to the people of England, who had already obeyed the law, it would certainly be holding out a premium to the disobedience of the law. They ought to endeavour to strike a balance between the interests of the Irish clergy and the interests of the people of England. He hoped that the House would support Government in their rigorous efforts to enforce the authority of the law in Ireland. He objected to the; principle of the vote; he would say nothing of the grant to the West-India proprietors, because that was a peculiar case; but if Ministers proceeded on the principle of solving their difficulties by large votes of money to be levied on the people there was an end of all hope of improving the financial 350 affairs of this country. This principle of escaping from temporary difficulties by votes of money from the public purse, was one which would involve the country in inextricable confusion. He hoped at least, that the details of the measure would be maturely considered, and the best security possible taken to obtain the repayment of the money from those by whom it was due in Ireland. He should augur the worst possible result from the present vote, if the course now about to be adopted should be allowed to be drawn into a precedent, and unless it was followed up by a vigorous effort to compel payment from those from whom the money was really due.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that when vigour was talked of with regard to Ireland, it should be recollected that that had been the system for the last 700 years. This was the first time in which a more conciliatory system had been adopted. Were the Government to blame for adopting this first step in the system of conciliation? No. What was the state of Ireland before it was adopted? There was one universal resistance to the payment of tithes, and soldiers had been obliged to come from Cork to Middleton, to put down that resistance. Attempts were made to enforce payment of tithes by horse and foot, and the country was almost in a state of civil war. The law processes were incessant. In 1832 there were, in the Common Pleas alone, 321 writs issued, and in 1833, these had increased to 572. In 1832, of the writs issued, only seven were at the suit of clergymen; but in 1833 there were 265, out of the whole number issued, at their suit. Tills went on in the same manner in all the three Courts, so that there were nearly 3,000 processes at the time of the Coercion Bill. The country was almost in a state of civil war, and the Government were obliged to interfere and prevent a predial insurrection. No Government had acted more wisely than the present Government had done in this instance; and in his opinion the advocates of the clergy, instead of blaming, ought to praise them for the course they had pursued. They had a good reason for their conduct. This would be a good foundation for a system of conciliation. Let this vote pass, and next Session let them agree to some measure that would lessen the burthen of the Church of Ireland upon the people of that country. This money never would be repaid—who was there to pay it? Let 351 them give it at once. The landlords were not much to blame. Were they to be made liable for their tithes and be made tithe proctors? If so, let it be so stated at once. It would be an injustice to them to make them liable for all these tithes. As soon as it was announced in Ireland that the landlords were to be made liable for the tithes if the occupying tenants did not pay them, there would be a general shifting of the tenantry. The clergy would, however, be provided for by this measure; and it was most ungracious on the part of the hon. and learned member for Dublin University, who represented them, to complain of a measure which was evidently for their benefit. The hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt felt the value of the measure, and no doubt wished to be able to say that the clergy had no reason to be grateful to this Government for anything. He heartily concurred in the vote for a million. Never was there a million that had been more cheaply laid out than this would be, for if the war had continued, more would have been spent within six months, besides all the other and more dreadful consequences. Let them grant this million and purchase peace with it—it would be a cheap purchase; and then let them continue the system of conciliation thus begun, and make Ireland prosperous and happy.
§ Sir Robert Ingliscould not imagine that the hon. and learned Member could conceive that those who advocated the interests of the clergy in the House, and the great majority of the people who were their supporters out of the House, could agree with him in the opinions he had just expressed. The hon. and learned Member called this the first step in the system of conciliation towards Ireland. Was not the measure of 1829 so regarded by him at the time it passed? Had not the measure of 1793 and 1778 been so regarded? In every one of these instances the measure had been called the first step towards conciliation, and that expression had been kept up till each measure was passed; but immediately afterwards it was forgotten, and a new grievance was started, and every previous attempt at conciliation was then denied. He objected to the principle of the present measure, for he looked upon it but as a premium to disobedience of the law. He feared, too, that in that, as in other instances, the demand and supply would be found to equal each other; and every three years, he had no doubt, they should see the Irish Secretary coming down to the House with a proposition like 352 the present. Protesting, therefore, against the principle, and against every use that might be made of this precedent hereafter, he should reserve his objections to the details of the measure till they came fairly before the House.
§ Mr. Divettobserved, that all the arguments of the hon. and learned member for Dublin showed his belief that the sum now advanced would not be repaid. After that, could that House be called on to vote one million of Exchequer Bills, and to do what? Why, to bolster up the Church of Ireland—a Church against which all the feelings of the Irish people were arrayed. He agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, that the demand for this sort of advance would never fail. The hon. and learned member for Dublin spoke of this as buying peace for Ireland. If he believed it would do so, he should consent to the vote; but as he was quite sure it would purchase rebellion, he should give it his strenuous opposition.
§ Mr. Sinclairthought, that the House seemed to have scarcely any other duty to perform, than that of voting away millions of the public money—a system which it was high time to check. He considered this grant as very impolitic and unjust—impolitic, because it operated as an encouragement to resistance both active and passive—unjust, because the loss would inevitably fall upon the people of Scotland and of England, who had obeyed the laws, and paid their full share of all the public burthens, including the dues of their own clergy. It was also hard, upon such of the Irish people as had already paid their own tithes, and would now have to contribute towards making up the deficiencies of their more refractory neighbours. Whereas, if they had set the laws at defiance, their own tithes also would have been paid at the public expense. Such a system could not restore peace to Ireland, and would prove an incitement, both there and in Great Britain, to resist just demands, in the hope that the Government would impose the payment upon the country at large. He quite agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Oxford, that this measure would serve as a premium upon lawless proceedings; but he differed from the conclusions at which his hon. friend arrived—being determined to vote against the grant which his hon. friend intended to support. It was not to be expected, nor would it be just, that the advance should ever be reimbursed by the Irish landlords—or could be 353 recovered by them from their indigent and resisting tenantry.
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had stated he should show how tithes, from which this advance was to be repaid, were to be collected. He doubted much if that could be done. He believed, that this money would be lost to England. And for what was it to be paid? To bolster up the Church Establishment against the best feelings of the country. The hon. and learned member for Dublin asked them to give the money at once, in order to continue the non-payment of tithes for another year, and then they would never be paid again. He (Mr. Hume) had always told them, that that would be the case. The people of England would do the same; and if they were to be called on to pay what other people ought to have paid, they would be silly not to do it. They were now distinctly told, that the money never would be repaid. Under these circumstances, could they think of granting it. The whole scheme of repayment ought first to be laid before them. He should propose, therefore, that the Chairman should report progress, in order to give the Ministers time to lay the Bill before the House, that they might form their own judgment on the matter.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the passing of the Resolution must be preparatory to bringing in the Bill; and when the House saw the Bill, if they did not think that there were any means of recovering the money, it would be in their power to reject the Bill, at any stage of its progress. At the time when this measure was first announced, it was stated that the Government intended to bring forward a proposition which should prevent, in future, the collection of tithes in the old way. The continuance of that system might bring the utmost confusion in the country. He could assure the House, that they came with the expectation and the determination that the measure they intended to propose should procure the repayment of this advance. If the occupying tenant was to be made to repay it, the same consequences as before would follow from the same causes. They proposed, therefore, to follow a different course. They intended to follow up the Composition Bill of the last Session. If they were right in passing that Bill, the application of the same principle on a more extended scale must be advantageous. The tithes of this year would be spread over a period of five years, and would be added to 354 the amount of the composition for tithes. The advance would be made to the clergy, who, on obtaining the composition, would repay it to the Government. This sum would therefore be added to the amount of the composition which the clergyman would be entitled to receive. It did not appear to him, that the Government was in any danger of not being repaid. The tithes that had been lost by the tenantry quitting the land, could not, of course, be levied on the landlord, but must be considered as totally lost; and no deduction could be made by the clergyman on account of them. He did not wish to call on the people of England to pay for the people of Ireland. He should, therefore, put his case on this issue, that if the House were not satisfied that ample provision would be made for the repayment of this money, they ought not to adopt the Bill; but if they saw a reasonable probability of the money being recovered, then he thought they would agree with him, that it would be good policy to make the advance, and prevent the old mode of collecting tithes from being again resorted to in Ireland.
§ Mr. Aglionbycould not see any means by which the money could be repaid, and therefore he agreed with those who thought that this would be a grant, and not a loan, and he believed that, if once adopted, this course must eternally go on while the Church establishment was forced upon the majority of the Irish people against their will.
§ Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the matter was as the noble Lord supposed, there could be no objection to the House adding to the Resolution, that they agreed to it on the contingency, that this Bill, when produced, should satisfactorily provide for the repayment of the loan. Ministers could not be ignorant that there was a strong feeling among the people of England against tithe, especially in the agricultural districts. He thought that, at all events, they would not be more willing to pay the tithes of the Irish than their own; and although the grant was proposed in the shape of an Advance, there could be little doubt, that, like the loan to the West Indies, it must end in an absolute gift.
§ Lord Althorpadded, that the adoption of the Bill, to be founded upon the Resolution, would, of course, depend upon the kind of security it offered for the money: if that security were not approved, the Bill might be rejected. The forms of the House required that the vote should first 355 be brought forward in the shape of a Resolution.
§ Mr. Briscoesaid, that if the Resolution were merely waste paper, it was needless for the Committee to be called upon to vote in favour of it. The sum required was to pay the arrear of tithes in 1831, 1832, and 1833, with certain deductions at so much per cent; and it really seemed as if the House of Commons had nothing to do but to vote away the public money, without at all inquiring where that money was to come from. The people of England had none to spare, more especially for the lay impropriators, who had not a shadow of claim.
Mr. Halcombefelt it his duty to support this Resolution, though he might, by doing so, incur the censure of his constituents. He hoed, therefore, that if the payment of the money were decided upon, it would be in the shape of a loan, and not of a grant, for he thought that this country was already too much taxed to be paying any sums for arrears of tithes in another country.
Lord Duncannonwas confident, that tithes never could be collected in Ireland under the present system, and he therefore thought some such arrangement as the one proposed highly necessary. He entirely approved of the Resolution, which should have his support; and, as to the security, the House would be enabled to judge, when the proposed Bill came before them, how far that offered by it was sufficient.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, that of the only two courses open to the Government for the settlement of the question of tithes, they had, he thought, made choice of that which would prove the most advantageous. He was convinced, that for the Government to proceed with the collection of tithes would be highly inexpedient, inasmuch as it would necessarily lead to the expense and discord which attended the harassing war fare which took place in Ireland last year, as well as to that description of resistance which had already been attempted. A repetition of such a course would, he was sure, be highly imprudent; and he therefore approved of the other mode—that which the Government had adopted—of relieving the parties now oppressed, by means of the proposed grant; for, notwithstanding all that had been urged against the Irish Church in general, he had never yet heard that the claims of the present incumbents had been denied.
§ Mr. Humecontended, that the present 356 was merely a temporary measure to answer the immediate purpose of Ministers—which would never give permanent peace to Ireland. The landed gentry of Ireland had declared, that they would never pay the tithes; so that the advance must be looked upon as a pure gift. Ministers would soon raise in England a resistance as effectual as that existing in Ireland. He especially objected to the grant of 220,000l. for lay impropriators.
§ Mr. Littletonregretted, that the objectors to this plan had not favoured the House with any suggestion instead of it. If this Resolution were rejected, the fault would not lie with the Government, but with the House.
Mr. Cayleywould certainly oppose the attempt to throw the burthen of the tithes upon the landlords of Ireland. The money required ought to be taken out of the surplus fund of the Church, and the first million received by the Commissioners ought to be set apart for the purpose.
§ The Committee divided on the Resolution: Ayes 87; Noes 51—Majority 36.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Admiral | Inglis, Sir R. |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Johnston, A. |
| Althorp, Lord | Kennedy, F. |
| Anson, Hon. Geo. | Lefevre, C. S. |
| Biggs, R. | Littleton, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Lowther, Lord |
| Burrell, Sir C. | Maberly, Colonel |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Macaulay, T. B. |
| Carter, B. | Macleod, R. |
| Childers, J. | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Cole, Hon. Gen. | Marshall, J. |
| Denison, W. I. | Milton, Lord |
| Duffield, T. | Molyneux, Lord |
| Duncannon, Lord | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Ellice, Right Hon. E. | Murray, J. A. |
| Elliott, Hon. G. | Nicholl, John. |
| Evans, G. | O'Brien, C. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | O'Connell, D. |
| Fitzgerald, E. V. | O'Connell, J. |
| Fleming, Admiral | O'Connell, M. |
| Forster, C. S. | O'Reilly, W. |
| Fox, Colonel | Ormelie, Lord |
| French, T. | Parker, J. |
| Gordon, R. | Peel, Sir R. |
| Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J. | Penleaze, T. S. |
| Grant, Right Hon. C. | Pepys, C. C. |
| Grant, Right Hon. R. | Perrin, L. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Petre, Hon. E. |
| Grey, Colonel | Pinney, W. |
| Halcombe, J. | Poyntz, S. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Rolfe, R. M. |
| Horne, Sir W. | Russell, Lord |
| Howard, Hon. F. G. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Jeffery, Rt. Hon. F. | Scott, Sir E. |
| Jephson, C. D. O. | Scrope, P. |
| Jerningham, Hon. P. | Seale, Colonel |
| Sebright, Sir J. | Tracy, H. |
| Shaw, F. | Tyrell, C. |
| Smith, V. | Verney, Sir H. |
| Stanley, Hon. E. G. | Waterpark, Lord |
| Stanley, Hon. H. T. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Stawell, Colonel | Wrotttsley, Sir J. |
| Stuart, P. | |
| Tollemache, Hon. A. | TELLER. |
| Townley, R. G. | Wood, C. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Hutt, W. |
| Arbuthnot, hon. H. | James, W. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Kemp, T. R. |
| Bewes, T. | Lees, Lee |
| Beauclerk, Major | Lester, B. L. |
| Blake, M. | Mullins, T. W. |
| Briscoe, J. I. | Parrott, J. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Potter, R. |
| Brotherton, J. | Rickford, W. |
| Buller, C. | Romilly, J. |
| Calley, E. S. | Ruthven, E. |
| Collier, J. | Sanford, T. |
| Coote, Sir C. | Shawe, R. N. |
| Cornish, J. | Sinclair, G. |
| Divett, E. | Strutt, E. |
| Dunlop, Captain | Talbot, J. H. |
| Dykes, F. L. | Tooke, W. |
| Ellis, Wynn | Torrens, Colonel |
| Ewart, W. | Tynte, C. J. K. |
| Fielden, John | Walker, R. A. |
| Goring, H. D. | Wilks, J. |
| Gordon, Captain | Williams, Colonel |
| Hall, B. | Wilmott, Sir E. |
| Handley, W. F. | Wood, Alderman |
| Harland, W. C. | TELLER. |
| Hawkins, J. H. | Hume, J. |