HC Deb 07 July 1835 vol 29 cc287-93
Lord Morpeth

brought up and laid on the Table of the House a Bill for the Better Regulation of Ecclesiastical Revenues, and for the Moral and Religious Education of the People of Ireland; which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next.

Sir Robert Peel

rose and said: I wish to take this public opportunity of stating the course which I intend to pursue with respect to this Bill. It comprehends some enactments in the general policy of which I concur; it comprehends others to which I feel the most decided objection in point of principle. I concur in the policy of making some new arrangement with respect to the collection of tithe in Ireland; I con- cur in the policy of substituting for the payment of tithe in kind, and also for composition for tithe, a rent charge, as provided by one part of the noble Lord's Bill. I disagree as to making that rent-charge perpetual. I disagree as to the omission of conversion and redemption of the rent-charge, and its conversion into land. But at the same time, in the present state of Ireland, and with my strong feeling of the policy of making some immediate arrangement in respect to the collection of tithe, I have, notwithstanding the decided objection which I feel to other parts of the Bill, a difficulty in giving a vote on the second reading, the effect of which, if successful, would probably be to preclude that arrangement with respect to the substitution of a rent-charge in lieu of tithe, in the general policy of which I concur; but I have no hesitation in saying that my objection to other parts of the Bill, particularly to the appropriation of Ecclesiastical property to other than Ecclesiastical purposes immediately in connexion with the interests of the Established Church, and my objection to the wholesale suppression of the spiritual charge of so many parishes in Ireland, are so strong that I cannot consent to purchase the benefit of the substitution of a rent-charge for tithe on the conditions which the noble Lord has annexed to the change. The course, therefore, which I mean to pursue is, that on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the purpose of enabling the House to go into Committee on this Bill, I shall move an instruction to that Committee, that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord be divided into two Bills. I do this for the express purpose of enabling those who may concur in the view I take to support that part of the combined Bill to which I am ready to give my assent; and I do it also for the express and avowed purpose of enabling myself and those with whom I act to reject altogether, if we can, that portion of the Bill from which I entirely disagree. By taking that course, I relieve myself from the difficulties which I must necessarily incur on my rejecting or attempting to reject the Bill as it now stands on its second reading. I should be affected by the opposition of those difficulties on many grounds, and amongst others by being obliged to manifest an apparent disposition to prevent some arrangement being made for that relief to the suffering clergy to which they are justly entitled. If I should succeed in my Motion, and if the instruction to the Commit- tee be agreed to, I shall then have an opportunity of giving my assent to that part of the noble Lord's Bill of which I approve; but if that Motion be objected to, and if it be determined that the principles involved in the Bill shall not be separated, I shall have taken that mode of manifesting my decided objection to an appropriation of Ecclesiastical revenue to other than Ecclesiastical purposes, and to the suppression of the cure of souls in 868 parishes in Ireland. I should, I repeat, thus declare my sentiments as to these two principles, whilst I would give my assent to that by which the conversion of tithe or composition for tithe into a rent-charge was intended to be effected. The noble Lord may easily see, therefore, what course I mean to take on the second reading of the Bill. As I shall have an opportunity of fully explaining my views when I introduce my Motion for an instruction to the Committee, and as I do not wish to trouble the House with a double explanation of them, I shall move no amendments nor occupy at all the attention of the House by addressing them on the second reading. It would, therefore, be for the convenience of the House, and of all the parties concerned, if a fair notice were to be given by the noble Lord of the day on which he proposes the House should resolve itself into Committee for the consideration of the Irish Tithe Bill. I think it, therefore, probable (though I cannot, of course, answer for the other Members on this point) that there will be no lengthened discussion on the second reading, and, therefore, it is desirable that the noble Lord should tomorrow, or, at all events, on an early day in the week, give a public notice of the day on which he means that the House should go into Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill, and the Debate on the important question involved in the Bill should take place.

Lord John Russell

said, I agree with the right hon. Baronet that some day should be fixed on which this Debate on the Irish Tithe Bill may be brought forward. I do not think, however, that my noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, can state tomorrow, or the day after, the precise day on which the discussion is to be taken. My noble Friend will move the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill on Monday and in the course of the week I mean to propose that the Report on the Corporation Bill be brought up. On that occasion I should think there will be considerable dis- cussion, but I do not anticipate that the third reading of the Bill will occupy much time. Immediately after the Corporation Bill is read a third time, my noble Friend will propose that the House should go into Committee on the Irish Church Bill. I fully agree with the right hon. Baronet that taking the view which he does of this question, and being disposed to deal with it in the manner which he has described, it is perfectly consistent with that view that he should not take the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill. When the question comes before the House in the shape in which he proposes to introduce it—as an instruction to the Committee—I shall then be prepared to argue that it is absolutely necessary to insert some provision regulating the appropriation of Ecclesiastical revenues in any Bill with respect to tithes, and I shall likewise be disposed to contend that if that appropriation shall not be carried into effect by an Act of Parliament containing similar principles to those on which the measure just introduced by my noble Friend is founded, it is my conviction that so far from such a determination tending to the benefit of the Church of Ireland, it is not likely that any settlement of this great question will ever take place so beneficial to that Church as that which might result from the measure which we have now brought forward.

Sir Robert Peel

I don't mean to say a word more, or adduce a single argument in favour of my views on this subject. All I desire is, that it should be understood that it is my distinct object to take the sense of the House on the principles involved in the two parts of the Bill to which I have already alluded.

Mr. Shaw

said, that in the present position of the question he begged to say a few words to guard his conduct, and that of his friends with whom he acted, from misconstruction. He confessed that at first he had felt a great repugnance to allow even the first reading of the Bill without a division, such was his aversion to the principle which the bill contained, of appropriating Church property to secular purposes, and suppressing 860 parishes in Ireland. But under all the circumstances of the case, he was disposed to think the course proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) the best. Considering the difficulties which had been interwoven with the tithe question in Ireland by four years of non-assertion of the law—the dexterous mixture of two distinct questions in the present Bill by the Government, and also having regard to the opinion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), expressed on the subject the night before, it would probably be more intelligible to the House and to the country, to move to divide the Bill in order that they might deal with that branch of it which related to the settlement of tithe property, and direct their undivided opposition against that which included the appropriation and suppression clauses. With regard even to the tithe part of the measure he had many objections to such parts as those which made large deductions from the clergy—the want of redemption—the making the clergy pensioners on the Crown, and their property payable to the Crown—and above all, in point of practical justice, opening agreements for composition which had been settled years ago, and when there was no possibility of having access to the evidence upon which they were established. Nevertheless he was ready to consider, and endeavour to improve, that part of the Bill which was for the adjustment of tithe property; while he should give his irreconcileable opposition to the other part, which had reference to the alienation of Church property. On the subject of appropriation he would mention a fact of which he thought the House generally was not aware, and the accurate particulars of which but recently came to his knowledge; it was, that the whole clerical income of the Irish Church, which had been rated by its opponents at 3,000,000l. annually, did not exceed, after the noble Lord's deduction, 450,000l., including the Bishops, as well as glebe-lands, ministers' money, every possible charge that could be brought into account; and could it be believed that, in the present impoverished, disturbed, and deserted state of Ireland, such a sum (a sum not much larger than was drawn away from it by a few absentees), should be grudged for the support of twelve resident noblemen, and above two thousand resident educated gentlemen scattered through that country. The whole Church revenues of Ireland, if curates were included, did not afford an average income of 200l. a-year to each clergyman. If a better distribution of property were desired, to that he did not object; and at that moment unions were being dissolved under the existing law—pluralities had virtually ceased, as no faculty had been granted since 1829—and residence was every day increasing; but the truth was, the real motive of the pro- moters of the present Bill—he did. not mean the Government, but those whose pressure from behind they could not withstand—was not that the Irish Church was, inefficient, but too efficient—not that it did too little, but too much; and he (Mr. Shaw) verily believed, as had been stated in some petitions he had presented the day before, that if the principle of the Bill was carried into operation, the poorer Protestants in the remote districts of Ireland must either apostatize or emigrate—must either forsake their religion or their country. With regard to the Irish clergy, he could only repeat what he had said before—that they were most anxious for a permanent and final settlement of their property, and they were most justly entitled to it, for they had suffered wrong with a meekness and moderation which no other body of men in the community would have shown under similar circumstances. But still they would never purchase temporary relief for themselves at the expense of the permanent interests of the Church, or for any personal advantage make unworthy concessions, detrimental to that body of which they considered themselves but as the trustees, In short they would, notwithstanding all their privations and sufferings, rather have no Tithe Bill, than one containing a provision to misappropriate Ecclesiastical property, and to destroy the Church establishment in nearly half the parishes in Ireland. He trusted that no person would so entirely misunderstand the course which in point of form it was thought best for the friends of the Church to adopt, as to consider that they had in the slightest degree mitigated their opposition to that most destructive principle.

Mr. Harvey

supposed, that there would be some qualification, to the unqualified opposition threatened by the opposite side to the principle of appropriation. He presumed that they did not design to oppose the grant of the million first voted as a loan to the Irish clergy and Irish tithe payers. He had listened for an intimation of any such intention on their part; but he could hear nothing of it in any of the observations which had been made. However, that was not the object of his rising. It was to put a question to the noble Lord respecting certain returns of the defaulters in the matter of tithes, which he had moved for some time since. He wished to know whether these returns had been made, according to the order of the House, or whether they were in progress? It was im- portant that the House should know on whom and to what purpose they had bestowed such a large sum of money, the produce of the toil of the English people, before they proceeded farther in the matter. He apprehended that it would be found the defaulters were not among the poor, whose tithe amounted to a few shillings, but among the rich, whose tithe amounted to several pounds. He believed that these returns would show that the poor tenant was not the defaulter in most instances; but the rich landlord. It was only right and just that the people of England should know the objects of their benevolence.

Lord Morpeth

said, that he was as anxious as the hon. Member that everything which could be known on the subject should be before the House; and that he should, therefore, make special inquiry on the subject of the question put by him.

The Bill was read a first time.