HC Deb 01 September 1835 vol 30 cc1228-41

On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the House went into a Committee on the Tithe Instalment Suspension Bill.

On the first Clause being read, Mr. Hume said, that he had intended to ask a question from the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department upon this subject. The noble Lord was not now in his place, but to-morrow, at five o'clock, he hoped to receive from the noble Lord an answer whether or not military assistance was to be given to aid in the collection of tithes. He conceived this to be a most improper measure. Those who held themselves up as the friends of the clergy and church of Ireland had, in another place, opposed the reform of that establishment, and by their opposition had destroyed the measure which would at once have afforded relief to the clergy, and justice to the people of Ireland. The clergy of that country had not endeavoured to induce their friends in the other House to carry that measure; they had, therefore, neglected their own interests, and were not entitled either to the sympathy or assistance of the House. They were also undeserving of such a measure of relief as that now before the House, and unless to-morrow he received a satisfactory answer to his inquiry, he should hope the House would assist him in stopping this Bill in its further progress.

Sir Henry Hardinge

said, he had never heard a more illogical speech than that which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The hon. Member had stated, that because the Irish Tithe Bill had been rejected by the other House of Parliament, the clergy of Ireland ought to be attacked by the Attorney-General of that country, and obliged by him to pay that which they themselves had never received. Such was the true meaning of the observations of the hon. Member for Middlesex. Under the existing state of things, it was impossible that the clergy of Ireland could repay the instalments due upon the million granted for their relief. Nobody knew this better than the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who also was well aware that the grant of the million had served rather to relieve the landowners than the clergy of Ireland. He had never heard a more unjust attack upon any body of men than that which had just now been made by the hon. Member for Middlesex—a body than whom none could be more deserving the sympathies of this House. The Bill was one of mere indemnity to his Majesty's Government, in order that they should not, during the current year, proceed to exact repayments of advances made under the grant, and without it he admitted they would be compelled to incur the responsibility of not pursuing the provisions of the Bill of 1833. In point of form the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct in his course on this occasion, and he (Sir H. Hardinge) could not suppose this House would consent to disgrace and distress those who were not to blame for the result of a measure with which they were not connected in another place.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought that in the whole course of his Parliamentary career he had never known a greater blunder committed than had been committed by the right hon. and gallant Officer who had just sat down, in calling the measure before the House a Bill of Indemnity. How was it possible correctly to designate as a Bill of Indemnity a measure which was only prospective in its nature, which contained restraining clauses as to giving effect to a certain Act of Parliament, or certain provisions of an Act, which had not yet come into operation, but which had no reference whatever to past occurrences. He called upon all Gentlemen who wished for a settlement of the Irish tithe question, not only upon that ground but for the sake of justice, that the innocent might not be crushed in consequence of the acts of others, who with the view of befriending them, had really been their bitterest foes. The great bulk of the clergy of Ireland, he was satisfied, were in favour of the measure for their relief which had been thrown out elsewhere. He for one should have been in favour of it if he had been a minister of that Church. He would take the liberty of telling those who cheered him why—it was because he should not only have a personal interest in the measure, but that the interests of the Church were promoted by it, in whose welfare he had a more direct interest than in the promotion of his own personal advantage. He would take leave to tell the right hon. and gallant Officer that the measure thrown out elsewhere was brought forward with a view to the permanent security of the Protestant Church of Ireland. He would venture to say, that he could foresee the time, at no distant period, when justice would be done to the motives by which his Majesty's Government had been actuated with reference to this measure. He could foresee the day when the general policy and whole course of their proceedings in favour of the Irish Church would be recognised as just and proper, and as having been conceived in the best spirit of protection. In removing the desperate and indefensible anomalies of that Church, in making a provision for those who performed laborious duties in their vocation in that Church, out of the proceeds unjustly enjoyed by those who did nothing, he was convinced that justice would hereafter be done to their motives, and that the justice and necessity of their course would be vindicated from the pettifogging opposition offered to it. Their good intentions would be seen. [Sir Henry Hardinge: Come to your good intentions.] Good intentions? Why, Martin, who set fire to the venerable and ancient Cathedral of York, thought he acted wisely and with good intent in such his misdeed. He had also heard a statement of a man who with good intent, it was said, had murdered his children, to secure to them, as he supposed, eternal happiness hereafter. But when fanatics like these committed crimes they were judged of not by their motives, but by the consequences of their actions, and he would wish the House to look to the consequences of the Ministers' acts rather than their motives. Their intents might have been, as they conceived, benevolent, but what were the consequences? He believed that the consequences of the rejection of the Irish Church Bill would be to injure that Church, and that the consequences of passing it would have been to benefit and strengthen that Church. At any rate he challenged the right hon. and gallant Officer to show wherein his Majesty's Government had shown a want of good faith, and of an anxious desire to promote the real and permanent interests of that Church. The time would come when justice would be done to them, he repeated, on this point, by the Ministers themselves of that Church, by its professors, and by those who were most attached to its doctrines.

Sir Henry Hardinge

had never heard a more unwarrantable attack than that which the right hon. Gentleman had just made upon him. The right hon. Gentleman, in a most sneering tone, had thought fit to allude to him, and to impute pettifogging conduct to him. Now he begged to retort that expression upon the right hon. Gentleman.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It was not applied to you.] —It made no difference whether the expression was applied to him or to those with whom he acted. He equally denied that he or they were capable of acting in the manner conveyed by that expression. Since he had held the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland he had made a point of offering no opposition to the right hon. Gentleman. He had always abstained from doing so; and upon the present occasion all that he had said referred neither to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Government, but to the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume), whose speech he had characterized as illogical. The right hon. Gentleman thought this was not a Bill of Indemnity because there had as yet been no case of neglect on the part of the Government. He begged leave to say, that was not so, for proceedings were to have been taken last November, if the money had not been returned by the clergy, or within three months after that date. He, therefore, had not committed the blunder imputed to him. The right hon. Gentleman had also indulged in a discussion upon the Appropriation Clause. His opinion upon that subject was, that, by all the principles that ought to guide honest or honourable men, the clergy of Ireland were bound to discountenance and reject that provision, whatever the advantages to themselves, in a personal point of view, the measure might otherwise contain. In his opinion, they had acted like sensible and honest men in resisting the fraud of converting Ecclesiastical property to secular uses, and in refusing the bait of personal advantage, offered to them as a bribe for their conscience. He never would sanction such a principle. He had gone out of office rather than sanction it; and the more his conduct was investigated with reference to the Irish Church, the more he was sure would it be found deserving the approbation of the enlightened and honest. In conclusion he must repeat, that the attack of the right hon. Gentleman upon him, was most unwarranted and uncalled for, inasmuch as his observations were directed exclusively to the hon. Member for Middlesex.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

assured the right hon. and gallant Officer, that nothing had been further from his thoughts than to apply the epithet "pettifogging" to him. He should as soon have thought of applying the title of "gallant Officer" to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as "pettifogger" to the right hon. and gallant Officer. He assured him that he meant no unkindness to him, and he believed he had expressed none. The whole of his past life, both public and private, might be offered as a guarantee of his entertaining no unkind feeling towards the right hon. and gallant Officer. When, however the right hon. and gallant Officer offered a direct interruption to him, upon his declaring that if he had been a minister of the Irish Church, he should have been in favour of the measure lately sent up to the other House, he felt bound to enter upon the defence of his own opinion. He had begun with a joke— perhaps a bad one—but he did not wish to end in a different humour from that in which he had begun the debate. With reference to the question of indemnity, he would say one word. He had been told he ought to have come earlier, for the Bill came into operation earlier. He begged leave to say, that while another measure was before the House, whilst the Legislature was actually in deliberation upon a proposed measure upon the subject, it would have been contrary to Parliamentary usages, as it was condemned by courts of law, to bring such a Bill under the notice of the House.

Sir Henry Hardinge

explained. He complained of the right hon. Gentleman taking occasion to attack him when he had given no cause for it. His observations had not applied to the right hon. Gentle- man; but it was the right hon. Gentleman's frequent practice, when excited, to take the opportunity to make attacks upon persons and parties to whom no reference had been made by any one. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to avoid that course for the future.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

disclaimed having said anything to offend the right hon. and gallant Officer.

Sir Henry Hardinge

You did!

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Then, Sir, I say that I did not mean to give offence to the right hon. and gallant Officer, and there ends the matter. If I had intended it I should be ready to avow and defend my conduct. But with reference to the advice offered to me by the right hon. and gallant Officer, I may be allowed to tell him that no one in this House stands more in need of such advice than he does. I hope, therefore, he will apply it to himself and follow it.

Sir Henry Hardinge

I am utterly incapable of charging any Member with making an attack upon me unless I believed he had made it. I did believe so in this instance; but I am bound to take the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Henry Grattan

could assure the right hon. and gallant Officer, that if he was dissatisfied with what had fallen from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject of the Irish Church Bill, which his party in the House of Lords had had the rashness, he would not say the malignity, he repeated the word, and claimed his right to use it—if the right hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied upon that score, he could promise him ample ground of discontent if the Session lasted much longer. Let him look at the state of the clergy in Ireland, and then say whether the act of destroying that Bill was not an act of malignity—if not in intention, in effect—and he would leave them to settle the difference. He was pleased to see two English Members get warm upon this subject, because he was glad to find that at length a question connected with Ireland could rouse to the warmth of anger the feelings of English Members. This occurrence ought to mark a new era for Ireland, auguring much good in store. As an Irish Member he hoped he should improve in the opposite direction. The right hon. and gallant Officer had told the House that the Measure of 1833 was a benefit to the landowner. Nothing could more clearly show the utter ignorance and incompetency of the right hon. and gallant Officer for the situation he had lately held with reference to that country. The landlords had gained nothing. He utterly denied the accuracy of the assertion. It is one which had been made over and over again, and refuted as often as made. The question of tithes was entirely between the clergyman and the occupier of the soil, and it was a piece of absurdity in the right hon. and gallant Officer to make a contrary statement. The right hon. and gallant Officer, continued the hon. Member, talks of indemnity. He says we do not want indemnity for not putting in force the Bill of 1833. I believe him, Sir, but I can tell him who does want indemnity. It is you—you who rejected last year the very Bill, which you yourselves introduced this year. "Did not you"—(pointing to the Opposition benches)—"did not you commit the absurdity of introducing a Bill more severe upon the clergy than that which your friends in the House of Lords threw out last year?" With what face of modesty—for I must not, I suppose, say with what face of hypocrisy—but with what face of modesty, can you accuse this Government of hostility to the Church—you who brought in this year the very measure against which you protested last year—against which your friend and champion, the Recorder of Dublin, also protested, and which you used as a lever to force the late Administration out of power, on the plea that it was calculated to pull down the Church you are so anxious to support? You introduced that very measure yourselves, which you declared fatal to the best interests of the Church. Do you call that honesty? The people of Ireland look upon it, not with contempt, but with that placid indifference which they bestow, not upon the thimble-riggers, as you call them, but upon those who are playing a desperate game at hazard with the passions, feelings, and prejudices of the people of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Officer is playing this game too deep, and I will add too long. Though he is an officer, and I believe a gallant officer in the field, let him recollect that we are eight millions. Let me tell him that we will not be put down by this delay of justice, or by your incapacity to administer, not the affairs of the country, but any measure of benefit to it. You, (and pointing to Sir Henry Hardinge)—you were very wrath and indignant. ["Order, order.] Yes, you were very indignant. ["Order."] I have a right to say you, as I mention no names. Yes, you were very indignant—you who on this side of the House said that with the assistance of 30,000 soldiers you could not collect the tithes. [Sir Henry Hardinge.—I said no such thing.] You said that it was impossible to raise the tithes in Ireland without military force. [Sir Henry Hardinge.—I said no such thing.] I may be mistaken, but I certainly understood that to be your statement. You said that you could not collect the tithe—then will you employ military force to collect it? You declined to try military force against Roman Catholic Emancipation, will you try it now to enforce the collection of tithe? I think the right hon. and gallant Officer might be more modest in the terms he has applied to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex. Never were arguments more illogical, and the right hon. and gallant Officer has shown how absurd it is to say that a good soldier in the field will also be a good orator and an excellent practical statesmen in the senate.

Sir Henry Hardinge

I shall not condescend to defend myself from the charge of absurdity which the hon. Member has brought against me. If I wanted to show what absurdity was, I would take the speech of the hon. Member for Meath as a specimen.

Mr. Henry Grattan

The right hon. Gentleman may say that I am absurd—I may be absurd, and that may be better than affected. But for my part I would prefer being polite to being impertinent.

The Chairman

(Mr. Bernal) suggested that the hon. Member for Meath could not have weighed the effect of what he had just said, nor have considered the sense of the last word which he had used. He was sure that, as soon as the hon. Member's attention was called to the words which he had uttered in the warmth of debate, he would see the propriety of retracting them.

Mr. Henry Grattan

If the word "absurdity," had not been uttered with a meaning offensive to me, I should not have made use of the term "impertinent."

The Chairman

The hon. Member must be aware that the words he has used are not Parliamentary. They are in violation of the orders of the House, and inconsistent with the ordinary courtesy of debate. I hope the hon. Member will feel it due to himself no less than to the Committee to retract them.

Captain Curteis

said that "absurdity" was a strong word, and not precisely Parliamentary. There had been strong provocation given, and he thought some explanation of what was meant by that word should be addressed to the Committee.

The Chairman again called upon Mr. Henry Grattan, who remained silent, to consider the meaning of the words which he had used, and to reflect whether he would not do himself more honour by retracting than by maintaining them.

Mr. Wodehouse

The discussion in the previous part of it was enlivened by comic expressions. The employment of the term "absurd" under such circumstances, would not be deemed a flagrant violation of the rules of the House. The word "impertinent," however, I have never heard used in this House without the Member being called on for an apology. I hope that my hon. Friend will adopt the usual course upon this occasion, bearing in mind that his apology is to the House itself, and not to an individual.

Colonel Perceval

said, he would make one observation, which he trusted would do away with the ground of offence. He would remind the House that the hon. Member for Meath had been the first to make use of the phrase "absurd." The hon. Member had said that his right hon. Friend near him might be a good officer in the field; but he had used the word "absurdity" with respect to his right hon. Friend's services in the senate.

Mr. Henry Grattan

could not accede to the version which his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sligo, had, no doubt with the firmest belief in its correctness, put upon his words. He had not accused the right hon. and gallant Officer of absurdity. "What I said," continued Mr. Grattan, "was this, that though the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be a good officer in the field, it was absurd to say that he was, therefore, a good orator or a practised statesman in the senate. I will not refer further to what the right hon. and gallant officer said; for there was that in his manner which was much more offensive than his matter—his fantastic manner.

Viscount Palmerston

The use of the word "impertinent" is clearly inconsistent with our orders, and when an hon. Member is conscious that he has used, in the warmth of debate, a word that is not fitting, his regard for his own honour, if not his regard for the dignity of this House, ought to render him anxious to take the first opportunity to retract that word, when its impropriety is pointed out to him. It is not derogatory to the character of any hon. Member to set himself right with the House, whose orders he has offended. Indeed, the more he respects himself, the more anxious will he be to do it.

Mr. Henry Grattan

If the right hon. and gallant officer says that he meant nothing offensive to me personally in his use of the term "absurdity," I can have no hesitation in saying that I meant nothing offensive to him personally in using the word "impertinent." If the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches mean by their cheers to say that the right hon. and gallant Officer was right in inflicting upon me a personal insult— ["No, no,"]—then I have no more to say, and my mouth is closed in the way of retractation.

Mr. Fitzstephen French,

who sat next to Mr. Henry Grattan, thought that his hon. Friend ought to withdraw the expression which he had used. [Hear, hear.] He would not give his hon. Friend that advice in the House, if he was not prepared to maintain and vindicate the propriety of it out of the House.

Mr. Henry Grattan

If the right hon. and gallant Officer will state that he did not mean either by his manner or by his words to convey any insult to me, or if my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sligo, will state that, in his opinion, his right hon. and gallant Friend did not mean to express any insult to me, I will not object to retract the word that I used. I thought that the right hon. and gallant Officer made a deliberate attack upon me, and what I said was intended as a retort to the insult.

Colonel Perceval

I will say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Meath, as he has appealed to me thus personally—I do not think that he had any ground for taking the word "absurdity" as used in a sense personally offensive to him.

Mr. Henry Grattan

As my hon. and gallant Friend says, that he thinks that the words of which I complained were not meant by the right hon. and gallant Officer in a sense personally offensive to me, I certainly have no hesitation to say that I did not mean to apply the word which I used in a sense personally offensive to the right hon. and gallant Officer, and I therefore withdraw it.

Mr. Fitzstephen French

thought that the Committee, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Meath, had a right to expect that the right hon. and gallant Officer should let them know that he deemed that explanation satisfactory. The Committee ought distinctly to understand that nothing further would take place in consequence of what had passed to-night between the two hon. Members.

The Chairman

conceived the hon. Member for Meath to have stated that he meant nothing personally offensive to the right hon. and gallant Officer, and that he withdrew the disorderly expression which he had used. That being the case, it was his duty to call on the right hon. and gallant Officer to say that he was satisfied.

Sir Henry Hardinge

I am at all times most anxious to accede to the wishes of this House, and to the wishes of its Chairman. At the same time I must frankly and explicitly state, that I did not understand the hon. Member for Meath to withdraw the offensive expression which he used, without an inference which I cannot confirm, until I hear an absolute, unequivocal, and unconditional retractation of that expression. When that retractation is made by the hon. Member for Meath, I will state whether I am satisfied or not, but not till then. Till I hear that absolute and unconditional retractation I shall persist in saying nothing.

The Chairman

I have already stated to the Committee that the hon. Member for Meath has attempted to do away with the offence which he gave, and that he has made the attempt in such a manner as ought to ensure its success. That is my feeling, and I think it my duty to state it honestly and manfully. I had hoped that what has been said by the hon. Member for Meath would have been satisfactory to the right hon. and gallant Officer. It seems, however, that it is not satisfactory. I, therefore, hope that the Committee will not suffer this matter to proceed further; for if we cannot bring the matter to a peaceful and satisfactory termination, I have only one duty to perform, and that is to report to the whole House what has just occurred in the Committee.

Colonel Leith Hay

observed, that in the course of the debate, language had been used which had induced his hon. Friend, the Member for Meath, to employ words for which he had since expressed his regret. Under the circumstances, then, of his hon. Friend having stated that he had no intention to utter anything personally disrespectful to his right hon. and gallant Friend, and of his hon. Friend having also publicly retracted the offensive expression to which he had given utterance, he could not see any just reason why his right hon. and gallant Friend should not rise and say that he was perfectly satisfied.

Dr. Nicholl

was of opinion, that as the Committee was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Member for Meath, the offence against the individual Member was at an end.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

called the attention of the Committee to this fact—that all that had been asked by the friends of the right hon. and gallant Officer had been frankly conceded by his hon. Friend, the Member for Meath. That which the right hon. and gallant Officer thought ought to be done hereafter by the hon. Member for Meath, had been done by that hon. Member already. There had been an appeal made on two distinct occasions to the House respecting the interpretation to be put on the words used by the hon. Member for Meath. In both cases the Committee had responded to that appeal. The Committee had declared that the use of the words which the hon. Member for Meath had employed, was an impropriety, and had called upon him in consequence to retract them. There had also been an appeal made to his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sligo, and that appeal had likewise been answered. Upon the answer which was given to that appeal, his hon. Friend the Member for Meath had in the most unqualified and unconditional manner "[No, no,"—"Yes, yes."] retracted the offensive expression. Yes, his hon. Friend had given an unqualified and unconditional retractation of the word used; and that, in his opinion, ought to be satisfactory to the right hon. and gallant Officer. He was the more anxious upon this point, as it was partly owing to some remarks which had fallen incidentally from him in the course of the debate, that this collision had occurred. He would remind his right hon. and gallant Friend (for so he hoped that he might call him) that there was one word in the expressions which his right hon. and gallant Friend had used towards him in this very debate, that was unparliamentary. Believing that nothing offensive was meant, he had not taken the expression offensively—he had passed it over, as he believed wisely—and he now called upon his right hon. and gallant Friend to follow his example, and to say that he was satisfied, as he ought to be, with the explanation of his hon. Friend, the Member for Meath.

Major Fancourt

If the hon. Member for Meath will only say with his own lips, that his retractation was an absolute, unconditional retractation of the offensive expression, I shall advise my right hon. and gallant Friend not to hold out longer against the declared sense and wishes of the Committee.

Mr. F. French

The hon. and gallant Officer seems to have forgotten that the retractation of my hon. Friend appeared perfectly satisfactory to the Committee, and I am therefore sure that my hon. and galland Friend cannot feel himself justified in calling upon my hon. Friend to repeat the terms of that retractation.

Major Fancourt

It was satisfactory, I suppose, to the Committee, because they considered it to be absolute, unqualified, and unconditional. Why, then, should the hon. Member refuse to repeat it in his own person?

Mr. Herries

thought as the retractation had been declared by the Chairman to be unqualified and unconditional, and as that declaration had been made in the presence of the hon. Member for Meath, and had not been contradicted by him, it ought to be considered satisfactory by his right hon. and gallant Friend.

The Chairman

hoped that in what he had before stated to the Committee, he had expressed himself without evasion or circumlocution to this effect —namely, that the explanation of the hon. Member for Meath was, and ought to be, perfectly satisfactory. He thought that it ought to satisfy the right hon. and gallant Officer.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

said, that the retractation had been unconditional and unqualified. He, therefore, hoped, that it would be satisfactory to his right hon. and gallant Friend, and that this matter would not be permitted to proceed any further.

After a pause,

Mr. Warburton

said, that as this discussion had already taken up enough of their time, he should move that the Chairman do report progress, in order to report to the House the disagreeable collision which had occurred in the Committee.

Sir Henry Hardinge

If I am to understand that this retractation is absolute, unqualified, unlimited, and without any condition whatever—if I am to understand that it is stated by you, Sir, to be such a retractation, and that that statement is not denied by the hon. Member for Meath, I am willing to accept the retractation; but if it is not absolute, unqualified, and unconditional, then I adhere to my first opinion, and declare, that without an unconditional retractation, I am not, and will not, be satisfied.

Mr. Warburton

said, that it ought to be left to the Chairman to decide whether the retractation were satisfactory; but, as the right hon. and gallant Officer would not submit to that rule, he must persist in moving, that the Chairman report progress, and inform the House of what had occurred.

Sir Henry Hardinge

If I am to understand it to be your decision, Sir, that the retractation was unqualified, and without condition, I am willing to let this affair pass over.

The Chairman

I have stated, what my feelings are upon this subject; it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to repeat them at length, but I cannot refrain from stating once more, that what has fallen from the hon. Member for Meath, ought, in my opinion, to be considered perfectly satisfactory.

Sir Henry Hardinge

If I am to understand that this is the feeling of the Committee, I will not push this matter any further, as I understand the retractation to be unqualified, and without condition.

Bill went through the Committee, and the House resumed.