HC Deb 09 June 1837 vol 38 cc1370-9

Lord Morpeth moved the second reading of the Tithes Ireland Bill.

Mr. Sharman Crawford

objected to the Bill, upon the ground that it did not go sufficiently far to meet the wishes or the expectations of the people of Ireland, who, as their numerous petitions strongly intimated, would not be satisfied with any thing short of a total abolition of tithe. They would not be content with any measure unless it completely released them from all assessment for the support of the Established Church. They were told indeed by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny that he would accept of this measure as an instalment. He (Mr. Crawford) wished to know whether it was to be an instalment or not? Was it to be a final settlement of the question, or was Ireland to be agitated again upon the subject? In opposing the second reading of the Bill he was acting conscientiously, and from a deep sense of duty, and not from any desire to impede the measure of his Majesty's Government, whose great services to Ireland he most readily acknowledged. He considered that the Bill was unjust in all its principles, and delusory in all its details. He begged, therefore, to move as an amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. D. Browne

felt that it was a duty he owed to himself and to his country to second the amendment of his hon. Friend. He did it reluctantly, not because he denied the justice, or the policy, or the practicability of a total abolition of tithes, for he was a strenuous advocate for their total abolition, although he denied that this Bill would abolish tithes, or would in any way tend to allay the angry feelings of the people of Ireland, but he did it reluctantly because, for the first time, he felt himself compelled to give opposition to his Majesty's Government on a measure which seriously affected the interests of Ireland. He was grateful to his Majesty's Ministers both as a Reformer and as an Irishman. Lord Mulgrave's Administration was the only Administration that ever existed in Ireland that was founded upon the principle of recognising popular rights, and of doing justice to all. It was, therefore, with reluctance that he was opposed to this Bill. But there were provisions in it to which it was impossible he could agree. He considered that the Bill, instead of relieving the people of Ireland from an unjust impost, tended to rivet that impost upon them, and to increase discontent and promote agitation in that country. He might be asked why he opposed this Bill, when he did not oppose the Bill of last Session. His answer was, that he considered the omission of the appropriation clause in the present Bill to make it essentially a different measure from the Bill of last year. He might be told that in the money provisions of the Bill now before them there was an equivalent for the appropriation clause; but having considered those clauses well, he certainly could not find anything in them equivalent to the principle of the appropriation clause. He considered that by the adoption of the appropriation clause they would be putting in the point of the wedge and taking the first step towards the application of church property to purposes of a public nature other than merely ecclesiastical purposes. He would openly declare that he was an advocate for the voluntary system, and it was upon that principle that he opposed this Bill. It was not the pecuniary inconvenience that the people of Ireland complained of in respect to tithes. If it were, then, inasmuch as rents exceeded tithes in pressure, they would feel rents to be a grievance. It was from a political feeling that their complaint arose. It was the national dishonour of being compelled to support a Church with which they held no communion, from which they derived no benefit, but the existence of which was hostile to their interests. The Bills which had been successively introduced into this House in reference to Ireland had become successively worse. The hon. Gentleman concluded by declaring that he was opposed to the tithe system, because as a Christian he conceived that it could not be defended upon any human or divine principle.

Viscount Morpeth

said, it was obvious that the Bills which the present Government had successively introduced upon the subject of the Irish Church had had to stand between two classes of objections—between the objections of those who thought that too much was taken from the Church, and of those who thought that too little was taken away, or at least, that too much was left. It was obvious—without stopping to inquire which of these respective parties were most in the right—whether those who thought that too much was taken away, or those who thought that too little was taken; or whether it was for the Government, at least upon this subject, to indulge itself in the opinion that it had happily pursued the "just middle"—it was obvious, he said, that the struggle on this question was not between the Government and the friends of the voluntary system, or the "sons of liberty," which it seemed was the right way to term them, but between the Government and those who were entirely opposed to any alteration of the church revenues. For this struggle, probably, before very long the stage would be cleared, and a decided course taken. For that occasion, whenever it should arise, he thought himself justified in reserving the discussion of those points which appeared to be the serious and really practical part of the matter they were called upon to consider. With respect, then, to the other side of the question—that which was represented on this occasion by his two hon. Friends, the mover and seconder of the amendment, and which rested, as it appeared to him upon the ground that tithes ought to be completely abolished, that no form of religion in Ireland ought to receive a preference from the State, and that the voluntary system ought to be established—he had only to observe, that whether that system possessed any merits or not, or whether the arguments by which it was defended were sound or not, such were not the views and intentions with which his Majesty's present Government had entered upon office. Such were not the views and intentions which they had ever professed, or which they now entertained; and such above all, were not the views and intentions with which the present state of public feeling, either in this House or in the country, sympathised, or which made it possible or practicable for the Government to act upon. On former occasions it had been stated, but on no occasion more than on the present did he wish more distinctly and clearly to state, on the part of his Majesty's Government, that it was their object, their intention, and their hope not to destroy, not to subvert, but to strengthen, extend, and perpetuate the Protestant Establishment in Ireland by those means, which, however questioned and condemned in some quarters, they conceived to be best calculated to obtain that end. His hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk had objected to this Bill on the ground that it was not the same Bill which he had previously supported. He admitted it was not the same Bill. He should have been very glad if the Legislature had passed any one of those previous Bills. His hon. Friend must be perfectly aware that it was not the fault of the Government that none of those Bills were carried into a law. His hon. Friend made two objections to the Bill in its present character—first, that the clauses now introduced would not be so efficient to prevent sinecures in the Church as the former Bill; and also that under the present Bill the farmers of some districts would feel a grievance in having money taken out of their pockets to benefit those in other places. He contended, however, that the object of the Bill was to prevent sinecure livings, and it would attain that object by promoting a better apportioning of Church property. The hon. Member for Dundalk said that it was a hardship on the clergy to impose a tax of ten per cent. on the present incumbents; but he (Lord Morpeth) could not help feeling that his hon. Friend was a little inconsistent. His hon. Friend said, he was in favour of the voluntary principle, but he would not be able to carry that principle into effect at once. His hon. Friend out of doors stated that he would attain that end by not bringing in any measure for the settlement of the tithe question, and to be consistent he had proposed that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He, however, did not think that this would be consistent with the interests of religion not merely the Protestant or Catholic religion, but that religion which taught peace on earth and good will towards men, and which was so necessary for the well-being of Ireland. He thought that the House would most improperly abandon its duty, notwithstanding the difficulties they might have to contend with in the way of any settlement of the tithe question, if they did not do all in their power to put an end to those unhappy differences which now distracted Ireland, and which grew out of the unsettled state of that question. In what he had already stated he believed he had sufficiently explained the objects the present opposition to the measure had in view. As to the motives of those hon. Gentlemen, he had no right to inquire into them; but no doubt they were dictated by a sense of duty. But as to the fact of the present proceedings, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be impelled by a wish and feeling to promote the success of a cause which could not now by possibility succeed; and if it were successful it would be the source of irreparable mischief.

Mr. Shaw

admitted, that it was desirable that there should be a transfer of the payment of tithes from the occupiers to the owners of land; but he thought that it was too much to take thirty per cent. from the clergy for the additional security they would obtain under the altered arrangement. This, however, was rather a matter of detail than principle. That part of the Bill, however, which opened all commutations of tithes that had been entered on during the last thirty years, was most objectionable, as it would lead to the most expensive, and, indeed, endless litigation. He also thought that it was an act of great injustice to the Irish clergy to make them pay the loan of a million and the arrears of interest which were proposed in this bill; for the money was given to them with the sanction of the House in lieu of the tithes. He also objected to the Commissioners being enabled to reduce the value of benefices below 300l. per annum. The truth, however, was, the Government had been completely driven by those by whom they were supported, to adopt courses which were contrary to common sense, common reason, and every principle of justice.

Lord Stanley

would make a few remarks with respect to his taking a different course from the hon. Member for Dundalk, and also state the chief points of objection to the Bill on which he intended to take the sense of the House when in Committee. He agreed with the hon. Member that many of the clauses and principles of the present measure were founded on the enactments of a Bill introduced by Lord Grey's Government—a Bill intended to establish the security and strength of the Church; because he believed those clauses would have that tendency, he would support them whilst on these grounds the opposition of the hon. Member was founded. He must congratulate the House on the altered tone of the Government who declared themselves resolved to defend the essential principle of an Established Church—a declaration equally satisfactory and unexpected. He must particularly congratulate his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, who formerly spoke of the rottenness of that establishment, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, who spoke of the friends of the Church as a "miserable, monopolising minority," on their conversion. He that evening had heard his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) speak of the "respectable minority;" and his other noble Friend, (Lord Morpeth) instead of alluding to the rottenness, declare it his fixed intention to support the Church, and by this measure establish her interests on a sure footing. Whenever Government brought forward measures with that intention, they could claim the support of his side of the House, a support which he believed they did not at present undervalue; but if ever they introduced a Bill of a different tendency, then, with equal frankness and determination, they should be opposed. He had been asked, why he had voted in favour of this measure, and he would candidly confess, that he was not perfectly satisfied with the present state of Church property in Ireland. He thought it would be advantageous to the Church to have the Tithe Question speedily settled, and to have all the danger removed that might result from a collision with an excited Roman Catholic peasantry. He supported this measure, in order to place on a basis of security the future income of the clergy; at the same time, he would not consent to the robbery and plunder of the Church under the plea of giving an allowance to landlords, for burthens they had not to endure, and risks to which they were not subject. He would not consent that more than a fair equivalent be given for the small burthen and risk of transfer; how- ever, that was a question of detail and of time. He had, during Lord Grey's administration, carried through the House, which he was proud to say was year by year and day by day, diminishing the risk and giving security to the establishment. Although he was then willing to sacrifice 25 per cent he would say, that if it were not immediately accepted, and that still an opposition was continued against this fair offer, no inducement or plea would hereafter tempt him to forego that amount. He wished a speedy, safe, and satisfactory settlement, he offered a fair compromise, and claimed a relief which would lessen the burthen and diminish the risk. "On this principle," said the noble Lord, "we do rest, we have rested, and we shall continue to rest." However Government may decide, he would support that deduction and resist any further, and on this principle he would take the sense of the Committee. His noble Friend had introduced into this Bill several clauses of a measure which he had the honour of bringing before the House. That measure was objected to, and not allowed to pass, but he had now the gratification of finding some of the clauses inserted, verbatim et literatim in the present Bill. He, and hon. Gentlemen who acted with him were reproached with upholding sinecures. They were unfairly charged; they were prepared to introduce a clause for new distributions; this clause was stigmatised as useless, evasive, and a mockery; but now he found it copied verbatim et literatim in the Bill. Indeed, he heard that hon. Gentlemen opposite had discovered some verbal inaccuracies; but such was their respect for the measure's having passed the House of Lords, that scarcely a word was altered. There was, however, one alteration of a principle in the clause which he was determined to oppose in Committee. He undertook to prove last year, that when the revenues were distributed amongst clergymen not possessing large incomes there would be no surplus. It was resolved in the Bill brought forward by him, that upon benefices becoming vacant, the clergyman appointed should have an income of 300l. per year, a bare sufficiency for a person educated as a gentleman, associating with gentlemen, and obliged to keep up a proportionate dignity. This was fixed as the minimum, but the present Government, with the petty paltry ambition of working out a surplus, have not adopted the principle, but left it to their Commissioners to fix the salary at 60l., 401., or 30l., as they thought proper. It was that clause, with respect to which he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Dundalk—with (he believed in his heart) nine-tenths of the Members of the House, imposing a tax to the amount of ten per cent. on the incomes of the clergy, for the purpose of national education, in alleged conformity with a statute of Henry 8th, which had really no more to do with this question than any other law on the Statute-book, but which served conveniently to enable Ministers to slide gently out of the principle of appropriation, while at the same time they maintained the objectionable parts of it to their fullest extent and in their most offensive character, aggravating their injustice and oppression by calling them into action immediately on the passing of the Bill. To that cause he declared no circumstances would ever induce him to give consent. Whatever wish he might have to support parts of this Bill, however cordially he might vote in favour of the second reading, with the earnest desire and not without the hope, that its mischievous provisions might be corrected either in Committee or in subsequent stages of its progress, and however anxious he might be to see this measure carried as the basis and ground-work of a great national settlement of the important questions which agitate the public mind, he should not discharge his duty if he did not frankly say, that no consideration whatever with reference either to this or any other Bill—no asserted probability of a settlement—no profession of acquiescence in its provisions—would ever lead him to consent to a taxation of the clergy for this unjust and illegal purpose. And he thought it right to say, for though solicitous to occupy no more of their time than was necessary, he wished broadly to lay before the House the principles by which he was content to abide, and the details to which he mainly objected—that as this question must be brought before them in a distinct and substantive form, he would not offer his opposition to it when the first clause was proposed in Committee, but when the noble Lord should move his preliminary resolution in Committee of the whole House to enable him to levy this tax on the clergy—on that occasion, as separate from all others, he would take the sense of the Committee on the principle of the tax. And, moreover, he must say, that if he should not succeed in making in that House such amendments as seemed to him absolutely indispensable for safely carrying into effect an equitable and wise arrangement under this measure, he should then, however reluctantly, feel it imperative on him, if no other Member undertook the task, to take the sense of the House on the third reading.

Lord J. Russell

had no wish to continue a debate which did not seem to have been conducted with the view of leading to any general discussion of the principles of this Bill; but he could not avoid remarking on the course pursued by the noble Lord—a course not dissimilar to that which he had followed on other occasions—on the anxiety he had shown, but which he felt no wish to indulge, to excite contention, and raise acrimonious debate. The noble Lord reminded him somewhat of a gentleman with whom he (Lord J. Russell) was formerly acquainted, who was rather fond of disputing in conversation, and in the habit of throwing out opinions strangely paradoxical. Anxious to avoid lengthened altercation, he used sometimes to say to the gentleman, "Well, then, I'll dispute no longer, I'll agree with you;" on which his disputatious friend would turn round and exclaim, "What! agree with me? now tell me why you agree with me." The noble Lord seemed to think it a shocking matter that his Majesty's Ministers had embraced some opinions which the noble Lord formerly entertained, and had even adopted some clauses to which he assented verbatim et literatim; and complained of the agreement in a tone of anger and indignation, which only left room to suppose, that he felt it like some severe personal reflection. As the noble Lord talked in this tone of matters on which they agreed, he would not go into those on which they disagreed. He would only congratulate the noble Lord, that there still remained so much matter of difference between them. He was really forced to think, that a source of great satisfaction to the noble Lord, who would, no doubt, rejoice that there was not only the difference between twenty-live and thirty per cent., but the proposal of taxing the clergy, to which he had proclaimed uncompromising hostility, against which he might prepare his arguments for a future occasion, and which might whet his indignation at their agreement on some points to a still higher pitch. Again, he would beg to felicitate the noble Lord on the spirit he had displayed, and which he was likely to have many more opportunities of displaying, as there were many points connected with the government of the country, and particularly the government of Ireland, on which they entirely disagreed. His opinion had always been that the government of Ireland ought to be conducted for the benefit of the Irish people. The noble Lord, on the contrary, looked only to the interests of a small part, not of the people of Ireland, but of the clergy of Ireland. He thought that was the chief ground of difference between them, into which he did not now wish to enter, but which would be excellent matter for dispute between them on a future occasion.

The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 14: Majority 215.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Chalmers, P.
Adam, Sir C. Chapman, L.
Aglionby, H. A. Chetwynd, Captain
Ainsworth, P. Chichester, A.
Alsager, Captain Clayton, Sir W. R.
Andover, Viscount Clements, Viscount
Angerstein, J. Clerk, Sir G.
Anson, hon. Colonel Codrington, Admiral
Astley, Sir J. Cole, hon. A. H.
Baines, E. Collier, J.
Ball, N. Cookes, T. H.
Bannerman, A. Corbett, T. G.
Barclay, C. Crawley, S.
Baring, F. T. Crompton, S.
Barnard, E. G. Curteis, H. B.
Barron, H. W. Curteis, E. B.
Barry, G. S. Dalmeny, Lord
Bentinck, Lord G. Denistoun, J.
Bentinck, Lord W. Divett, E.
Berkeley, hon. F. Donkin, Sir R.
Bernal, R. Dunbar, George
Bewes, T. Dundas, hon. T.
Blackburne, J. Dundas, J. D.
Blackstone, W. S. Dunlop, J.
Blunt, Sir C. East, J. B.
Bridgman, H. Eaton, Richard J.
Brocklehurst, J. Ellice, E.
Brodie, W. B. Estcourt, T.
Brotherton, J. Estcourt, T.
Buller, C. Etwall, R.
Buller, E. Evans, G.
Bulwer, H. L. Fellowes, hon. N.
Bulwer, E. L. Fenton, J.
Burrell, Sir C. Ferguson, R.
Burton, H. Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.
Byng, right hon. G. S. Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.
Cave, R. O. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Cavendish, hon. C. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Cayley, E. S. Fitzsimon, C.
Fleetwood, P. H. O'Brien, W. S.
Folkes, Sir W. O'Connell, D.
Fort, J. O'Connell, J.
Fox, Charles O'Connell, M. J.
French, F. O'Connell, Morgan
Gillon, W. D. O'Conor, Don
Gordon, R. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Paget, F.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Palmer, General
Grattan, H. Palmerston, Viscount
Grey, Sir G. Parker, J.
Grey, hon. Colonel Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Guest, J. J. Parrott, J.
Gully, J. Parry, Sir L. P. J.
Hale, R. B. Pease, J.
Hallyburton, Lord D. Pinney, W.
Handley, H. Ponsonby, hon. J.
Harland, W. C. Power, J.
Hastie, A. Poyntz, W. S.
Hawes, B. Price, Sir Robert
Hawkins, J. H. Pryme, George
Heathcoat, J. Pusey, P.
Heathcote, G. J. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Hector, C. J. Roche, W.
Heneage, E. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Hillsborough, Earl of Rooper, J. Bonfoy
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Rundell, J.
Hodges, T. L. Russell, Lord John
Houstoun, G. Russell, Lord
Howard, P. H. Russell, Lord C.
Howick, Viscount Sanford, E. A.
Hume, J. Scott, J. W.
Hurst, R. H. Seale, Colonel
Hutt, W. Seymour, Lord
Ingham, R. Shaw, right hon. F.
Irton, Samuel Sheil, Richard L.
Jephson, C. D. O. Sheppard, T.
Jermyn, Earl of Shirley, E. J.
Jones, Wilson Smith, J. A.
Jones, T. Smith, R. V.
King, E. B. Stanley, E. J.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Stanley, Lord
Lambton, H. Stanley, W. O.
Lee, J. L. Stuart, V.
Lefevre, C. S. Strangways, hon. J.
Lemon, Sir C. Strickland, Sir G.
Lennox, Lord G. Strutt, E.
Lennox, Lord A. Talbot, J. Hyacinth
Loch, J. Talfourd, Sergeant
Longfield, R. Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Lushington, C. Thompson, Colonel
Lynch, A. H. Thornley, Thomas
Mackenzie, T. Tooke, W.
Macleod, R. Townley, R. G.
Mactaggart, J. Tracy, C. H.
Maher, J. Trelawney, Sir W.
Mangles, J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Marshall, W. Tulk, C. A.
Melgund, Viscount Vere, Sir C. B.
Milton, Viscount Vigors, N. A.
Moreton, hon. A. H. Villiers, Charles P.
Morpeth, Viscount Wakley, T.
Moyston, hon. E. Walker, C. A.
Mullins, F. W. Wallace, R.
Musgrave, Sir R. Warburton, H.
Nagle, Sir R. Ward, H. G.
Nicholl, J. Wemyss, Captain
West, J. B. Winnington, H. J.
Whalley, Sir S. Wood, C.
Wilbraham, G. Worsley, Lord
Wilde, Sergeant Woulfe, Sergeant
Williams, W. Wyse, Thomas
Williams, W. A. Young, G. F.
Williams, Sir J. TELLERS.
Williamson, Sir H. Maule, hon. F.
Wilson, H. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Blake, M. J. Polhill, F.
Bodkin, J. J. Power, J.
Conolly, E. M. Ruthven, E.
Dick, Q. Trevor, hon. A.
Dowdeswell, W. Williams, R
Fielden, J.
Finn, W. F. TELLERS.
Hindley, C. Crawford, W. S.
Martin, T. Browne, R.