HC Deb 15 August 1871 vol 208 cc1716-25

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

expressed his belief that much of the opposition with which this measure was threatened was due to the misapprehension entertained by some hon. Members as to its real purport. In point of fact it was supplementary to the Act of last year, which empowered the Treasury to lend money under certain conditions to Roman Catholic priests and Presbyterian ministers in Ireland for the erection of houses, the purchase of glebe lands, and the discharge of the debts incurred in the purchase of houses. Two contingencies were, however, omitted from the Act of last year, and these it was intended to meet by the Bill now under discussion. One of these contingencies was where it was proposed not to build, but to purchase a house already built; and the other, where it was proposed to discharge a debt incurred not in the purchase, but in the erection of a house. The Bill involved no new principle, and he hoped therefore that the House would allow it to be read a second time.

MR. LEA

moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day month. He was surprised that, within a week of the Prorogation, the Government should attempt to force this Bill through the House. The measure of last Session, of which this was an amendment, was introduced at an extremely late period; but it was then said that the Government were under a pledge to introduce it. That might be so; but no Government could pledge the House of Commons, and, at any rate, they never pledged themselves to extend the Act of last year. The Bill was one—he would not say for concurrent endowment—but for concurrent advantage, and the Prime Minister had himself admitted, last year, that it would give the members of these religious denominations an advantage that they could not obtain in the open money market. But what sort of investment was it for the public money? To repair a dilapidated house the minister was to be able to borrow two-thirds of the requisite money from the public funds, which might thus be used for the purposes of such a "structural improvement," as the building of a billiard-room, or the erection of a new portico. Last Session the Prime Minister had distinctly said that the measure he then introduced would be "the winding up of the whole matter," and yet this Bill was now brought in to extend the provisions of the original statute, and to include within it two additional classes of contingencies. He trusted that the House would refuse to sanction the course adopted by the Government.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Lea.)

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend. He hoped that the Solicitor General for Ireland would do, with regard to this Bill, what he had done with the Bill referring to May-nooth—namely, withdraw it. The people of Scotland had not been well treated this Session; and if this Bill was forced on Parliament seven days before its Prorogation, they would look upon it as an additional grievance. He warned the Government if they persevered, that even though they might succeed in passing the Bill, that legislation conducted in this fashion would only bring them into greater discredit with the country.

MR. GLADSTONE

observed, that this Bill had been upon the Paper for so many weeks that hon. Members had had full opportunity of considering its provisions, and many hon. Members who advocated Nonconformist and Protestant interests were satisfied in reference to it. As to the objection that the security for loans would be different to that under the Bill of last year, the security under this Bill would be superior to that under the previous Act, for the Act of last year admitted of personal security only, whilst personal security under the present Bill would only be admitted as collateral security in company with real security. Whilst to some extent sympathizing with the objections of hon. Members, he justified the present Bill on the same grounds as that of last year was justified. He contended that the present Bill was in the nature of a verbal amendment to the Act of last Session, and that there was nothing new in principle in it. There were certain cases omitted in the Act of last Session which came within the spirit of the pledge upon which the Act of last Session was founded. When they passed the Irish Church Act they granted to the disestablished Church of Ireland, in reference to glebes, terms which were so easy and so large that it almost amounted to an absolute gift of those glebes. Something was due, on the other hand, to Presbyterians and Roman Catholics in Ireland, especially as they had been for a long time struggling against great disadvantages. But what the Government had in contemplation was not the introduction of a new system, but the winding up of an old one. They gave a practical pledge on this point by inserting a limit of time beyond which none of these transactions were to extend. That limit in the Bill of last year was 1875, and it was not exceeded in the measure of this year. But where there had been in hand such a great operation as the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, where questions still remained to be solved of such difficulty and perplexity, and where interests, prejudices, and feelings had yet to be conciliated, nothing but a liberal spirit could enable the operation to be successfully carried out. It was in that spirit of liberality that the House had acted towards the disestablished Church. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] Well, a large majority of the House were firmly under that conviction, and he now appealed to them to act in a similar spirit towards the other Religious Bodies in Ireland. All that was asked of the House was to insert in the category of objects for which public money might be lent certain undertakings that were in all respects upon all-fours with those in reference to which the House had already given its sanction.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the Government supported the Bill on the same grounds as the Bill of last year; but the opponents of the Bill of last year were equally consistent in their opposition. If the Government wrongfully and foolishly made engagements in Ireland, it was not for the House of Commons to implement them. Although the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact, the words "structural improvement" were contained in Clause 4; and this had a material bearing on the question of security. The fact that this money was to be lent for ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland raised two serious objections in his mind. First, no money ought to be lent for ecclesiastical purposes to any person whatever; and, secondly, no money ought to be lent to Ireland for any purpose whatever—for if money went there, it never came back.

MR. MELLOR

said, if the State became a money-lender, the House of Commons, as trustees, ought to see what interest was paid for it. The Bill was altogether silent on that point. He did not object to lend money for ecclesiastical or any other purposes if profit could be derived from it; but without the element of profit the loan was unjust to the taxpayer.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had opposed last year's Bill to the utmost of his power, and meant to do the same now. He had a vivid recollection of a speech of the Prime Minister's last year—and he had since refreshed his recollection of the words—which conveyed to his mind the distinct and clear impression that if the Bill then under consideration were passed the House of Commons would hear nothing more of the subject. His own authority on the point might be small; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the well-known principle laid down by Paley, that promises are binding on the promiser, not in the way that he may mean, but in the way in which he knows and believes that those to whom the promise is made understand and accept that promise. As far as the promise of the right hon. Gentleman had any meaning, it was certainly accepted in the sense that there would be no more Bills of this description. The Bill last year passed on the 8th of August, and it was suggested then, but denied, that the Bill was purposely delayed to increase the power of the Government. However, the same thing had happened again this year, and the Bill, which had not yet been to the House of Lords, was being read a second time in the House of Commons on the 15th of August. If the money were not repaid, how did the Government propose to proceed? Would they venture to seize the glebe for non-payment, and put it up to sale? If so, in certain parts of Ireland very few persons would be likely to bid, and if anyone were bold enough to do so, it might perhaps become a question how long he would be allowed to live.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he did not think that there was any argument which should prevent the Bill from being read a second time. The conditions for the re-payment of the loans were contained in the former Act, and it had not been thought necessary to repeat them. If those conditions were observed, there need be no fear that the State would be any loser. As to the statement that money advanced to Ireland never came back again, he declared that there never was a statement having less of the element of substantiality about it. If hon. Members would refer to the Parliamentary Reports and to the published accounts, they would see that advances made in Ireland for the purposes of railways, drainage, or public works were repaid as regularly, punctually, and conscientiously as any similar payments in England or Scotland. In former days there might have been irregularities to complain of; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) knew very little of the history of his own country if he could not put his finger upon occurrences of a very similar character in Scotland. As to the suggestion that purchasers of glebe lands would not be allowed to live, he looked upon that as a mere rhetorical flourish.

MR. M'ARTHUR

regretted the introduction of the measure, not only because the Act of last Session had been distinctly stated by the Prime Minister to be the last of its kind, but because the people of Ireland, whether Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, or members of the Church of England, were perfectly competent to build their own glebe houses, as the various Religious Bodies were required to do in this country and in Scotland. Last year the Prime Minister had assured the House that the Bill he was then promoting was intended for the building of glebe houses, and was not to be retrospective; but now he asked for more money for glebe houses, and the religious difficulty in Ireland was again aggravated, when the statesmanlike course would be to give the country rest. He believed the consequences of the present Bill would be to prevent a large flow of spontaneous liberality, which would otherwise be manifested, for the erection of glebe houses. Believing that the best thing that Parliament could do would be to encourage the people to support their own ministers and build their own glebe houses, he trusted the Government would withdraw the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he recollected the circumstances which attended the passing of the Act of last year perfectly well, and there were the same peculiarities with regard to the manner of its introduction, and the period at which it was proceeded with, which characterized the present measure. If any hon. Member would refer to Hansard, he would find that on the second reading of that Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a laboured excuse for introducing it at the close of the Session; but the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), who spoke afterwards in the debate, was much more explicit; and with the permission of the House he (Mr. Newdegate) would read one or two passages from the speech of the hon. Member, which would explain the reason for the lateness of the introduction of the Bill; and the same reason appeared to prevail with respect to the introduction of the present Bill, or rather as to the period at which it was proposed to the House. The hon. Member for Cork said last year— But his hon. Friends were indignant that the Bill was not brought in sooner. He was glad it was not. They could now discuss it in good temper, and with moderation of feeling; but had it lain on their Table since February, what petitions from Scotland against it! [Mr. M'LAREN: Hear, hear!] Yes; but they knew what a no-Popery feeling might be excited, even amongst Scotch Liberals, at any proposal which would benefit Roman Catholics as well as Presbyterians. Much ill-feeling and much absurd opposition had been spared; and he hoped his hon. Friends would now be able to see this proposal in its true shape—as a means of assisting parishioners to do that for their clergy which they would not allow the State to do for them."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 971.] The hon. Member for Cork had previously stated that the Roman Catholic hierarchy objected to any portion of the property of the disestablished Church of Ireland being appropriated to the purposes of their Church. The House knew on high authority that those reverend persons were perfectly willing, when once great part of the property of the disestablished Protestant Church was in one of the pockets of the State, that they should be supplied out of the other pocket with a certain amount, in fact, with whatever might be found convenient. Now, this was the process—The Protestant Church in Ireland had been disestablished, and her property, or a great part of it, was in the right hand pocket of the State, and in consideration of that addition to the fund in the right hand pocket of the State, the Roman Catholic hierarchy expected that the First Lord of the Treasury would put his hand into the left hand pocket of the State, and hand over a sum to the Roman Catholic clergy. That was the process which that Bill represented. He (Mr. Newdegate) was not surprised that it was unpopular in Scotland, and he himself had heard so many assurances that no part of the property of the disestablished Church should be transferred to the Roman Catholic Church, that he was unwilling to see a Bill passed into law which was, in fact, the violation of those pledges by a side wind, or by an indirect course; for such was the fact. He ventured several times to object to the passing of the Act of last year. He felt, and he urged among other objections, the objections to accepting personal security for those loans. Those objections were now admitted to have been valid by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and by the terms of the Bill. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not think that it would be prudent to advance the money upon personal security. But those objections had not the slightest effect upon Her Majesty's Government last Session. On the contrary, every arrangement was made to bring forward the Bill late at night at the end of the Session, when, as now, the House was so empty that the Government were virtually in command of the shadow and spectre of the House. It was just the same this Session; and when he heard the appeal of the First Lord of the Treasury that the money must be provided for the Roman Catholics because the spoliation of the Protestant Church was not complete; because Parliament shrank from literally turning the clergymen of the Protestant Church out of their houses, it seemed to him that it was a sort of black mail, to be paid to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church because Parliament had failed to strip the Protestant Church as effectually as they desired. That did not commend this measure either to his feelings or to his judgment, and it explained to him what was the actuating power which induced the Government to undertake the crusade against the Protestant Church in Ireland. Why, what could be more patent? They now thought it necessary to make an excuse for not having turned the Protestant clergy literally into the roads; to give the Roman Catholic clergy pecuniary advantages out of another fund because they had spared the glebe houses, of which the clergy of the Protestant Church were in possession, and in which they had been for many years resident. He could not say that this Bill came to his understanding recommended by considerations either of equity or of policy. Look at the vast powers which they were giving to that Board. They had lent large sums of money to Ireland in successive years, for all of which he voted. Those sums were to be applied to the making of roads and bridges, and other material improvements and secular purposes, and he rejoiced at the beneficial effects of that expenditure. But he voted for that money being lent in the expectation that it would be re-paid, and when re-paid would go to diminish the pressure of taxation. What did the Bill propose? It proposed that the money should be lent again on security, which, in the first instance at all events, was very questionable, and that it should not be re-paid for 35 years. The money was not originally voted or intended for that purpose, and they were taking money which had been devoted by Parliament to the material improvement of Ireland, and were applying it, as they confessed, by introducing the Bill at as late a period as they did in the Act of last Session, contrary to the feelings of the people of England and Scotland, who contributed to that fund. He thought hon. Members opposite who had spoken against the Bill were bound by every consideration to oppose it; and he rejoiced to see that this Session they appeared to be determined in their opposition to the extension of a scheme, to the foundation of which they properly objected in the last Session. It appeared to him that the pleas which had been put forward in support of the Bill were of the emptiest kind. He believed there was a particular object in the Bill, and that that object was to conciliate the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland. It had been said, and erroneously said, that the disestablished Protestant Church in Ireland was a wealthy body. But there was a wealthier Church in Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland was a wealthier Church, in proportion to the extent of the population, than he believed it to be in any country in the world; and it was for the purpose of making loans to that Church, whose structures were rising all over the land, not in the form of glebe houses, but of monasteries and of convents, that they were now asked to pass the Bill and to apply the public money. It was a well-known fact that in Ireland the funds at the command of the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been devoted to the creation of establishments of a monastic and conventual character; they had diverted the funds which they had at their command to the erection of those monastic and conventual institutions, and then in that very fact they found an excuse for coming to Parliament and asking them to find the means for building the glebe houses for their clergy. They had money, but they spent it for other purposes; for the establishment of the monastic orders, for the erection of convents and monasteries, and then they came to that House and said—"Pray lend us a little money to enable us to build glebe houses." If, then, Parliament provided the money for those glebe houses, that process would still go on, and there would be thus yet more funds at the command of the Roman Catholic hierarchy for the establishment of the monastic orders in Ireland. They could not be blind to the history of those monastic orders, for at that moment in every other country in Europe they were in course of being suppressed. He therefore was unwilling to lend the public money for the erection of glebe houses for the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood, because they had shown that they had the means, that they had abundant means for building glebe houses for themselves; but that instead of building those glebe houses, they expended those means in the erection of establishments which he believed would be found as detrimental to the welfare of Ireland as they had proved to be detrimental to the welfare of every other country.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 34: Majority 20.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.