The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had some petitions to present on the subject of the Irish Tithe Commutation Act, to which he wished to draw the particular attention of their lordships. In the last 69 session of parliament, he had felt it his duty to support the principle of the measure introduced for the commutation of tithes, as such a measure had been long sought for in Ireland; but it was necessary that it should be impartial, in order to produce even a partial restoration of tranquillity in that country. In giving his support to the measure, he had thought it right to qualify that support with some exceptions; and if he now found it necessary to recal the attention of their lordships to the objections he had formerly stated, he should not advert to any one, of the justice of which he was not convinced he could satisfy the House and the J noble earl opposite. He should first remind their lordships, that he had stated, that the bill exhibited a prima facie inequality in its operation on the parties to whom it applied; in consequence of which many were disinclined to assist in carrying it into effect. A power was given by the bill of last session to increase the provision for the clergy, beyond what had been received for the last seven years. This he thought was fair; because it was but just that a clergyman should be allowed an increase, if he had received less than was due during the seven years; but instances might occur in which it would be equally just to give him less; and it would have been proper to have inserted a clause in the act, allowing the parishioners to state their reasons for reducing the provision. This reciprocity, however, was not allowed. Had such a clause existed, it would have taken away a plausible argument or just objection, which was seldom omitted to be urged against the measure; namely, that the parishioners, if they agreed to act under this bill, might have to pay more, but it was impossible they could have to pay less. He did not know whether it was owing to any dulness of apprehension on the part of the Irish peasantry, or from that confusion of ideas which was by some attributed to them, that they could not find out the justice of this regulation. They felt, however, that they were shut out from making a fair bargain, and thought that they perceived a design to make the arrangement unfavourable to them.—The clause which related to the machinery of the bill was equally objectionable. It was impossible for any one to foresee to what extent the expense of executing the bill might go; but, as the measure was altogether for the benefit of the church, it 70 was reasonable to expect that the clergy would pay a share of that expense. On the contrary, the whole of the burthen was thrown on the other party. It was therefore by no means surprising, that this part of the arrangement should be regarded as unjust, both by the country gentlemen and farmers, who suffered by it.—Another ground of complaint arose from an obscurity in the bill, which it would perhaps be in the power of the noble earl opposite to remove. The noble earl must be aware, that nearly all the arrangements which had taken place under the bill, had been made under a clause introduced by a member of his majesty's government in the other House of parliament, the effect of which was, to give a power of altering the arrangement made, on the meeting of the vestry. It was understood, that the arrangement settled at the meeting should be final; but the result was, that a further proceeding was forced upon unwilling parties. Meaning only to come to a final settlement at the vestry meeting, they found that they were obliged to go on to something else; that having agreed to one arrangement, they were understood to have given their assent to any subsequent one which might take place. This provision, which was called the trap clause, had given great offence. It was therefore most desirable that the matter should be made clear, and all appearance of unfairness removed. That the act containing these objectionable clauses would be amended in the present session, he was encouraged to hope. By the votes of the other House of Parliament, which were before their lordships, he had, however, become acquainted with a bill introduced into chat House of a very extraordinary nature. If that bill should pass the other House, there would be proposed for their lordships' adoption a measure, which he did not hesitate to say was more subversive of the rights of property than any measure ever introduced into parliament. It was a bill which he must believe never could pass that House, or any assembly exercising a sound judgment. In the course of the last session, he had adverted to the three parties subject to the operation of the bill. One consisted of the holders of the existing tithes; and he supposed it was natural in them to wish to receive more than they had previously done. The tithe-payers constituted another party; and it was to be presumed that 71 they would wish to pay less. The third party was formed of those who possessed land tithe-free, and who were not legally bound to pay any thing. It certainly did occur to him, that there lurked under the bill, a design to conciliate two of these parties, the receivers and the payers, at the expense of the weaker party who had hitherto not been bound to pay any thing. He had stated his suspicion, and had felt it to be his duty to point out the injustice of the course which appeared to be contemplated. What answer did the noble earl opposite then give? He said, that no compulsion was meditated against those who were hot bound to pay tithes; that, in fact, compulsion with respect to them was impossible, as they were empowered to vote, and no less than six votes were given them for their protection. He had no interest in this question; but he could not express to their lordships his astonishment at finding, that a clause was introduced into the bill before the other House, which went to deprive the persons to whom he had alluded, of the six votes to which they were at present entitled, and to place the largest holder of property in the country on the same footing with the smallest. If this bill passed into a law, the small proprietors would be able to out-vote the proprietors who possessed the greater part of the land in each parish, contrary to all the principles on which parliament had ever acted in cases of property; as, in the making of roads, canals, and so forth, the possessors of one tenth of the property of a parish would be enabled to control those who possessed the other nine-tenths. Could any thing be more unreasonable than this?—Another clause which he found in the bill now before the Commons was not less reprehensible. It empowered any person who might be appointed a commissioner, to order to be brought before him the title deeds of the estates, which any noble lord or any other person might have in Ireland. Was it possible that their lordships House, which had always manifested such a delicate regard to property, could sanction such a clause as this? Was it to be endured' that their lordships should be thus called upon to produce every title deed, every scrap of paper, connected with their property? It was impossible the noble lord opposite could give his assent to such a measure. It was impossible the learned lord on the woolsack, who paid 72 so much attention to questions of property, could permit it to proceed.
The Lord Chancellorrose to order. It was, he said, the first time he had ever heard the clauses of a bill in progress through the other House of parliament made the subject of discussion in their lordships' House.
The Marquis of Lansdownconsidered that he was strictly in order, as he was speaking on a bill against which the petition he had to present was addressed. He was entitled to state—and he thought it but fair to call the attention of their lordships thus early to the subject—that the measure which was in progress in the other House of parliament, so far from being calculated to relieve the parties complaining of the act, would aggravate the evil under which they laboured. But, to avoid all dispute on the question of order, he would put the case hypothetically, and say he understood that so and so had been proposed elsewhere, which would come precisely to the same thing. He would state, that last year the average taken on the last seven years, had been considered too high, and it was thought right to correct it by giving the opportunity of an alteration at the end of three years. Notwithstanding this arrangement, it had been proposed, that when the average of the seven years should once be determined on, it should be irrevocable, and could not be altered at the end of the first three years. Such an enactment as that he had described, their lordships must perceive; would be no relief from the hardship complained of last session. He could assure their lordships, that in stating these objections to the measure, he was actuated by no opposition to the principle of the measure. He was most desirous of seeing it carried into effect, but wished the objectionable clauses of the bill to undergo amendment. In particular, he thought it due to the proprietors not liable to pay tithes, that they should be relieved from compulsion, and that whatever they did towards the execution of the measure, they should be permitted to do of their own free will. While the lay-holders and impropriators of tithes were not subject to compulsion in coming to an arrangement, he trusted their lordships would not be so unjust as to impose compulsion on those who hitherto had not been bound to pay tithes, and who surely were entitled to remain as free as the other party who received the tithes. He concluded by pre- 73 renting a petition against the Tithe Commutation bill, from a parish in the county of Tipperary.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would not be induced by any thing the noble marquis had stated, to anticipate the discussion which would probably regularly come on, as to what alterations it might be proper to make in a measure now before the other House. Whenever that bill came before their lordships, it would be time to consider in what respect the bill of last session was defective, and what amendments it might require. What he wished now to explain was, the real state of the case with respect to the bill which was said to have failed. When he proposed the second reading last year, he had observed to their lordships, that neither he nor any person could expect the measure to be otherwise than imperfect, and that nothing more could then be expected than to establish the principle. It was under this impression that he stated his opinion of the effect which was to be expected from the bill last session; but that opinion was now completely changed. Many amendments were made with a view to compulsion, because it was supposed that without compulsion there would be no success. But, he was now prepared to say, that the measure had succeeded beyond the most sanguine expectation which any person had ever formed respecting it. He found that it had succeeded in more than one-tenth of the parishes. It had been carried into execution in 279 cases. It had besides been carried into effect in twenty-three cases since the meeting of that House, and fresh applications had been made for thirty-nine arrangements. With regard to what the noble marquis had stated on the subject of the clause, according to which, in some cases, the clergyman might receive more than had been paid on an average of seven years, he must observe, that the objection was far from being well founded. The reason of the provision obviously was, because the clergyman could not have received more than his right. There could therefore, be no reason for inserting a power to give him less than his due; but he might have received so much less than what he was entitled to, that in common justice it would be necessary to give an increase. Hence the necessity for the power which the noble marquis regarded as a mark of partiality. The measure had been carried into operation in a most li- 74 beral manner in ten dioceses, and the amount per acre received by the clergyman in some of them he would state. In the diocess of Cashel, he received 1s. 3d. per acre; in Clonfert, 6d.; in Elfin, 11d.; in Meath 11d. In short, he could assure their lordships, that the measure had succeeded far beyond any expectation he had at first thought himself warranted in encouraging.
§ The Earl of Kingstonstated the fact, that in one parish there was no protestant church erected, the rector having objected to the expense of 75l. a year for the salary of the curate; and the consequence was, that many Protestants went to mass, rather than go to no place of worship at all.
Lord Kingsaid, that after the many grants of public money for the erection of churches and glebe-houses, it must be very mortifying to the House to find their intention frustrated by those who ought to promote them. He had heard of a mercantile Hibernian reciprocity, but here was a clerical Hibernian reciprocity. Was the cure of souls a sinecure in Ireland, or would the Irish clergy content themselves with a mere salvage? Would they take the fee, and leave the sinner to work his own way to heaven as he could? The fact with respect to the clergy was as notorious as the sun at noon day.
§ The Earl of Clareinferred from certain facts which had taken place in his own county, that, in some instances, the composition had been taken too high, but, generally, he maintained the right of the clergy to church property to be as valid as that by which their lordships held their estate, and the measure against which the petitioners remonstrated to be necessary to the salvation of the Church.
The Earl of Darnleycontended, that, though the clergy might be legally entitled to claim the full amount of their tithe, the right could not easily be insisted on after the statements of his noble friend, which remained uncontroverted.—His noble friend had made out a charge of gross neglect Was the unwillingness of a rector to pay a curate 75l. a year, a sufficient reason to prevent the building of a church and thereby compel the parishioners to charge their religion for want of a Protestant place of worship?
§ The Earl of Kingstonsaid, there was not a single statement in the petitions relative to the non-residence and neglect of the clergy, which he could not esta- 75 blish by evidence at their lordships' bar.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.