CHURCH TEMPORALITIES'(IRELAND). (Hansard, 22 July 1833)

§ The Duke of Wellington
said, that he believed that the duty which it was proposed should be performed by the Commissioners had been well performed by the Board of First Fruits, and he should have been glad if it had been left with them. But as the business to be performed would be much increased, and no part of the measure could, in the first instance, be carried on without the interference of Government, he did not mean to move that it should be left in their hands. He would propose, however, that one of the Civil Commissioners should be named by the heads of the Church, namely, by the Lord Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin. This clause, he thought, had evidently been drawn with a view to the passing of the 147th clause, and although that clause was struck out, much remained in the Bill which had been intended to apply to that clause. He thought it but fair that those, whose property was to be sold, in order that the purposes of the measure should be carried into execution, should know something of what was going on. He, therefore, moved, that an addition be made to this clause, by which two of the Commissioners should be appointed by the King in Council, and the other by the Lord Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin, or under their hands and seals.

§ Earl Grey
did not see any necessity for the Amendment; but if the House considered that it would be any additional security for the better performance of the duty of the Commissioners, he would not oppose it.

The Bishop of London
agreed in the opinion of the noble Earl (Grey) in feeling no objection to the noble Duke's proposition, but at the same time he would have been better pleased had the number been two, instead of three, "proper and discreet persons." Two would be sufficient for the business, and the expense on the fund would be less.

The Lord Chancellor
thought, on the contrary, that three persons were preferable to two, on account of the work which was to be done in carrying into effect, in the first instance, some of the provisions of the Bill; if, however, in the course of three years, any vacancy should occur, it might be left open.

The Bishop of London
said, that his sole object in making the suggestion was to diminish the expense. He spoke from experience, having been for nine years on the commission for building churches; and though the attendance had been but very limited, yet he believed the business Had been done as well as it could be, notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject.

The Earl of Wicklow
thought, that the noble Earl who had introduced the Bill, would give considerable satisfaction to the public, if the four Bishops, who by the clause were to constitute a component part of the Board, were either elected, or should come in ex officio in rotation. He would beg leave to move an amendment to that effect.

§ Lord Wynford
thought, that the proposition of his noble friend would tend to remove the principal objections raised to the Bill. He was of opinion, that the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be in the bench of Bishops, and by this means the Board would be more independent, and would be less objectionable. He was not prepared at the present stage to move an Amendment he had contemplated, the object of which was to get rid of the proposed Commission, and to substitute another, which would place the affairs of the Church in the hands of the Church. If the Bill passed with the clause as it stood, every individual in the Church of Ireland, from the Archbishop of Armagh down to the very sexton of a parish, and even the tenants upon Church lands, would be under the influence of the Crown. This was an objection he should be very happy to see remedied. If four Bishops and one lay Commissioner were appointed by the Church, such an influence would be created in the Board as would protect the interests of the Church apart from the Crown.

§ Earl Grey
expressed his readiness and wish to attend to any suggestion calculated to remove any objections, and to make the Bill satisfactory to all parties; but at the same time he could not but object to the Amendment of the noble Earl. Neither could he acquiesce in what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite, namely, that the proposed Board would bring the Church under the influence and 1048 control of the Crown. He hoped, the Amendment would not be persevered in, and particularly as he was prepared to move an Amendment on the next clause, by which the only removable Commissioners would be the Chancellor, and the three lay Commissioners, at the will of the Crown.

§ The Earl of Harrowby
was of opinion, that two of the Bishops appointed to the Board of Commissioners should be elected by the bench of Bishops, and two should be appointed by the Crown.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
had not the least doubt that the Commissioners would be elected with impartiality, yet he considered that it would be desirable that all the Bishops left to Ireland under this Bill should form a portion of the Board. Such was the case with the Board of First Fruits in this country; and he had never heard of the business being badly conducted. The result would be that all the Bishops who were not prevented from ill-health or other causes would attend, and there would necessarily be always an attendance fully qualified to take charge of the business. If it should not be judged expedient that all the Bishops should be members of the Board, yet the Church ought to be more fully represented than was proposed, and he was, consequently, of opinion that it was not too much to ask that the Board should be selected by the Bishops of Ireland. With every desire to meet the conciliatory disposition manifested by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that evening, he could not but think the proposition of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Harrowby) was very fair, and one to which no objection could be made.

The Lord Chancellor
did not see so much objection to the proposition of the most reverend Prelate, as he did to that of the noble Earl. He could not conceive any worse arrangement than that two of the Board should be chosen in one way, and two others should be selected by the bench of Bishops, for it would imply unlimited confidence in the Crown as to one party, and excite distrust and jealousy in the other; and it might occur that the party rejected by the one authority might be elected by the other. Another great objection he had was the calling the Bishops together more than necessary for the purposes of elections.

The Duke of Cumberland
had understood the most reverend Prelate to suggest 1049 that all the Bishops of Ireland should be on the Board. If so, he was of opinion that the country would be satisfied.

The Bishop of London
must remind their Lordships, that the Crown had already the appointment of all the Bishops who might ultimately sit on the Board.

§ Earl Grey
said, that he considered that four Bishops would be quite sufficient to answer the preponderance desired, but apprehended that it was now too late to move any of the Amendments suggested, for the portion of the clause to which the Amendment applied was anterior to that upon which the noble Duke (Wellington) had moved his Amendment which was adopted. Therefore the noble Earl (Wicklow) could not move his Amendment, according to the rules, until the bringing up of the Report.

The Earl of Wicklow
regretted, that the courtesy usual in the House should not have been extended to himself—a courtesy which he had never before been refused. He had, on a former occasion, stated his approbation of the principle of the Bill, and his determination to support it, and therefore he might fairly say he was not actuated by a factious opposition to the measure, when he had submitted his Amendment; which, if refused to be considered now, he should certainly move on the bringing up of the Report. He hoped the noble Earl opposite would withdraw his opposition, raised as to a point of form.

§ Earl Grey
repeated, that it was most in-convenient, after a clause had been gone through, to go back and enter upon new amendments. With respect to the Amendment, he must say he should object to any alteration in the manner in which the Board of Commissioners was to be appointed; but if the noble Earl wished to persevere in his Motion, he should not object in point of form.

The Earl of Wicklow
moved his Amendment on the clause, to the effect that the appointment and election of the four Bishops to the Board of Commissioners should be in the Bench of Irish Bishops generally.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
objected to the Amendment, because it would place the appointment of the Commissioners in irresponsible hands. The Government were responsible to Parliament; but if the Bishops should make improper appointments, there would be no remedy.

The Bishop of London
said, that whether the Amendment was good or bad, he would not undertake to say, but he was sure the Bishops were quite as responsible as the Ministers.

The Lord Chancellor
said, that the noble Marquess (Marquess Clanricarde) had taken a very sound view of the question. He fully concurred with him, that the power of appointing Commissioners should be exercised by the Crown, subject to the control of Parliament. He also objected to the Amendment, because it would confer an elective power on the Bishops, which they had never before possessed, either in England or in Ireland. The principle of election was avoided in the manner in which the right reverend Prelates entered that House, where they came in by rotation. He certainly should not have agreed to the former Amendment proposed by the noble Duke, if he had known that the present Amendment was afterwards to be proposed; and he might mention this as a proof of the inconvenience and danger which resulted from departing from the rules of the House. Out of the eleven Commissioners, seven would not be removable by the Crown; and he therefore thought, that the Commissioners were sufficiently independent of the Government.

The Marquess of Bute
would support the Amendment, because it would tend to reconcile the Church to the Bill.

The Marquess of Lansdown
said, that the Amendment implied an opinion that the Bishops would consider one set of persons the fittest to act as Commissioners, and the Crown another. If the Amendment should be agreed to, the Bishops would have the power of appointing four of their body to act as Commissioners, and by the next clause, the Crown would have the power of removing them, and thus practically putting a veto on their election. He trusted that their Lordships would maintain the unity of principle so essential to the Bill, by leaving the selection of the Commissioners to the Crown.

§ Lord Wynford
denied, that the Amendment implied any suspicion that the Crown would appoint improper persons to act as Commissioners. The ground on which he would vote for the Amendment was, that the business to be done was the business of the Church, and there was no ground for the intervention of the Crown in the matter.

§ Earl Grey
said, he could not understand on what principle the Amendment was proposed, if it were not to avert some danger which was apprehended from the appointment of improper persons. He was surprised to hear it said, that the Bishops were as responsible as the Ministers for the persons they might appoint. They certainly would have to answer to God and their consciences, but they were not responsible in a legal and political sense, as Ministers were. If the principle laid down by the noble and learned Lord (Wynford) were pushed to the full extent, it would give the Bishops the right of appointing one another to their bishoprics. He would meet the Amendment with a decided negative if it were pressed to a division. He certainly wished to give satisfaction to the Church, but he did not think that the Church had any ground for dissatisfaction as to the manner it was at present proposed to constitute the Board.

The Earl of Wicklow
said, that though nominally, the power of appointing the Commissioners would be vested in the Crown, the clergy of Ireland could not forget who were Ministers. He did not mean to say so invidiously, but it was certain that the Ministers were not popular with the clergy of Ireland. For his own part he had no doubt that Ministers would exercise the powers given them by the Bill properly, and he proposed the Amendment merely to satisfy the Irish Church.

The Bishop of London
said, that the speech which the noble Earl had just delivered, had determined him to vote for the clause as it stood.

The Lord Chancellor
I am nothing surprised at the right reverend Prelate's declaration. The noble Earl, for which I return him my hearty thanks, has put the question on what he doubtless thinks right grounds, and we shall now come to a vote upon the Amendment as a vote of distrust in the Ministers.

The Earl of Wicklow
totally disclaimed the noble and learned Lord's assertions; he denied it in the strongest language he could use consistently with the forms of the House. Nothing which he had said could fairly bear the interpretation which the noble and learned Lord put upon it. From the first moment he had addressed their Lordships on the subject, he had expressed the same opinion, and in nearly the same words. He had stated, that he 1052 did not believe the power proposed to be intrusted to Government would be misused, but he was anxious to remove an impression of a contrary nature from the minds of the clergy. If the right reverend Prelate had attended to what he had said, he would not have had occasion to make a speech at one time in favour of his Amendment, and at another time against it. The right reverend Prelate's reasons for the part he had acted were best known to himself, but it did appear strange, that, after having approved of the Amendment, he should, when he found Ministers united in opposing it, declare against it.

The Bishop of London
had never expressed a favourable opinion of the Amendment, although he allowed that he was inclined to approve of it. He had, however, made up his mind from the beginning, not to vote for any Amendment that did not involve a great principle, if the carrying of it were likely to create difficulty. He considered the Bill as a great constitutional measure, without reference to this Ministry or that Ministry, and he would not consent to vote for the Amendment merely on the ground that the clergy of Ireland did not repose confidence in the Ministers.

The Earl of Suffolk
said, there could be no doubt that the House was now called upon to come to a vote of distrust in Ministers after the declaration of the noble Earl.

Viscount Gage
rose to propose an Amendment, which should subject all Church property in the hands of lay impropriators to the same taxes as Church property in the hands of churchmen. He put it to their Lordships' candour, whether it was proper to place a tax on those who worked, and exempt those who did not work? He was himself a holder of almost every species of Church property, and he made this proposition, looking to the application of the same principle to Church property in England. He thought all tithes in the hands of lay impropriators should be subject to the proposed tax.

The Lord Chancellor
regretted the necessity of being obliged to oppose the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. He was sure that nothing could be more fair than the feeling which prompted the 1053 noble Lord's observations, but lie (the Lord Chancellor) must object to the terms he had made use of. It was but just to suppose that many lay impropriators had given a full and valuable consideration for the tithes which they held. Unless, therefore, they wished to commit the grossest injustice towards those who had fairly come by this property, it would be necessary to appoint a Commission to inquire into the manner in which the ancestors of all lay tithe impropriators had become possessed of the property of this description which they held. He need not explain to their Lordships, that such a proceeding would be productive of the greatest hardship and inconvenience, and he might, perhaps, add, injustice; and on this account he felt bound to oppose the Amendment. He must also object to the terms applied by the noble Lord to persons holding property of this description—namely, that they were fattening on the property which of right belonged to the Church. Unless it were shown, that those lay impropriators had become unfairly possessed of this property, they had as much right to it as any noble Lord there had to that freehold property which he or his ancestors had obtained by fair purchase.

The Bishop of Exeter
regretted, that the Bill had not originated in this House, as their Lordships would not then be prevented from fully discussing those parts of it which more particularly partook of the nature of taxation—at least they might have discussed them more at liberty. He rejoiced, that his noble friend had brought forward this Amendment, and he thought it would be injustice if their Lordships did not agree to it. It was most unfair to make such a partial distinction as was made by this clause between lay and ecclesiastical impropriators, especially when their Lordships considered the very great distress under which a great portion of the Irish clergy were at present labouring. He knew several instances, especially in Ireland, where a lay impropriator possessed the tithes of a whole parish, out of which he did not contribute a penny to the support of that religion, to support which those tithes had been originally appropriated. It was most unjust to secure the payment of the whole of those tithes to the lay impropriator, while so great a deduction was made from the property of those which were really appro- 1054 priated to the service of the Church. He felt grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this Amendment; he hoped their Lordships would not lose sight of the principle it contained, as if they did, they would be losing sight of justice.