Lords Sitting of 29 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord HAMILION (BELHAVEN), a Return of all the Money raised and Expended in the year 1832 for the Maintenance of the Poor in the several Parishes in Scotland.—On the Motion of Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, Copy of a Correspondence between the Board of Control and the East-India Company relative to the Renewal of the Charter.
Bills. Read a second time:—Burgh Police (Scotland); Marriages Validating.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Barking, for an Alteration in the Law of Settlement as to Apprentices bound to Fishermen.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the several Trades Employed on the River Thames, for a Clause in the East-India Charter Bill, to Employ the Company's Ships this Session.—By Lord HAMILTON (BELHAVEN), from a Farming Society in Scotland, for Selling all Dry Farming Produce by Weight.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Clergy of Salop; and by the Duke of NEWCASTLE, from various Individuals,—against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill,—By the Duke of Somerset, the LORD CHANCELLOR, and the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from the Proprietors and Actors of the Minor Theatres, in favour of, and by the Earl of GLENGALL, from the Proprietors of Covent-garden and Drury-lane Theatres, against, the Dramatic Performances Bill.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES' (IRELAND).
On the question, that the Report on the Church Temporalities' (Ireland) Bill be received,
The Earl of Winchilsearose to crave their Lordships' indulgence for a short time, while he addressed them on this Bill. He had not followed the Bill into a Committee, because he had expressed himself so decidedly hostile to the principles of the Bill, that he could not, with any regard to the consistency of his character, go into the Committee, as be had no hopes of there seeing any Amendments which

51
would remove his objections to the Bill. Let their Lordships look at the Bill, and they would find that it was one of the most unconstitutional measures ever proposed. He acknowledged the power of the Crown, in conjunction with its spiritual advisers, to propose for the consideration of the House such measures as they, in their united wisdom, thought would promote the interests of the Established Church. But he denied the power of the Crown—and he challenged the noble Earl on this point, at least since the Revolution—he challenged the noble Earl to prove, that it was in the power of the Crown—to take the revenues of the Established Church, and make a present of them to the two Houses of Parliament, to be disposed of as they might think proper. Let them look to the power of the Crown, and to the objects this Bill had in view. The Bill came before them under the specious pretext of correcting the evils of the Established Church; but, if that were the case, would they not have asked the advice and opinion of those most interested in the Church? It was important that their Lordships should weigh this matter well. He admitted that there were clauses in the Bill worthy of support; but they were only intended to conceal the design, which he saw plainly in the other clause, of weakening, and not only weakening, but destroying, the Established Church of the empire—which, he believed in his conscience, was the object contemplated by this Bill. One great purpose of it was said to be, to remove that cause of dissension and irritation which was now found to exist in making the King's Roman Catholic subjects pay the cess for the Established Church. But he denied that that was a cause of irritation. It was not necessary for him to prove, though it was easily done, that the whole burthens of the tax fell on the Protestant landlords, and not on the Catholic tenancy. If they wished to remove the cause of irritation, it would only be necessary to make the landlords take the cess upon themselves, and relieve the Catholic tenancy. It was said, that the Bill was intended to promote the spiritual and temporal welfare of the Church. If that were the object, why did not they ask the opinion of the clergy of the Established Church, who, from their situation, had the strongest interest in its temporal and spiritual welfare, and were best qualified to give an opinion. Had that been
52
done? Certainly not: for the Bill was directly in opposition to the opinion of ninety-nine out of a hundred of the clergy of the British Empire, and it had been brought forward in opposition to their wishes. It was said by the noble Lords who supported the Bill, that it was not contrary to the Coronation Oath. On that point they were at issue. He would expressly say, that anything which would tend to weaken or prevent the progress of the Gospel, would be directly contrary to that oath which the Sovereign took to his God. It was not a mere human compact, which men might set aside. If it were taken from a feeling of due respect to religion, it was not in the power of man to dissolve the obligation which the Sovereign had entered into with his God. Without paying any regard to the specious pretences under which this Bill was brought in, and which were only false colours—if their Lordships would cast them aside, they would find that no such measure as this had been brought forward, affecting the spiritualities and the temporalities of the Church, since the time of James 2nd. He spoke his opinions openly. On all questions he endeavoured to divest himself of all party feeling, and all personal bias; and he must say, that he considered this measure to be fraught with danger to the whole united Established Church, and to the best interests of the country. He did not wish, in alluding to the question of Roman Catholic Emancipation, to say anything which might hurt the feelings of any person, but he thought the result of that measure had confirmed the views which he took of its probable effects before it was passed. Religion was a great question, though some men treated it with great latitude; but he maintained, that its principles ought to be steadily adhered to. With that opinion, he could not say, that it was right to concede to the Catholics, for the Catholic religion was hostile to the civil and religious liberties of all mankind. He did not wish, he said, to wound the feelings of those who supported Catholic Emancipation, but it was said that, in removing the disabilities, the Catholics would be made good subjects. Had that been the case? Let them look at the outrages which were every day committed in Ireland, and let their Lordships then decide whose opinion had been most correct. He was convinced that, in a free form of government like ours, in which the Pro-

53
testant religion was predominant, the Catholics could not be admitted with the Protestants into concurrent civil rights. The Roman Catholics were not content; and if he were a Roman Catholic, he should not be content, unless he could reinstate the Catholic Church in all its former power. But let their Lordships look to Ireland, and see the tranquillity which prevailed in the Protestant parts of that country—the obedience which there was shown to the law; and let them see the outrages which continually took place among the Catholic peasantry, directed against the Protestant clergy; and let them say whether the object of the Catholic population were, or were not, to destroy the Protestant Church. He was sure that no person could say, that such were not their views; and he condemned the present Bill because its object was to help the Catholics, and to weaken, and ultimately to destroy, the Protestant Church in Ireland. He would pray their Lordships, therefore, not to pass a Bill which would subvert the established religion, and tend to separate the two countries. He trusted that they would view this question in all its bearings. Never was there a question more worthy of serious attention. This Bill, if it had been passed as it was originally shaped—that was, with the 147th clause—would have deserved still greater reprobation than it did as it now stood. He was informed that the surplus which would have been produced under that clause was offered to the Catholic clergy, and had been refused by them. It would have been disgraceful to the House if such a provision had been agreed to. With respect to the retrospective clause, by which the produce of those livings in which divine service had not been solemnized for three years were directed to be sequestrated, without any inquiry into the reason which had produced that effect, he thought it was unjust. That clause appeared to him disgraceful, when he looked to the unceasing persecution to which the Protestant clergy were subjected. That persecution was of a more daring, cruel, and dangerous character, than was ever before carried on against any class or body of men. Those acts of persecution and cruelty were so monstrous, that he could not adequately describe them. The consequence was, that the Protestant clergy, especially in the south and western parts of Ireland, were driven away, and
54
were prevented from exercising their sacred functions. To support the Protestant clergy was a duty which they owed to that body; but, what was of still more importance, it was a duty which they owed to their God. Feeling that this measure was pregnant and fraught with innumerable, and irremediable evil, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote on this occasion. He could not, as he said before, go into the Committee on this Bill, because he was utterly opposed to its principle. He should reproach himself if he did not make another effort to stop a measure, which he conceived to be pregnant with irreparable injury to the country. The noble Earl concluded by moving, that the Report be received that day six months.
Earl Greythought it was not necessary, at that stage of the Bill, to enter into arguments in reply to the vehement declamation of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had imputed to him an intention to overthrow the Protestant Church. All he could say was, that the Bill was framed with very different intentions, and the allegation, that it was designed to overturn the Protestant Church, was an invention solely of the noble Earl. He relied for an answer to the noble Earl on the candour of his fellow-countrymen; and they, he was sure, would not impute to him such designs, or, imputing such designs, would never suppose that he would attempt to carry them into effect by that Bill. The noble Earl had stated that it was not intended to benefit the Established Church—that the motive of it was to provide for the Roman Catholic clergy. All he could say in reply to that was, that there was not the least foundation for the noble Earl's assertion.
Their Lordships divided on the Amendment:—Contents 30; Not Contents 68:—Majority 38.
The Report was received.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, in reference to the clause for consolidating the bishoprics, that the only pretext brought for the adoption of this clause was, that it was necessary to secure the respect of the Protestants of Ireland to the Established Church. He denied that such a pretext existed, and contended, that the absence of petitions from Irish Protestants in favour of this measure showed the state of their feelings. The Protestants felt this clause to be an insult and an injury. He would give all the opposition

55
in his power till the last moment that the Bill was before them.
On coming to Clause 34,
Earl Greysaid, that, when the Bill was in Committee, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) had proposed an Amendment, to the effect that twenty livings should be given to the junior ex-fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, but that he had consented to withdraw his Amendment on a promise on his (Earl Grey's) part, that he would take the subject into consideration, and move a clause to that effect on the bringing up of the Report, if he should think it proper and advisable. He (Earl Grey) had since considered the subject, and was of opinion, that the subtraction of twenty livings from the patronage of the Bishops would be too much, but that it would be going a great way if he proposed that ten livings should be appropriated to the Junior Fellows of Trinity College. That was giving to the Junior Fellows nearly one-half as many livings as they at present possessed, the number which they now had being twenty-one. He would therefore propose, that a clause be added giving ten additional livings to the Junior Fellows of Trinity College, and that the livings so given should be limited to 800 l. a-year. There was another part of the proposition of the noble Duke, that the patronage of these livings should be given to the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, but subject to an appeal. He (Earl Grey) now proposed that there should be no appeal, which he thought would be the better course.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to concur in the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Wicklowsuggested that the amount of the livings should be raised from 800 l. to 1,000 l. He thought that, with the exception of the change in the patronage, the University of Dublin would feel grateful for the Amendment.
The Bishop of London, looking to the very few livings in the gift of a Bishop of the value of 800 l., could not concur in the suggestion of the noble Earl (Wicklow).
The Lord Chancellor, with all respect for Trinity College, suggested the propriety of taking an early opportunity of considering the amount of the Senior Fellowships. The amount of income derived from these Fellowships appeared to him too large, and he thought it a proper subject for inquiry, whether they ought
56
not to be reduced in order to increase the number of the Junior Fellowships? He thought that when they heard that the average value of those Fellowships was 1,700 l. it was time to consider whether the reduction of their number, and the increase of the number of Junior Fellowships (he did not mean to propose any increase of their emoluments), would not be useful to the respectable seminary to which they belonged.
The Motion agreed to.
On coming to the 52nd Clause,
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that by this clause the Bishop of Derry was required to pay over to the Commissioners the sum of 4,164 l. He (the Bishop of Exeter) saw no reason why the House should thus dispose of vested interests. He was indeed aware, that the present Bishop of Derry had no reason to complain, as he had accepted of the See under that provision; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought that words to that effect ought to be added to the clause, in order to show under what circumstances it had been proposed. He would therefore move that the words be added—"he (the Bishop of Derry) having freely assented thereto."
Agreed to.
The Marquess of Bute The Marquess of Bute moved, as an Amendment on the 61st clause, after the word "defrayed," the insertion of words to the effect, "until further provisions by law be established for the same purposes." His object was, not to throw the burthen of providing for the repairs of churches permanently on the revenues of the clergy.
The Earl of Winchilseawould be very sorry to sanction any measure that would press heavily, in a pecuniary way, upon the Irish clergy, whom he wished to see protected. He was sure that he only spoke the sentiments of the great majority of Irish Protestant Gentlemen, when he said, that they would prefer to have the tax laid on themselves. A great portion of the landed property in Ireland belonged to Protestant Gentlemen; and they would be sorry to be relieved of a tax by throwing it on the clergy.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that it was a most unjust principle, that any portion of the small property now left in the hands of the clergy should be taxed in order to relieve the landlords. He thought that renewing the Act of last Session respecting the payment of tithes would be a

57
way of giving to the clergy an equivalent for what was about to be done to them by the present measure.
The Earl of Haddingtonwould ask, if the precedent of taxing any portion of the clergy was once allowed, how many years would pass over before a similar tax would be laid on the clergy of this country? It was his opinion, that those persons who were loudest in their demands for the present Bill were so because they saw it sanctioned the principle of taxing the clergy. Could the landlords, who might consent to the laying on this tax, flatter themselves that they would be let off? If they did, they would find themselves mistaken. They would be the next sufferers. As he considered the Amendment of the noble Marquess a good one, he would divide the House upon it.
The Marquess of Clanricardecontended, that the Church-cess ought not to be paid by the land. A Land-tax should have reference to Poor-laws, and not to the Church.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that all taxes, no matter by whom paid, or whether they came from the pockets of the occupying tenant or that of the landlord, were in point of fact borne by the latter, and not by the former. It was the landlord who paid the road rate, the county rate, the Church rate, and even the tithes; for if these imposts did not exist, was it not very plain that the tenant would have to pay an increased rent to the landlord; these charges being nothing more nor less than deductions from the rent? He therefore asserted, that the Church-cess was paid by the landlord, and not by the tenant, and he should like to know how such a proposition could be disputed. All persons, no matter what their religious persuasion might be, were bound to contribute to the support of the Established Church, and for his part he must say, that he could not distinguish between tithe and Churchcess. But it had been said, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland derived no benefit from the Protestant Church. This was not the fact, for had they not the whole advantage of the good morals, the good order, and the respect for and obedience to the laws which the clergy of the Establishment inculcated and maintained among the people? Would a man be justified in refusing to pay taxes merely because he thought the laws of another country better than those of his own, or that he was of opinion a militia force was preferable
58
to a standing array? No one would advance such a proposition; but as well might an exemption from taxes be claimed upon such reasons, as to say, that every member of the community was not bound to contribute to the support of the National Church. Tithe had been called a tax, but that was clearly a misapprehension, for the right to tithe was co-equal with the right to land, or any other property. Was it not most inconsistent and unjust to take a burthen oft" land and throw it on a particular class of persons? But although he said this, he did not mean to deny, that something was necessary to be done to relieve the peasantry of Ireland from the Church-cess. He could not, however, agree that without this Bill the Church of Ireland must absolutely be ruined, for he believed nothing of the sort; on the contrary, it was his firm opinion, that if this measure were to pass into a law, the Church of Ireland could not be safe. He did not believe, that this Bill, more than the other measures of the Government, would be sufficient to restore the persecuted clergy of Ireland to their rights, or to obtain for them that of which they had been deprived by tumults and rebellion. If it was not rebellion in the eye of the law, it was, at all events, rebellion in its effects. It had been said, that on a given day in November, tithes would be thrown altogether upon the landlord. This was another mistake. It might be so in cases where there were no leases, or where the leases had expired; but he denied that this measure could, in any way, affect existing leases. All the efforts of the Government hitherto to enforce the payment of tithes had failed. They had issued upwards of 1,500 decrees without being able to obtain one farthing, and therefore it was clear that in November next the clergy would be just as far from receiving their miserable subsistence as ever they were. He must, however, implore Ministers, before the breaking up of the Session, to consider well how the Church of Ireland was to be supported, and to adopt measures to ensure that object. He could not vote for the clause.
The Earl of Ripondid not expect that the noble Earl would have introduced the topic of tithes on discussing a clause that had no relation to them. He protested against one remark of the Noble Earl's, namely, that which went to accuse the present Government of a dereliction of

59
duty with respect to enforcing the law in Ireland. Such an accusation had been often made, but it had been never borne out by argument or fact. It was his opinion, that the Government had acted wisely in not having recourse to extraordinary measures until they were warranted by the necessity of the case. No charge had been brought against the Government of weakness in the exercise of the laws, that could be substantiated. Tithes and Vestry-cess were two distinct things. The charge of tithes fell upon the land, but that of the cess stood on its own bottom. He would ask noble Lords with what justice they could throw upon the land a burthen that was never on the land? If they threw it upon the laud, they must throw a portion of it upon the towns, for it was as just that the owners of houses should be as liable to the tax as the owners of lands. With respect to what the noble Earl said about different persuasions supporting the Established Church, he thought that the Irish Catholics, on that point, were differently situated from the Dissenters of this country.
The Marquess of Butesaid, that the reason he proposed his Amendment was, that it might appear to the country that they consented to the clause solely and entirely as a matter of necessity.
Amendment negatived.
The Report received with Amendments.