HL Deb 10 June 1845 vol 81 cc270-84

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

The Duke of Wellington

moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

The Duke of Leinster

Before your Lordships go into Committee upon this Bill, I would like to say a few words upon the subject. I am quite convinced that if the noble Lords who have spoken and voted against the measure now before the House had resided for the number of years that I have done near Maynooth, they would have entertained very different sentiments with respect to the proposed increase of endowment. I have watched that College for thirty-two years, and, as a magistrate residing in its vicinity, I can assure your Lordships that I never heard of the slightest misconduct being committed, or anything improper taking place within its walls. I have had the honour of knowing three of the professors for several years, and I know them to be most worthy men. I have also been acquainted for a number of years with the present Principal of the College—a gentleman of most excellent character, and most averse to taking any part in politics or in political agitation; but who, I much regret to say, is at present in such a bad state of health as to make me fear that he will not survive to reap the benefits proposed to be conferred upon the institution under this Bill. I again beg to thank the Government for what I consider a great boon to Ireland.

The Earl of Clancarty

My Lords, notwithstanding the very favourable opinion the noble Duke (Leinster) has expressed of Maynooth College, I feel it my duty to move, as I yesterday gave notice I would do, as an Amendment upon the Motion before the House, that the Bill be committed this day six months. In doing so, it will not be necessary for me to trespass many minutes upon the time of your Lordships; indeed, it would be inexcusable in me to address you at any length, after the patient hearing you were kind enough to give me on the second reading of this Bill. Your Lordships, however, cannot be surprised, after the statement I then made of the main grounds of my opposition to the Bill, that I should feel it my duty to oppose it at this stage also; as not one of the arguments I urged against the Bill was answered, or attempted to be answered. I shall not, of course, reiterate those arguments; but I must be permitted to say, that in what purported to be a debate, it was no unreasonable expectation on my part that I looked to have heard, in some of the speeches which followed mine, some answer to some, at least, of the objections I had advanced. For instance, when I represented the obligations of the Oath of Supremacy, as precluding me from giving my assent to this measure, and entered very particularly into that part of the subject, I assured myself, that as the obligation of that oath, rightly understood, was equally binding upon all, some of those who followed me in the debate, and who, from the votes they gave, I must presume to have taken a different view of the oath—and among those who so addressed your Lordships, were two right rev. Prelates who spoke at considerable length in support of the Bill—I say, my Lords, I felt assured that some noble Lord, or right rev. Prelate, would have endeavoured to remove so serious an objection, ere he recommended your Lordships to assent to this measure; as though a religious obligation, than which none should be more binding, could be overruled by the mere argument of expediency. I may, therefore, say, that being rather confirmed in the view I then took, than in any degree shaken in my opinion by the vote the House came to upon the occasion, it is my duty to raise my voice, and protest against the further progress of this Bill. It is, I believe, my Lords, pretty generally admitted that a principle is violated by your maintaining the Maynooth establishment; your proposed permanent endowment of it precludes all doubt whatever upon the subject. And how is it attempted to justify it? Why, by reference to precedent; as if precedent could really be any justification of an act not in itself justifiable! Yes; precedent and expediency are what the advocates of this measure rely upon! My Lords, I will briefly advert to the question of precedent, as it was argued the other night by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham). I certainly was not aware, until he stated to the House the facts with respect to the Roman Catholic establishments in our Colonies, that these ecclesiastical establishments were upheld otherwise than in virtue of Treaties, on the countries being ceded to the sovereignty of England. The noble and learned Lord, however, stated—and no one is better able to give information upon such a subject than the noble Lord—that Treaties had nothing to do with them. Before, however, the endowments of our Colonial establishments can be set up and pleaded, as affording precedents for this Bill, a question arises which, no doubt, the noble and learned Lord will be able satisfactorily to answer—Are those endowments in perpetuity? Or can they, under any circumstances, be withheld or interfered with by the Crown? Or, if not, is there a veto in the appointments, or any other power of control reserved to the State, by which may be upheld the rights of the Crown against the pretensions of papal authority? In that case, practically, the supremacy of the Crown would be maintained, which, in the case of Maynooth, it is not; and these Colonial endowments would afford no precedent for the present measure. The noble and learned Lord, however, somewhat inconsistently with his declaration that Treaties had nothing to do with the maintaining of Roman Catholic establishments in the Colonies, stated, that in the case of Canada, the King of England, in the Treaty of Paris, would only stipulate to allow the free exercise of their religion to the Roman Catholics, "so far as the same was allowed by the laws of England." Now, my Lords, this shows—if anything can—that there was a principle to violate—that there was something in the laws of England to limit the power of the State of supporting, or even of tolerating, the Roman Catholic religion. And my respect for those distinguished statesmen by whom the government of the Colonies has since been conducted, induces me to believe that that principle has been respected—that it has not been violated—and that, consequently, our Colonies exhibit no precedent for the measure under consideration. It cannot, my Lords, be necessary for me to remind your Lordships, that a jealousy of any exercise of papal jurisdiction or authority within the British territories was the origin of the Oath of Supremacy; and that in virtue of that oath, Her Majesty's Ministers and Parliament are bound to maintain the rightful supremacy of the Crown; its due power of control over every ecclesiastical institution within the realm. Consecrated, therefore, as this principle is, although a precedent could be shown of its having been violated, it could never be pleaded as a justification of a like violation even in a case perfectly analogous. Many, I believe, give their support to this Bill in the belief, that hereby they will best secure the Protestant Church Establishment. It was, I recollect, recommended by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to the friends of the Protestant Church, upon the ground that there would be less of danger to that institution from an endowed, than from an unendowed antagonist Church. My Lords, I give the fullest credit to the perfect sincerity of the noble Lord's attachment to the Protestant Establishment. He has more than once evinced it: even where he has interfered with the temporalities of the Church, his measures, though not always productive of benefit, were, I am satisfied, designed to promote the efficiency and stability of the Church; but never was worse counsel given than that which he now offers. I heard, indeed, with pleasure the determination expressed by the noble Lord, and by another noble Lord, an influential Member of the late Government (Lord Monteagle), that they would under no circumstances consent to any portion of the revenues of the Established Church being diverted to the support of the Roman Catholic religion; but I would warn those two noble Lords, and others who may have been influenced by them, that by their votes upon this Bill they are establishing a principle that will operate far more powerfully for the overthrow of the Protestant Establishment, than their individual votes, wishes, and pledges could do for its support. Let them consider well what the consequences will be if this Bill passes. My Lords, this question will necessarily arise, "If the State gives favour and encouragement to the dissemination of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland—and of course, therefore, considers its dissemination desirable—why does it continue to maintain a Church the most opposed to its doctrines; and which, so long as it is maintained, must prove an obstacle to that union of religious opinion which is so much to be desired in a nation, or rather to that universal and implicit submission to papal authority which the Church of Rome requires, and which the State, by its support of the principle of this Bill, must be held to approve?" If you would uphold the Church, my Lords, it must not be thus in the teeth of reason. It is not by the sufferance, still less by the purchased sufferance, of an antagonist or rival establishment, and that, too, the Church of Rome, that the Protestant Church can or ought to stand. The Church is designed to commend to the Queen's subjects that which the State has hitherto held to be the true religion. This it cannot do effectually, if the State practically denies or raises doubts respecting its soundness. The Church rests its claim to State support, my Lords, not merely upon Acts of Parliament, nor even upon prescriptive right, but mainly upon its scriptural character, the purity of its doctrines, and upon its adaptation to the important objects of its institution; and it is a most erroneous and a very narrowed view to take of the duties of ecclesiastics of that Church in Ireland, to say, that they do not extend to those who are not of their own communion. With great deference for so high an authority as that of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) who put forward such an opinion, I would beg to remark that dioceses and parishes are territorial divisions, and that the bishops and curates appointed to them are paid alike by Churchmen and Dissenters; and that therefore they are to both, as far as they can afford them, the offices of a Christian ministry. If I thought that in a parish where there was no Protestant, or only very few members of the Church, the clergyman was therefore either a sinecurist or nearly so, I should join with those who look upon the Establishment as an anomaly, at least I should doubt the propriety of maintaining it on its present footing. But sufficient may be gathered from the ordering of deacons, priests, and bishops, to show that a far greater responsibility is accepted by the clergy of the Established Church; and I rejoice to say that the practice of most of the clergy now, happily evinces a due sense of the duties they have undertaken—works of local charity are encouraged and superintended by them without distinction of religious creed. Scriptural education of the poor of all religious persuasions, subject only to the restrictions of parental authority, is a duty which they labour to perform, though much opposed in it, I regret to say, by the measures of Her Majesty's Government; and the practice of visiting and affording religious instruction and consolation, as far as practicable, to adults of every religious denomination, is a duty, the efficiency of which is much promoted by the uniform manifestation of Christian charity, Christian zeal, and Christian consistency. So long as the State is consistent with itself, and the clergy faithful to the discharge of their duties, the stability of the Church will not be endangered, its usefulness will ensure its prosperity; but if an inconsistent part be acted by either, then, indeed, it must, under Heaven, depend for its continuance upon the precarious tenure of sufferance. Desirable as it might be to have all united as members of the same communion, Christianity is not viewed by the Church as confined to its own or any other form of worship; but as I believe it to be the best and the purest, I cannot, for one moment, admit what the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and others have seemed to suppose, that Ireland never can become Protestant. Why should it not become so as much as England or any other country? Is Ireland, my Lords, alone incapable of appreciating the religious liberty of the Reformation; or, shall it be said that she alone is unworthy of its enjoyment? I think the contrary to be the fact; and I never will consent to this or to any other measure, the effect of which shall be to perpetuate upon my countrymen the yoke of papal authority. As an argument in favour of this Bill, I have heard it more than once stated, that its effect upon the Roman Catholic clergy would be to render them gentlemanlike. As I have seen it in print, and heard it even uttered in this House, I presume it is considered one of importance; but, I must say, that so extraordinary an argument for enlarging and enriching an ecclesiastical establishment, I never could have imagined. It is anything but complimentary to the Irish priests; but it is for those who use it—I do not—to justify the imputation they have cast upon that body, that they are not gentlemanlike. But how a larger amount of pocket money, and better bedroom accommodation will tend to remedy the evil, I own I cannot see. Education, no doubt, may exercise a beneficial influence upon a man's feelings and manners; but the system of education, the teachers, the discipline, the books of instruction at Maynooth College, are to remain unchanged. Professors who now get 120l. per year—a larger sum by 20l. than is given at Trinity College, to the Professor of the Irish language—are bound by the discipline of the Church of Rome, to a state of celibacy; what, then, is the object of giving them larger apartments and higher salaries? I apprehend that neither they nor their disciples—whose pocket money and bedroom accommodation are likewise the care of the Government—will be rendered one degree more gentlemanlike than they are at present. A Protestant curate who may be a married man, with a family to support, with no larger income than 75l. a year, is not one whit the less a gentleman because his pay is so small, and his enjoyment of even common necessaries of life so limited. I believe you will find in such a man's establishment, none of that filth, disorder, and discomfort which are so feelingly attributed in Maynooth College to want of funds. Extreme frugality will no doubt pervade it; but its whole economy will give token of the well-regulated mind and habits of the owner. I think, therefore, that it cannot be reasonably attributed to the mere want of money, but to the want of some stringent reforms in the College itself, that Maynooth exhibits the disgraceful picture that has been drawn of it. There are different ways of acquiring gentlemanlike habits; the study of Lord Chesterfield's Letters may make a man outwardly and artificially a gentleman; a liberal education, and intercourse with good society, will produce corresponding habits; but, I maintain that in none do the feelings and manners of a gentleman so much predominate as in those who have received a Christian education. Such dispositions are not to be purchased with money; and in ecclesiastics, more particularly, they should rest upon the sole foundation of Christianity. A few words, my Lords, before I sit down, as to the policy of the Bill. This measure is proposed as one likely to cement the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The object is so far unexceptionable; but do you see any reasonable ground for expecting that such will be the effect of it? For the desire so generally expressed of a cordial union with my countrymen, I am grateful; but, my Lords, the effect of this measure will be the very opposite of that which you look for. If you would conquer the good will and gratitude of the Irish people towards this country by means of charitable endowments, which must necessarily be provided for, in greatest proportion from English pockets, it must be made apparent that the national feeling of the English people, as well as a majority in Parliament, assents to it; otherwise the act loses its greatest value and efficacy. Now, what is the case in this instance? The nation—Protestant England and Scotland—are almost as one man declared against this measure; press it forward in defiance of their feelings, and you but exasperate them, without obtaining the object of conciliating Ireland. I would put it to your Lordships, whether a more unpropitious moment could be chosen for this so called "measure of peace to Ireland" than the present, when feelings exist on both sides of the Channel so little likely to do justice to the motives with which, I would fain believe, that the measure is brought forward. Far too strong has been the language of reprobation and abhorrence of Romish doctrines expressed even within the walls of Parliament by the friends as well as the opponents of the Bill, torender your support of it, my Lords, either consistent or respectable. Nothing could at present redeem it in the eyes of the Irish Roman Catholics from the imputation of being a graceless and weak concession wrung by the force of circumstances from a reluctant Parliament. What prospect, under such circumstances, can it hold forth of social harmony? Notwithstanding the petitions which crowd the Table of the House against this Bill, some have ventured to doubt whether they afford a correct index of the public mind. I admit, my Lords, that some, but, comparatively few, are directed against endowments of every kind: except, therefore, so far as their language is directed against this grant in particular, they cannot be of any weight in the consideration of this measure; but I believe it will hardly be contended by a majority of your Lordships, even of those most friendly to the Bill, that public opinion has not been strongly pronounced against it. If the people of England be in error, let time be given to their natural good sense to come round—the reasons in favour of this measure are before them—it has had the advocacy of the most learned and able advocates on both sides of the House; the arguments, therefore, such as they are, in favour of the Bill, have gone before the public with peculiar advantage. If, therefore, the measure be really a sound one, the reasons in favour of it will not fail to have their due weight with the English mind; but the present excitement must be allowed first to subside, and time be given to weigh and to compare all that has been said or may be pleaded for or against it. England must feel that she is not overruled or coerced in her conscientious convictions, otherwise you will find that the feeling of conciliation will be even more necessary in England than you imagine it to be in Ireland. Let this question be adjourned for another year, or reserved for a new Parliament; in the mean time, a fuller consideration may be given to it in all its bearings than it appears as yet to have received at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Let other measures of a substantial value to the country, such as those recommended by the Land Commission, be brought forward. Let the attention of Parliament be directed to the improvement of the laws for the relief of the sick and of the destitute; and should this Maynooth endowment Bill be afterwards deemed a sound one, and for the advantage of Ireland, it will go over thither ten times more effectual for the purposes of conciliation, as it will carry with it the concurrence and good will of the English people. I beg, my Lords, in conclusion, to move that the Bill be committed this day six months.

The Earl of Wicklow

could not allow this opportunity to pass without returning his best thanks to the Government for the wisdom with which they had planned the measure, and the courage with which they had carried it into execution, notwithstanding the strong expression of public opinion that had been made against it. But while he said this, he was bound also to state that, in his view, this was only a part and parcel of a measure. Indeed, he should be sorry that the measure had been brought forward at all, did he not look upon it as an index or an earnest of other measures. It was impossible to stop short with this, having once established the principle which was involved in this Bill; and having brought forward this and the other measures now before Parliament, it was quite impossible for the Government to avoid pursuing the course upon which they had entered. What remained to be done was plain, and was confined to one great measure—which the Government would have carried this Session, he was persuaded, had they introduced it, with no more opposition than the present Bill had been met with—a measure infinitely more important than this, and should, in his opinion, have preceded it—a measure for connecting the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland with the State by means of endowment. That was a measure not only necessary, but imperatively called for, and one that must be carried. The only questions now were merely as to time and mode; but these were, he admitted, questions of some importance. In his opinion Parliament should have seized the opportunity which the present Session afforded them for passing such a measure. The consequence of their not doing so would be that a no- Popery cry would be raised in the country against such a Bill, and the difficulties of carrying it would be increased. The numberless petitions which had been presented against the present Bill, both in that and the other House of Parliament, was a sufficient indication that any such measure as that he suggested would be made the occasion of renewed excitement in the country—an excitement which a timely introduction of the measure, he thought, might have prevented. As to the question of time, his opinion was, that the measure should be brought forward at once. Then as to the mode by which the object was to be effected. To his mind, two modes suggested themselves; in the first instance, the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy by means of a charge upon the Consolidated Fund; and the other, was the endowment of that clergy by money taken from the funds of the Established Church of Ireland. To both of those modes he was most decidedly opposed. To the first he objected on principle; and he believed the Parliament of England would never be brought to sanction it, nor did he believe the Roman Catholic clergy, would themselves be induced to accept it in that form—in fact, they had declared they would not, and he thought they were perfectly right in that determination; for, did they accept an endowment from such a source, they would lose the high position they now held. But, if he objected to this mode, his objections were stronger to a tenfold degree to the notion of again plundering the Protestant Church of Ireland for the purpose of endowing the Roman Catholic clergy of that country. In his mind the only just and fair mode of dealing with the question was to place the burden of this endowment as a rent-charge on the land of the country. That was the mode which, in his opinion, would be attended with the most complete success—a mode which, he was confident, would be approved of by the Parliament, while the landed gentry of Ireland would have no right to object to it. When he said a rent-charge, he meant that it should be imposed upon the same principle as that which was levied for the maintenance of the Protestant clergy, but not to the same amount; and for this reason, that the Roman Catholic clergy had not the same claims as the Protestant clergy—they were not married men, their expenses were less, and they ought not to receive so much, and he believed did not require so much. The amount which had been plundered from the Established Church of Ireland within the last ten or twelve years would be amply sufficient for the purpose. The first Act by which that Church had been plundered was the Tithe Adjustment Act, by which 190,000l. a year had been abstracted from the clergy, and placed in the pockets of the landlords. The next was the Church Temporalities Act, by which 60,000l. a year more had been taken from the Protestant Church, and put into the pockets of the Irish landed gentry. By these Bills, the income of the Church was reduced from 750,000l. to 550,000l.—that is, 25 per cent. was taken from the Church and given to the landlords. Putting these together, the two sums taken from the Established Church—the 190,000l. and the 60,000l. — they made up the sum of 250,000l., a sum more than specified for the endowment of the Catholic clergy of Ireland in the Bill proposed by Lord Francis Egerton, and which in 1825 passed the House of Commons, and did so without exciting any of the outcry and horror that was now raised and expressed against Popery. By Lord Francis Egerton's Bill the sum proposed was 234,000l. That was the sum then proposed to be taken, and put into the pockets of the Catholic clergy as an endowment. He now asked their Lordships if any one of them would consider it to be a dear purchase for the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, to be placed in the same position as to tithes that they were placed in twelve years ago? As a landed proprietor of Ireland, he said that he would be happy if the demand upon his land were increased for the attainment of such an object. This was a mode of attaining an object that it would be otherwise difficult to accomplish. It was one to which the people of England could have no objection; and was one, he was sure, that would give satisfaction to the Roman Catholic clergy. In that shape he was confident it would be most satisfactory to them. But whatever might be the mode that Her Majesty's Government might in their wisdom deem it advisable to adopt, still he could assure them, that if they meant to preserve the tranquillity of Ireland, they would carry some such measure; or if they would not disappoint the hopes of the Catholic people of Ireland, they would not permit this Parliament to pass away without the adoption of some such measure as he now suggested to them.

Earl Fitzwilliam

said, Her Majesty's Ministers ought to feel exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord for having pressed the subject upon them in the manner that he had done. The time was coming when they would feel that they had need of support on this question; for to introduce this subject to the notice of Parliament it was absolutely necessary that they should, after the first step which they had now taken. If they meant the step which they had taken to be an ultimate one, he had made a very wrong estimate of the abilities of those noble Lords. If they could see, as he thought they could, a long way before them, they must know perfectly well that the measure before the House must be succeeded by other measures, and, above all, by that suggested by the noble Lord. He quite agreed with the noble Earl that the proposal to pay the Roman Catholic clergy out of the Consolidated Fund was one to which it would be impossible to induce the people of England to agree. He believed also that the Roman Catholic clergy themselves would persist in refusing to accept such payment, and in his opinion they ought to do so. His idea upon that subject was very nearly, though not exactly, the same as that which the noble Earl had propounded; he agreed with him in what he had said as to the mode in which, during the last ten or twelve years, the United Parliament had dealt with the Church property of Ireland. There could he no doubt that the landlords of Ireland had had placed in their pockets a very large sum, in consequence of the arrangement made with respect to the tithe. But he was by no means sure that the clergy were the worse for that arrangement. Although the tithe had undoubtedly become lighter, strictly speaking, in point of amount, yet he was by no means sure that, because the clergy nominally received less, they received in reality a smaller or less useful income. ["Hear, hear."] He said, "less useful," because an income wrong from the very poor and humble persons from whom the tithe was derived, when levied in kind, was not an income which it was desirable that the clergy should receive in that form. That the Roman Catholic clergy must be endowed, and that they would be endowed at no very distant period, was his firm belief. On one point he differed from his noble Friend. He thought it most desirable that the ministers of the two sects should be placed on precisely the same footing; and, although he agreed with his noble Friend that it would not require so large a sum of money to pay the Roman Catholic ministers of Ireland as it did to pay the Protestant ministers, for reasons which must be obvious to every one who knew what was the relative position of the two priesthoods, yet his opinion was, that unless they placed them on an exactly similar footing, they would never get rid of that degraded feeling which the Roman Catholic priesthood, and even the Roman Catholic laity experienced when they saw the ministers of another sect placed on a different footing—he did not mean in point of amount, but when they saw them placed on a different foundation from the ministers of their own religion. Therefore, upon that point he did not agree with his noble Friend. He believed that it was necessary, in order to the contentment of the two sects, that their ministers should be paid from the same fund, and precisely in the same manner. He knew undoubtedly that if they applied the present tithe to the payment both of the Protestants and the Roman Catholic ministers, it would not be sufficient for the purpose; and that it would be necessary either to add to the amount which was now applicable the 25 per cent, which had been deducted from the value of the tithe, or to impose upon the land of Ireland a land tax, in order to make up the deficiency which would be found to exist if they endeavoured to pay the ministers of both sects out of the funds which were now applicable only to one of them. He had thought it desirable, as this question had been mooted, thus to state the opinion which he entertained in reference to it, reserving any remarks which he might have to make on the Maynooth Bill until a future occasion.

After a few words from Lord Campbell,

The Earl of Clancarty

said, he did not intend to press his Amendment.

Lord Wharnciffe

was understood to say, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had stated this measure to be in itself of vital importance, and that the Government were anxious to do what they could to produce a better state of feeling amongst the Roman Catholics of Ireland than at present existed. At the same, the measure was no earnest that the Govern- ment had any intention like that which the noble Lord had attributed to them. With respect to himself, he must say that he had undoubtedly on former occasions expressed it to be his opinion that the Catholic priesthood should be endowed. He and this noble Friend near him did, when they were in the House of Commons, vote for that question when proposed by Lord F. Egerton. But he would fairly state that, until he could see that the people of England would be favourable to such a measure, he did not think it would be prudent in any Government to propose it. He did look forward with hope to a time when a change would take place; but there were now so many difficulties in the way, that he did not know how any one could conceive that the Government had any intention of proposing such a measure. It would be for the Government to watch the feeling of the country on the subject; and in the meantime they proposed this measure as one which was important in itself, and as an earnest to the people of Ireland that it was their wish to do all that lay in their power to conciliate them.

The Marquess of Breadalbane

said, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord, he hoped that the speech of the noble Earl would have the effect it ought to have. He believed the people of England had not been gulled by this measure. They looked at it not as an isolated measure, but as a getting in of the small end of the wedge, on which the large one would surely follow. They believed that the State endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland would soon follow; and therefore they looked at the question as one connected with the fundamental principles of the country, the safeguards of the liberty of the country, as established at the Revolution, and which until now it had never been attempted to invade.

On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: House in Committee accordingly. Bill reported without Amendment.

House adjourned.