§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYBefore the House decides upon putting the Bill into Committee, I beg to submit for the consideration of your Lordships, what appears to me to be a very sufficient reason for your not proceeding further with it. It is, I believe, an understood rule, that the result of any discussion upon the second reading of a Bill decides the question as to the adoption or rejection of the principle of the measure, and upon that question, after full debate, issue was joined upon the second reading of the Bill before the House. Now, my Lords, by the paper I hold in my hand, which is the record of the proceedings of the House giving the division list upon the occasion, I find it recorded that there was a majority of five in favour of the Bill; but the same record also shows, that the majority of the Peers present by whom the principle and provisions of the Bill had been discussed, who had fulfilled the duty of deliberating in this House upon the matters upon which they were to give advice to the Crown, decided by a majority of seventy-one to sixty-five, that the Bill should be rejected. These numbers, however, do not represent the total of those who were present at the debate, and who paired off either for or 125 against the measure before the House divided; I was, myself, one of ninety-four Peers who so left the House, before the debate had ended. So that the majority of six, that was first recorded against the Bill, in fact represented the decision of a House numbering 230 Peers present. How was this decision annulled, and a majority of six against the Bill changed into a majority of five in its favour? Why, by the proxies of those who did not attend, and who very probably knew nothing about the measure, in favour of winch their votes are recorded. The number of proxies were thirty-six for, twenty-five against the Bill; so that, in fact, the decision of 230 Peers present and deliberating was overborne and reversed by the vote that was called for of sixty-one absent non-deliberating Peers, probably unacquainted with the subject-matter of the debate. My Lords, such an anomaly can never have been contemplated in the exercise of the privilege of voting by proxy, and calls for consideration and correction in the Standing Orders of the House; but its bearing upon the question of the committal of the Bill must, I think, in reason and consistency be conclusive against your proceeding further with it. The preamble of the Bill, as of every Act of Parliament, winds up by the recital of these words, "be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled." Now, my Lords, these words would set forth what is plainly contrary to the fact. It cannot, with truth, be said of this Bill, that its enactment would be by and with the advice and consent of the Lords in Parliament assembled, as their decision was directly the reverse. To be consistent, you must say of this Bill, if it should become law, that it was enacted, contrary to the advice and consent of the assembled Peers, and without their authority, which, of course, you could not do, while the House of Lords is an essential part of the Legislature. Let it not be supposed, my Lords, that I undervalue the privilege of vote by proxy; I consider it a most valuable privilege and calculated to be of great public advantage if rightly used. What I deprecate is its abuse. As a general rule, I hold it to be the duty of a Peer to attend in his place in Parliament to advise upon the measures that may be submitted to the House; but there are occasions when, business or sick- 126 ness may prevent attendance, and some of the sagest and most venerated Members of the House are often compelled, by physical infirmity, to absent themselves. It is, I conceive, important to the conservative character of this House, that where the assembled Peers have adopted any measure of very questionable principle, the absent Peers should be enabled to record their opinions for or against the measure, so that if considered by the majority to be objectionable it may be rejected; and if adopted, it may have the general consent of the Peers absent or present; but it is quite a different thing where the assembled Peers have rejected the principle of a Bill, for absent Peers by their proxies to tender advice for its adoption; where such is the case, the usefulness of your Lordships' deliberations is at an end, and the Crown is deprived of the benefit of the advice and consent of this branch of the Legislature which is supposed to be tendered by those only who are in Parliament assembled. The Bill before the House, which has received a second reading, contrary to the advice and consent of the assembled Lords, involves principles most detrimental to the future good government of Ireland, and as a measure distinctly abolishing, without any compensation, an important branch of the property of the Established Church. I apprehend that the Crown cannot consent thereto consistently with the obligations solemnly accepted at the coronation. Surely, the House should pause before it sends forward such a Bill, and not allow Her Majesty to be advised to assent to it by absent Peers, who are probably ignorant of its provisions and contrary to the advice of that large assembly, whose deliberative voice was given against it. Had those who voted by proxy been in their places, I have no doubt they would have increased, instead of reversing the majority against the Bill; for, though they would have heard the arguments, such as they were, that the noble President of the Council urged in favour of the Bill, they would also have heard the unanswered and unanswerable speech of the noble Earl, by whom it was opposed (the Earl of Derby). Far be it from me to speak disparagingly of the abilities of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in recommending the measures of Government to the House. The noble Earl's addresses to the House are generally characterized by great ability and listened to with pleasure; but I never 127 heard him so weak and so painfully at a loss for argument, with which to carry out the duty that devolved upon him of recommending this Bill to the House. What he said, he appeared to address to those behind, who were in the same boat with himself, or to the bar of the House, where, of course, there was no one to hear him; but he rarely addressed this side of the House, and never once looked towards the Lord Chancellor, the keeper of the Queen's conscience. How different was the speech of the noble Earl on this side; how freely his address was directed to the whole assembly of the House; every argument he used, every sentiment he expressed, every word he uttered, appeared to find an echo with every one that heard him; and, I am sure, had the Peers, whose proxies were called for on the division, been present, many, if not all of them, would have joined with the majority of the House in repudiating the measure. I will not detain your Lordships further, by going into the merits of the Bill, but viewing as I do the statement in the preamble as not borne out by the facts of the case, I think right to move, that the Committee on the Bill be deferred to this day six months.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months."
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, there is no person who feels more strongly than I do the demerits of this Bill, or who more objects to the principle, or rather to the want of principle, by which it is characterized; but I think my noble Friend on consideration will see that the present state of the House would render his Motion, to say the least, injudicious. I must also confess that I cannot altogether coincide in the arguments which have been used by my noble Friend, because they would go to say either that the system of voting by proxy should be abandoned, or—what my noble Friend seemed rather to point at—that proxies might be given on one side but not on the other. Had that been so, we should the other night have had a most satisfactory majority, and might have had no scruples of conscience at availing ourselves of that addition. However, we have the comfort of knowing—what to me is very satisfactory—that of the Peers present and who heard the debate there was a majority against the Bill. At the same time, I cannot flatter myself that listening to the arguments would have had any influence upon the minds of those who voted by proxy in its favour. That is 128 a general principle; and, while my noble Friend has been speaking, I have been confirmed in my fears that such would not have been the case by looking over the list of Peers whose proxies were given. Looking through them generally, a set of Peers less likely to be convinced by argument I never saw. To speak seriously on this matter, however, I cannot help feeling that the difficulty of enforcing the existing law would be materially increased by the fact of a Bill for its repeal having received the sanction, not only of the other House of Parliament, but also of a small majority of this House; and, so far as I am myself concerned, although I continue to regard it as dangerous both in precedent and principle, it is not my wish to take any part in opposing the further progress of this Bill. I adhere to all the objections which I expressed the other evening, and I cannot help pressing on the reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government the very dangerous precedent which is involved in this Bill. For what does it do? By this Bill a tax on the one hand and a right to receipt on the other, which have subsisted for 200 years, and which were confirmed by a Parliamentary sanction only three years ago, are to be abolished, simply for the reason that the parties upon whom three years ago Parliament imposed the duty of collecting the tax tell the Government to its face that they intend to violate the law. I cannot conceive any proceeding on the part of the Government more dangerous to all rights of property, more calculated to shake all confidence in Parliamentary titles, or more likely to remove the idea that Parliament will adhere to what it has done and sanctioned. For some time past there have been many and anxious discussions upon the grant to Maynooth; and upon what ground has that been mainly defended? That, whatever may be the merits of the case, there is an implied contract on the part of Parliament; that there has been a Parliamentary grant which ought not lightly to be tampered with. That grant goes back for a period of only twelve years since it was placed on the Consolidated Fund, for only fifty years from the time when it was first made; and I should like to know how it is to be supported in the face of this Bill which abolishes ministers' money, although it has endured for 200 years. In this case, too, you propose not only to do away with taxation, but also to exempt all persons from the payment of arrears due within the last 129 three years. I know that the Members of the Government will here meet me with the argument of expediency. They will say that these arrears form but a trifling sum, for the collection of which it is not worth while to keep up all the excitement and irritation, and to expose the Government to all the difficulties which now exist. I admit that. But see what you do. You say not only that in consequence of some persons having expressed their intention to violate the law they shall be freed from their obligations, but that persons who have violated the law shall have the benefit of their past violation, while those who have obeyed the law shall be placed in a worse position than those who have disobeyed it. Considering all these circumstances, I will ask Her Majesty's Government on which side the principle of expediency lies? I feel all the objections to this measure which I endeavoured to state—unsuccessfully I admit—the other evening. I think that the grievance of the tax has been altogether done away with by the Act of 1854, move especially by the provisions in that Act which enable the owners of property to redeem this tax at not more than fourteen years' purchase. I must say that I deeply lament, not so much from pecuniary considerations as upon the ground of principle, the course which Her Majesty's Government have—I believe reluctantly and unwillingly, and in the teeth of their former declarations with regard to this tax—pursued. At the same time, I admit that they have carried the second reading of this Bill. If they think fit to persevere with it, as I suppose they will, upon them must rest the responsibility. Liberavi animam meam. The division the other evening will serve as a solemn protest, on the ground of principle, of the majority of those present, and of a considerable minority of the Peers of England.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Earl, he would withdraw his Motion against the Committee; but if the Government persisted with the Bill, he should, on the Motion for the third reading, move that it be deferred until that day six months.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has dealt so satisfactorily with the arguments of the noble Earl who first addressed your Lordships on this Bill that I shall not add a word in reference to the points on which he touched. Neither am I going to make 130 another speech on the principle of the Bill; but I must say that the course which the noble Earl opposite proposes to take in reference to this Bill is both judicious and consistent. It is judicious, because, as he very justly pointed out, the difficulties which stand in the way of the enforcement of the law would be very greatly increased by the majority which sanctioned the second reading of the Bill the other evening; and it is quite consistent that the noble Earl should still retain all his objections to the Bill, although he does not intend to offer any opposition to its further progress. With regard to the analogy which the noble Earl drew between the abolition of ministers' money and the withdrawal of the Maynooth grant I draw a great distinction between the two cases, for in this case we have provided for the maintenance of the ministers who have hitherto been in receipt of this fund—[Lord REDESDALE: Yes, out of their own pockets.]—whereas the disendowment of Maynooth would leave the professors without their salaries. The principle on which we have acted, and which I believe to be a sound principle, is that it will be greatly to the interests of the Church in Ireland to give up, for the sake of peace and goodwill, a small portion of its revenues, which we see now can readily be made up by a little economy. We thought it would be for the interest of the Church in Ireland to remove the only open sore which is now left; and it is upon this principle, and this principle alone, that I have ventured to advocate this Bill.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that after the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in this House in reference to this part of the subject, he should only bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice pro formâ but he wished, in justice to the petitioners, to point out how the position in which they were now placed differed from that in which they were placed when their petition was drawn up. When this Bill was before the late House of Commons at the commencement of the present year, the Commissioners saw in The Times newspaper that the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) had made a statement in that House, in regard to their revenues and the surplus then in their hands, which they conceived to be totally at variance with the truth. They imme- 131 diately waited on the Lord Lieutenant, with the Archbishop of Dublin at their head, and laid before him a true and exact statement of their revenue, showing that that which had been put down by the Irish Secretary as revenue was not revenue at all. To their astonishment, however, the statement was repeated by the same right hon. Gentleman in the present Parliament, and with an additional exaggeration. Their only resource, then, was to apply to their Lordships to be allowed to contradict this incorrect statement and to lay before them the true state of the case. No doubt the large majority by which this Bill had been affirmed in the other House had been greatly influenced by these very false statements; and he himself, opposed as he was to the principle of the Bill, if it could have been made clear that the Commissioners had such a surplus in their hands would not have voted against the Bill. But Her Majesty's Ministers in this House had taken a very different course, for they had acknowledged fairly and openly that there was no surplus. The Church Temporalties Act had always been considered in Ireland as a final settlement of the affairs of the Irish Church. It was well known that the funds applicable to the various purposes pointed out in that Act were not at that time in the hands of the Commissioners; it was a work of time to realize them:—and, now that the Commissioners were just placed in a position to carry out the intentions of the Church Temporalities Act, Parliament stepped in, snatched these funds out of their hands, and determined to apply them for the benefit of a certain number of the £10 householders in a few of the towns in Ireland. So that the great settlement of the Irish Church question was about to be upset for the clamour of a few £10 householders in Cork and other towns—for he believed that if the £10 householders of Dublin were canvassed upon the question, they would be found to be generally in favour of the continuance of the charge. This measure also, it should be remembered, did not originate with the Government, although Ministers had since adopted it. Looking at all these circumstances, and at the quarter from which the Bill proceeded, he was very much surprized that the Government had taken charge of it. Equally surprized was he at the manner in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had abandoned his opposition to the Bill. The Archbishop of Dublin—generally a supporter 132 of the Government—was strenuously opposed to the Bill. His Grace expressed it as his opinion that the Bill would commit a cruel injustice by robbing the Church for the benefit of a few householders, and he trusted that at any rate the House of Lords would not refuse the Commissioners a hearing or insist upon legislating in the dark. These were the views of the Archbishop of Dublin, and he had felt it to be his duty to lay them before their Lordships. This was simply a landlord's question; for the owners of property, and not the occupiers of houses would be benefited by the Bill, and if the Government chose to apply to this tax the principle of the vestry cess, and gave the Lord Lieutenant power to collect the money, they would overcome all the difficulties that at present existed to the collection of the tax. He would now move pro formâ, That the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland be heard by counsel against the said Bill upon their Petition (presented to the House on Monday last).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, though the Government might feel safe as to the further progress of this Bill, he was not satisfied with mere success, but wished to see it admitted that there was nothing unjust in the principle of the measure. In the discussion the other night, the question raised by almost every noble Lord who spoke, with the exception of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) was, whether there was or was not a surplus in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and it was said that a discrepancy on this point existed between the statements of the Government in that and the other House of Parliament. Now, if their Lordships looked at the statutory interpretation of the word "surplus," he thought the difficulty which had been raised on this point would be greatly removed. By the 77th clause of the Church Temporalities Act, the surplus was declared to be that which remained after certain purposes and liabilities laid down in the Act had been provided for. The clause stated that "when and as soon as in any one year the Commissioners shall have any surplus after due provision has been made for the several purposes hereinbefore mentioned," &c. The argument the other evening was, that the augmentation of small livings was one of the purposes for which provision was to be made by the Commissioners, and it was said this Bill would interfere with that duty. But the 133 augmentation of small livings was not mentioned in the Act till the 93rd clause, and therefore was not one of the things that came under the meaning of the phrase "hereinbefore mentioned" in the 77th clause. It could not be doubted, that if the towns affected by this tax were polled, the result would be a complete condemnation of the impost. It had been objected that no substitute was provided; but it should be remembered, that the only substitute proposed for vestry cess when it was abolished, was a tax upon the incomes of the clergy. The course adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was to meet at a certain period, when, after estimating the probable amount of the income for the ensuing year, and the amount of their fixed charges, they struck a balance which was to be appropriated to the repair of churches and other purposes. The only effect of this, if passed, would be to place £12,000 a year upon the fixed charges, and leave the Commissioners £12,000 less to dispose of in other ways. The tax was one which was felt to be oppressive by the Catholics of Ireland, and it was in the real interest of the Protestant Church that the Government had proposed its abolition.
THE BISHOP OF KILMOREsaid, that an attempt had been made to justify the abolition of ministers' money by what had been done in the case of vestry cess. But the two cases were widely different. But when the Church Temporalities Act abolished vestry cess, it only deprived the Church of the right of taxation, the exercise of which was optional, and did not take away any actual property: the vestry cess could have been practically abolished without any Act of Parliament, had the vestries refused to make any assessment. But by this Bill the Irish Church was deprived of actual property, for ministers' money was property conferred on the Church by Act of Parliament, and sanctioned by an existence of nearly two centuries. At the same time he approved of the intention of the noble Earl opposite to abandon any further opposition to this measure; and he must say that, from the friendly expressions towards that Church which had fallen from various Members of that House during the debate, and particularly from the Government, he hoped that the case of that institution would, on another occasion, receive favourable attention and consideration, and that any attempts which its friends might make to develop its resources would be met in no 134 adverse spirit. It would, indeed, be necessary that something should be done to increase its revenues if this Bill were passed; for, after it became law, while the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was £99,000, the expenditure would be £97,000, leaving only £2,000 applicable to the augmentation of small livings, of which there were 302 under £100 a year, and for the building fund. He believed that the income of the Church might be increased by a more economical management of the parochial church funds amongst the parishioners; but only a very small increase of revenue could be expected from this source. Much more might be anticipated from giving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the power which they did not now possess, of dealing with the property vested in them in the most advantageous manner, and of raising the fines payable on renewals in the same way which a Bishop, or other private person, might do. He certainly did hope that, if after the passing of this Act, any proposition was made for enabling the Commissioners so to manage the property of the Church, as to derive from it a greater revenue than at present, it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdenied that there was any analogy between ministers' money and vestry cess. There was no force in the argument which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had derived for the language of the 77th section of the Church Temporalities Act, and from the fact that the augmentation of small livings was not mentioned till the 93rd section of the same Act; for by an Act passed in the reign of Her present Majesty the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland were expressly directed to apply these funds to this purpose. While fully coinciding in the course pursued by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in not further opposing this measure, he must warn the House that it sprung from a settled desire on the part of the Roman Catholics in Ireland to agitate against the very existence of the Established Church, and not to rest satisfied with anything short of its abolition, nor, he feared, would the present Bill in anywise induce them to give up that determination. It was folly to talk of this Bill as a message of peace—as a measure for securing tranquillity—as a means of putting a stop to agitation, and of securing the undisturbed existence 135 of the Protestant Church. The Act of 1833 was based on broad, intelligible, and true principles; it took nothing from the Church. But this measure rested on no principle, for it was a simple transference of the property of the Church to the householders of certain towns, and those not the largest in Ireland. It was perfectly ridiculous to yield to so small an agitation as that which had been got up against ministers' money, and he could only take this Bill as an evidence of want of determination on the part of Ministers to make that stand which must be made somewhere if the existence of the Irish Church was to be upheld against the agitation which the Catholics were carrying on, and would continue to carry on, against it. He still felt the same objections to the measure that he had expressed on the second reading; but as the Government had carried the second reading, he would leave to the majority the responsibility of passing the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he believed that so long as there was a Protestant Institution in Ireland the Roman Catholic clergy would never let the Protestant religion exist in quiet. Let not the Government "lay the flattering unction to their souls" that this concession would give religious peace in Ireland. He did not think that the Roman Catholic laity had those feelings of hostility towards the Protestant Church. If they were let alone this kind of religious dissension would not continue. The Roman Catholic clergy would talk against the Church as long as they were permitted, and until they were able to strike it effectually, which they would not fail to do.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he could not agree in the principle of withdrawing any further opposition to this measure. He thought it was a bad measure, and that it ought to be opposed to the last. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary way of displaying a friendly feeling towards the Church to take away one of its supports in Ireland. It was admitted on all hands that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had not sufficient funds to supply the deficiency that would be occasioned by the abolition of ministers' money. He thought of all dangerous precedents ever established this was one. He thought that this was the most glaring of all acts of injustice. Of all the outrageous acts of spoliation committed against the Established Church in his opinion this was the 136 most flagrant. He regretted exceedingly that the noble Earl with whom it was his pride generally to act had withdrawn all further opposition to the measure. He confessed he was at a loss to understand the reason why he had adopted that course. He viewed this Bill as the first step in the downward movement, which would be followed by the most disastrous consequences to the Established Church in Ireland. The Government were establishing a precedent which he thought was fraught with mischief and glaring injustice.
§ On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had placed an Amendment before Her Majesty's Ministers. He was not disposed to detain their Lordships by urging arguments in support of it. He would leave it in the hands of the Government to do what they liked with it.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Bill did not deal with the re-organization of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and, therefore, he did not think that that was a proper time to discuss the Amendment of the noble Earl. The Government would, however, be willing to take the Amendments generally into consideration, with a view of shaping some measure to effect the object they had in view.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought, under those circumstances, it would be much better to postpone the further progress of the measure until the Amendments were considered.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was of opinion that no advantage could result from the postponement of the Bill. The Government were prepared to give due consideration to the Amendments which had been suggested, and he felt assured that in adopting that course they would have the full co-operation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves.
THE BISHOP OF KILMOREsaid, that he should be sorry that the passing of the Bill should lead to an agitation upon the clergy of the Established Church against the Maynooth grant, by way of reprisal for the abolition of ministers' money. The adoption of such a course would, in his opinion, be unworthy of their sacred calling.
§ Original Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.
§ House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.