The Press.
London, England, 1857-05-23 00:00:00

MIN ESTERS' MONEY.

"AND let me see the man who will dare to bring
forward any measure in Parliament for
" touching the property of the Church of Ire-
" land, without including in it that of which
" we are a part—the Church of England ?"
Such was the question asked, a few weeks
ago, on the hustings, at the last election for
the University of Dublin. The speaker was
neither Mr. NAPIER, nor Mr. G. A. HAMILTON,
nor Mr. WHITESIDE ; but the Government can-
didate, Mr. JAMES ANTHONY LAWSON, for whom
the Lord Chancellor of Ireland plumped, and
in whose support the Government strained its
influence to the utmost. The question put by
Mr. LAWSON has been answered by the Pre-
mier, who has " dared" to break in upon the
funds of " The United Church of Great Bri-
" tain and Ireland," and has pledged his Cabi-
net to the support of the spoliuting measure
introduced by Mr. FAGAN, the Member for
Cork. We shall show in a few words that a
more dangerous precedent could not be laid
down than that adopted by the present
Government.

" Ministers' Money" was established in Ire-
land in the reign of CHARLES THE SECOND. It
was originally and essentially a Protestant
fund, levied on Protestant property and in-
tended for Protestant purposes. In that re-
spect, its foundation differs from the ground
on which " Tithes" historically rest. Ireland
was, after the Protectorate, left to the govern-
ment of the illustrious ORMOND, one of the
greatest statesmen and noblest characters of
any age, and the declamation about " the dis-
" reputable reign of CHARLES THE SECOND" is
quite irrelevant. Ireland was in those days
fur more benignantly governed than in later
times, when the Whigs passed the " Penal
Laws."
The difference between " Church Cess" and
Ministers' Money" was plainly recognised in
the legislation of 1833, upon the Temporalities
of the Irish Church. Parliament then inter-
fered to introduce a new distribution of the
Church revenues, for the internal improvement
of the Establishment, but up to the present
moment the Legislature has never done a
single act of a confiscatory or " appropriating"
character as affecting the external character of
the Establishment. It is true that twenty-five
per cent.was taken off the nominal resources of
the clergy of the Establishment; hut, on the
other hand, its positive resources were perma-
nently strengthened, and the Church was more
closely identified than before with the real
property of the country. The wedge is now
sought to be inserted, and if Parliament
sanctions this revolutionary measure, it is
impassible to say where the application of
this confiscatory principle will be stopped.
" What's fact to-day becomes precedent to-
" morrow." If the Government can take
twelve thousand pounds per annum from the
Established Church, and make a present of it
to the Roman Catholics, there will be no safe-
guard left for the revenues of the Establish-
ment.

On this point we shall again quote from the
manly speech of the Government candidate at
Dublin University. Mr. LAwsos delivered a
most eloquent defence of the Protestant
Church, and avowed himself her zealous sup.
porter. Particularly referring t, the subject
of " Ministers' Money," he said :

Though I am told I come forward in all respects as the
supporter of Lori Palmerston, yet I have no hesitation in
telling you that I shall, to the utmost of my power, oppose
that measure which was recently pending before Parlia-
ment for taking away indirectly, by what would not be
attempted directly, a portion of the revenues of the
Church.

Here w•e have the candid opinion of one of the
most eminent supporters of the present
Government. But Mr. Lewsos did not appro.

elate the pliability of Lord Pei
readiness to veer about.

405

or his

What is especially serious in this most im-
portant matter is the fact that Parliament had
already legislated upon the question. Sir
JOHN YOUNG'S Act in 1854 made arrangements
by which peer persons would be practically
relieved from the tax, which was placed upon
substantial property. All 101. houses were
exempted from the tax, and it was hoped that
all pretexts would be taken away from the
grievance-mongers. But the hope was in vain.
" The sum is small, but the principle is
large," cries the Honourable Member for
Cork, and Sir GEORGE GREY says the same
thing
But that view can he retorted on its advo-
cates. With all possil.le respect we tell the
Conservatives in both Houses of the Legisla-
ture that the question of " Ministers' Money "
is one of the greatest importance. It is even
stronger than the question raised in 1834,
inasmuch as " Ministers Money" was estab-
lished originally, not in times prior to the
Reformation, but by a Protestant Legislature,
dealing in the first instance with Protestant
property. It seems to us absolutely impos-
sible that this measure can be passed into a
law, since, though " the sum is small," the
principle is of momentous importance.