The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-10 00:00:00

MINISTERS MONEY IN IRELAND.

Mr. FAGAN moved that the house resolve itself
into a committee to take into consideration the law re-
lating to the rate 'or tax called. " Ministers' Money" in
Ireland, with the view to repeal the same • and further,
to provide a substitute therefor out of the revenues Of
the' Ecclesiastical Commissioners as a provision for the
Protestant ministers in certaint corporate towns in Ire-
land, in lien of the annual sums now received by them
ender and by virtue of the Act 17 and 18 Charles 11.
c:7. The hon. gentleman stated that this was the sixth
time since he had been in Parliament that he had tried
'to induce the house to repeal this unjust tax.
Mr. HI7ME seconded the motion, believing that the
continuance of this' tax was just as much a source of re-
ligious discord in Ireland as church rates were in Eng-
land. _ _

Sir J. YOUNG moved as 'an amendment, that the
acts relating to ministers' money in Ireland, and the
Church Temporalities Act (Ireland), be now read.
Should the house agree to this amendment, he should
move that the house do go into committee for the pur-
pose of obtaining leave to bring in a bill on the subject.
'The'effect of the bill would practically abolish the tax by
'providing a substitute for it. The bill would exempt
' houses under 101. from payment of the tax, as well as
'all houses' to be built in future, and the difference which
. would thhs be'created would be made up partly by the
consolidated fund and partly by the funds of the Eccle-
aia.stical Commissioners. With regard to the proposition
'he had made, he had consulted persons well known in
Cork, Limerick, and Dublin, and whose names, if he
were permitted to mention them, would command re-
spect ; and they stated tnat this proposition would meet
the requirements of those towns. The clergy would be
withdrawn altogether from the collection of the tax,
which would be paid to the commissioners. He put this
plan forward as a Compromise, knowing that it was
liable to the objections that might be made to it, but he
believed if it were accepted it would go far to remove
the evils which'arose out of the present system.
Mr. HA.DFIEL 1) sai 1 he could feel for the pain the
right hon. gentleman must have felt in proposing a com-
premise for such a paltry sum. Only one-sixth of the
people of Ireland belonged to the Established Church,
which had a revenue of 600,0001. a year, and yet she
could not afford to give up 15,0001. a year, not of pro
perty, but a tax, and which was levied principally on
the Catholics. He hoped the house would be content
with no compromise, but that this tax would be abo-
lished, and then there would be a fair hearing for Pro-
testantism in Ireland.
Mr. MAGUIRE said he would endeavour to. show
why those who were anxious for the peace of Ireland,
and who. advocated civil and religious liberty, shoull
respectfully decline" "the proposition of the right hon.
gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. The last peti-
tion 'from Cork against the measure was signed by at
least 12,000 to 15,000 persons ; and indeed there was
no Protestant layman in that city who was not
anxious to have the question set at rest for ever.
(Hear, hear.) Last year the Lord Advocate, in
introducing a bill respecting what was called the an-
nuity tax, stated that his measure substantially em-
bodied the recommendations of the committee which had
sat on the subject. Now, why did not the Government j
carry out the suggestions of the committee on ministers'
money I (Hear, hear.) But they did the very opposite
of that. 'They came down to the house, and askedthe
'lrish' members to accept a paltry compromise, which
Was 'at once unworthy of those who proposed it, and
which would be degrading to those who should accept it.
(Cheers.) The measure had been represented as a boon;
and the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Fagan) had been
so far deceived by the unscrupulous assertions which
had been made about it last year, that he wrote a letter
to a newspaper stating that it would take off 9,0001.,
leaving only 6,0001. or 7,0001. to be collected. The
right hon. baronet had stated that there were 80,000
persons in the city of Cork alone whom it would excuse
from payment. But what was the fact ? From a re-
turn, prepared by the clerk of the Cork Union, it ap-
peared that in that union there were no fewer than 5,113
houses rated to the poor-law at 11. a-year. Did any
clergyman at the present time ever think of collecting
ministers' money from the occupiers of these miserable
tenements ? Certainly not. Such persons were already
excused by their poverty and the generosity of the Pro-
testant clergy, or their unwillingness to cause such scan-
dal as the attempt would give rise to. (Hear, hear.)
The same thing applied to all that held houses rated at
sums below 51., of which there were no fewer than 7,877,
while the number of houses rated at 81. was only 298.
(Hear, hear.) The total amount of the valuation of
Dublin was 622,0001., while the total valuation of the
houses rated at 81. and' up to 101. was 50,0001., that was
'to, say, one-eleventh instead of three-sevenths. The
total valuation of Cork was 120,0001., and that of the
houses rated at 81. and up to 101. 22,8681., or one-fifth.
There would not, in fact, be 1,000 houses exempted in
Cork by the bill. (Hear, hear.) But this was not all.
The measure (supposing it to be the same as last year)
actually provided that the corporations of Ireland which
had so strenuously protested against ministers' money
should be the imposers, the collectors, and the distrain-
ers of the tax. Was that fair? (Hear, hear.) The
right hen. baronet talked about the principle of not
meddling with church property even for the purposes
of the church ; but by the Bth section the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners were to pay the incumbents 80
-per cent., and if the funds to be raised under the bill
should not be sufficient, then they were to make up the
defiCiency out of the moneys that were in their hands.
Where, then, was the right hon. gentleman's prin-
ciple ? Why, having thus given it up, did he not go
further ? (Cheers.) The bill proposed to give the house-
owners a boon. It permitted them to compound for
the tax at the rate of sixteen two-third years ; whereas
everybody knew that seventeen two-third years' pur-
chase bad been considered a very high price for the lands
weich had-been sold in- the Encumbered Estates Court.
' Ile Veould•leave the hbuse to consider this very hand-r
some offer, especially when they remembered that every
successive Government hal promised redress of the'
grievance. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member then quoted
,•the•adrnissiorts of several Protestant clergyman against
the' justice and policy 'of the tax-- and observed that
one of these gentlemen, the Rev. Mr. Hoviell, had sub-
mitted a plan similar to that of the Government to Sir
W. Somerville when Chief Secietary, so that the mea-
sure of the -right- hon. 'gentleman opposite had not even
he merit of originality. Mr. Howell candidly admitted
'that Ills Objet' *as 'to coltect 'CAI tax 'disguised 'tinder
another form. (Hear, hear) But would any disguise'
redder the impost less odious to theßotiiiii Catholics
that paid it ? That the Roman Catholics did chiefly pay
it admitted of ready proof ; for in Cork the Protestant
population. was only 15,000, while the Roman Catholics
numbered 79,000. In Kinsale there were 1,070 Pro-
testants and 5,234 Roman Catholics. In Limerick there
were 4,500 Protestants and 50,000 Roman Catholics,
and in Waterford there were 4,253 Protestants and over
22,000 Ronae,n Catholics. There was no bigotry at all
on; the subject in Ireland, for all the respectable Protes-
tants wished to get rid of the system. He would ap-
peal to the right hon. gentleman himself, how he would
like to have' to pay for Ole support of Roman Catholi-
cism? WoUld it be consonant with his feelings of pride
to'Subinit to such a tax r The right hon. gentleman
would not submit to' it for a month. He would rouse
all England if such an attempt were made upon
hiM. (Hear, hear.) ,As .a question of charity, if they
excused men who were rated at 101., why should they
insist oa those who were rated at 11/. or 121. pay-
ing et el . There were neapy,,persons rated up to 201.
whe could ill bear the impost. As a matter of prin-
ciple, he would ask the house whether the tax was likely
to be less hurtful to the feelings of the men who was
rated at 121. than to those of persons rated at Si.?
(ILL sr, hear.) Having read the opinion of several mem-
ben of the. Government on this question, and cited nu- •
ele,ecaS instances where seizures had been made to re-
cover the tax, the hon. member concluded by conjuring
t2io e who had the interest of Ireland at heart to reject
the amendment as a mean alai contemptible compro-
mise. (Hear, hear.)
:`..lr. CROSSLEY observed that this tax of ministers'
mo ,ear must have one or two objects, either it was to
sec:lre a good living for the minister, or to promote the
cure of souls. If it was the former, he thought it was
, wrong, because those who were taxed did not require
services of the ministers. If, on the other hand, it was
to stove the souls of Christians, he did not think it was j
going the right way to obtain that object to take money
from a man against his will. The notorious Joseph
Ad y when he applied to parties, told them that if they
would send him a certain. sum of money he would tell
them something to their advantage, but here the mini- '
stern did not ask for the money, they demanded, they I
seized upon it, and then said, "if you will come and
listen to us you will hear something to your,advantage."
(A laugh.) Now that was not 'the way to, promote
Christianity, at all events it was not the way tke founder ,
pf, Christianity and. his disciples promoted it, and he

:: .

y..•,