The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-20 00:00:00

IRISH GRIEVANCES.

Lord CAMPBELL rose, pursuant to notice, to present a
petition of very great importance. It came from the inha-
bitants of the City of Cork, and eminated from a public meet-
ing held in that city, and signed by the mayor and aldermen,
and so many of the inhabitants that the petition had been
charged to him Si. for postage, but which, by the courtesy of
the Postmaster-General had been returned to him. The
petitioners stated that they approached the Honourable
House most respectfully, and that, ever loyal to the British
Crown and the public institution, evid mindful of the
pledge entered into by the Sovereign that the grievances
of the people should be redressed, they laid before
the House what they considered a very great evil
—namely, the compulsory payment of a tax called
" ministers' money." So little was known of the impost in
' England, that since he entered the House he had been asked
by a Noble Peer of great standing and intelligence, if the im-
port of ministers money meant the grant of Reaium Donum,
which was voted to the Dissenting clergy by the Parliament.
Now, the petit loners did not mean to interfere with the county of
the Crown, nor was it their wish that the grant should in any
way be intercepted or limited ; all they did was to lay a state-
ment before the
,House of the weighty grievances that affected
themselves personally. In the reign of Charles 11. an Act,
hich he should pronounce a very arbitrary one, passed, by
which the inhabitants of certain corpoi ate towns were subjected
to individual taxation for the maintenance of the pastors of the
Episcopal Protestant religion in Ireland.
. .

A NOBLE Loan—Yes, the tithe.
Lord CAMPBELL should state that it was an impost
quite different from tithes, and one paid to the clergy
of the minority, by the Catholics and Dissenters.
The late Secretary for Ireland, Sir Thomas Fremantle, had
:ikewise admitted in his place in the House of Commons,
that it was a very great grievance. Now, after
so universal a condemnation of this tax, the only
queseion for their Lordships to consider . would be, what
means they should adopt to remove it. He was rather
astonished that when the Noble Lord opposite introduced his
Act respecting Church Temporalities, that his tax was not
removed at that time, for though the pressure of it was lighter,
that very circumstance made it a greater grievance. While
the former amounted to about 60,0001. the latter did not
come to more than 13,0001. or 14,0001. a year, and for
that paltry sum it was too bad that all the
religious sects in Ireland should consider themselves aggrieved.
He did not wish to say anything invidious of the Church, but
he earnestly implored their Lordships to take measures for its
removal, that the odium of it might no longer attach to the
Church. He did trust, therefore, that their Lorships woula
look favourably on that petition. He did trust
that along with the measures of concession which
were contemplated. that the removal of this
would also be included, for, under the circumstances of
that country, it would have a most favourable tendency. He
would conclude by moving that the petition do lie on the table.
The Earl of ST. Ge:BMANS willingly admitted that he
had stated in the other House of Parltament that this impost
was a practical grievance, but he eid not admit that it was evil
in principle. He looked upon it a, simply a grievance of
practical nature, and not to be considered as an insult-
ing act towards her Majesty's Roman Catholic sub-
jects. The Noble Lord was correct in stating that
the impost was originated for the maintenance
of the Protestant clergy in certain towns of I eland, but the
Noble I ord ought also to have recollected that at that time
the Roman Catholics were by law incapable of holding any
real property, and therefore the tax fell exclusively on the
Protestants. It was only recently that Catholics were per-
mitted to hold property in towns, and they purchased those
properties subject to the payment of this tax. It
was a grievance of a much lighter character than
the tithes, inasmuch as it was levied on the
occupiers of those houses in those towns. The basis on which
it was levied had remained unchanged since the time of Charles
the Second. In Dublin it so happened, therefore, that houses
which in the reign of that monarch had been occupied by opu-
lent families, were now tenanted by the humblest families;
while the rates had remained, comparatively speaking,
the same. The same held good in other large towns;
in London, in Glasgow, and in Edinburgh, where
an impost of a similar character existed for the
maintenance of the Protestant clergy. He had more than
once directed his attention to the subject ; and he had been in ,
hopes of being enabled to submit some other provision in lieu
of it. Difficulties had, however, supervened, and he was not
at that moment in a condition to say whether her Majesty's
Government were engaged in the considerations of introducing
any alteration with respect to it. He was not rvt are that
he had anything further to say ; he admitted that it was a ,
grievance, but as he had before stoted it is as not a grievance
of a practical nature and not one founded on principle or in-
tended to insult the Roman Catholic subjects.
Lord CAMPBELL had heard with great satisfaction the
explanation given by the Noble Lord.
Lord STANLEY could answer the question why minister's
money had not been dealt with in the same mannes as the
vestry cess. The minister's money did not ap-
pear to him to partake in the slightest degree of
the nature of a persosal tax. It had been a tax
existing since the time of Charles 11., and was levied, not on
indiviouals, but upon houses, and was as much a tax on house
property as tythe was a tax on landed property in
the country. It stood precisely on the same footing.
It was in no way a capitation tax, but was
an ad valorem tax. All house property was purchased subject
to this tax, and to abolish it would only be to put so much into
the pockets of the house proprietors. The difference between
the vestry cess and the minister's money was this, that the latter
was a certain tax, and the former an uncertain one. He ad-
mitted that the prsent mode of levying the tax was a defective
one, but he did not see how it could be remedied.
Lord MONTEAGLE fully agreed with the Noble Lord
that minister money stood on the same footing as tithe. He
would venture to say, that of all classes of the Irish clergy,
those who bad the most onerons duties to discharge were time
least remunerated. He (the Noble Lord) was not then going
to deal with the question of the principle of the law of tithes.
All he should say was, that it gave rise to a most unhappy
struggle between the pastor and the farmer, as regarded agri-
cultural produce ; for certainly distraining the furniture an:
stock of the poor farmer, and seliing them off, by public
auction, was a most grievous proceeding,