The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-19 00:00:00

IRE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY

the noble earl has relied, there are not wanting plausible
arguments, of which, I must do the noble earl the justice
to sty he has made the most in support of a measure which
arises from temporary causes. I admit that the amount
in question at present is very inconsiderable. I admit
that in the localities where that tax is levied it has been
the cause of considerable irritation and diffienity. I ad-
mit also that if this bill do not pass, and the Act of 1854
were to be repealed, the clergy would experience great
difficulty in levying this tax. But I am not without hope
that I shall succeed in convincing your lordships that,
even upon the low ground of expediency upon which my
noble friend defends this bill there are arguments which
will afford a complete reply. But beyond that I shall
base my opposition upon higher grounds than that of ex-
pediency—l shall rely upon principle, to which this bill
is diametrically opposed. (Hear, bear.) If this bill can
be shown to be a violation of the most sacred rights of
property—of property not only enjoyed for a long suc-
cession of years, but the right to which has been con-
firmed within the last three years by additional legisla-
tion, then I think it will be unworthy of this house to
decide this matter upon such grounds as the noble earl
has suggested, and which, I may be permitted to say,
without disrespect to the noble earl, are unworthy of a
Government which undertakes the responsibility of con-
ducting the affairs of a great nation. My noble friend
bas told us truly that this ministers' money is a tax
which was imposed upon certain descriptions of property
as long ago as the reign of Charles 11. It wits imposed
upon certain towns in Ireland, and has continued from
that time to be levied upon certain houses in those towns.
It will, perhaps, be a proper moment for me to take an
opportunity of replying to the challenge of the noble earl
to draw the distinction, which he says must be drawn,
to warrant opposition, between ministers' money and
those charges which were dealt with by Earl Grey's Go-
vernment in 1832-3. I have the recollection of that
period clearly in my mind, for in the responsible situa-
tion which I filled in that Government the arrangement
of church affairs in Ireland cost me no little anxiety and
uneasiness. But I am happy to believe that those mea-
sures, stringent as they were, and opposed as they were
by the friends of the Established Church, ley the adver-
saries of the church, and also by some members of that
Cabinet in which I held a seat, are now acknowledged
to have rescued that church from a position of great'
danger. (Hear.) I will just venture to bring before
your lordships the circumstances in which the established
Church in Ireland found itself in 1832-3. At that time
there was a violent crusade against the existence of that
church, and in every possible way it wa assaulted by a
large and powerful political body, led and encouraged by'
the late Mr. O'Connell, That opposition was directed
against tithes, against vestry cess, against ministers'
money ; in short, against every form in which pecuniary
revision was made for the Protestant Church in Ireland.
It is unnecessary to remind your lordships of the very
painful circumstances in which the clergy of that coun-
try were then placed. It Is -sufficient to say that tithes
which were not then commuted had to be collected in
kind from the very lowest classes of the population ; for
in consequence of the extraordinary subdivision of land,
which prevail-d then to a greater extent than at present,
the clergy were obliged to collect their tithes directly
from the occupiers. Of course, that was a state of things
which gave great facilities for practical opposition, as
well as great ground for complaint as to the policy of the
existing sygtem. The result was that nine tenths of the
clergy in Ireland were absolutely deprived of their in-
comes, or, if not deprived of them, they experienced
the most violent opposition in collecting their
tithes, not only from their own parishioners, but
from large bodies of men who came from other dis-
tricts to aid those who refused to pay. The oppo-
sition which was then offered to the levy of
tithes was much more formidable than that which is now
offered to the collection of minister's money. According
to the principle of the noble earl, because it was ex-
tremely hazardous and expensive to collect the tithes, we
ought to have given way to those who resisted the ope-
ration of the law, to have abolished the tithes altogether,
and to have deprived the clergy of their revenues. The
opposition which the Government of that day had to en-
counter was a thousandfold greater than any little paltry
opposition which the Government of the present day
have to meet in maintaining the law and discharging
what I believe to be the duty of the Execu ive. But
what was the course which we pursued at that time? We
determined to give every support to the clergy. I do not
mean to say that I be police were employed in the collec-
tion of tithes, but both the police and the military were
actively, diligently, and constantly employed in protect-
ing the persons of those who, in the discharge of a law-
ful duty, exposed themselves to risk and danger. Nay,
further, when the tithes which were taken in kind were
seized and brought into the market no purchaser was
found who would venture to come forward and buy, in
consequence of the universal excitement and dissatisfac-
tion which prevailed. What was done? The Government
became purchasers of the tithes, and they supplied the
military with forage from this hay and corn so forced into
the market. They were purchasers whom no intimida-
tion could deter, and the consequence was that much
greater facilities were given for realising the tithes. But,
undoubtedly, this was a state of things which it would
have been unsafe, dangerous, and- impossible long to
continue. What, then, was the course which the Go-
vernment took ? They supported the claims of the
clergy, and refused to yi,l I to those who were depriving
them of the means of living. In 1832 they took
upon themselves the collection of the tithe upon a
memorial from the clergy that they were unable to
raise them. In that year a sum of 60,0001., and in
1833 a sum of 1,000,0001. were advanced to pay up the
claims of the clergy upon the tithes of those years, which
were collected by the Government themselves ; but in
the meantime the sal.ent points of attack—the real ob-
jections to the operations of the law—were met by the
measures which we adopted. Those measures corsisted,
first, in the compulsory commutation of the tithes for a
fixed money-payment; and, secondly, in charging the
elandlerd, instead of the tenant, with the burden of the
tithes, prospective upon the falling in of each particular
lease, and prospective in the case of a tenant-at-will upon
the expiration of 12 or 18 months. It was also provided
that those landlords who chose voluntarily to anticipate
the time when the burden would fall upon them would
receive a reduction of charge to the amount of 25 per cent.
The practical operation of those measures was this :
Foreseeing that the burden must in the course of a very
short time fall upon them, the consequence of which
would be that the feelings of the tenantry would cease
to be exc.ted. and the collection of the tithes would he
easy, a certain proportion of the landowners came for-
ward and voluntarily took the burden upon themselves,
and, after considerable discueeion, an arrangement was
final), adopted by which the prospective change was
made immediate, the whole burden being at once thrown
upon the landlords, who received a reduction of 25 per
cent. Such was the course Government pursued with re-
spect to the tithes. They supported the claim, they main-
tained the principle, they defended the property, but
they removed those portions of the law which rendered
it open to serious objection, and liable to be easily op-
posed and successfully resisted. (Cheers.) I beg pardon
-of your lordships for occupying so much of your time in
pointing out the difference in principle, unperceived by
the noble earl, between the course pursued by the Go-
vernment of Earl Grey in dealing with the tithes and
that suggested by the bill before us.
Earl GRANVILLE— What I said was, that I could
see no difference in principle between the present hill
and the measure proposed by the Government of Earl
Grey relative to church rates.
The Earl of DERBY—I can assure the noble earl that
I shall not lice sight of that question. Well, the next
subject that had to be dealt with was the church cess. It
amounted in all to about 60,0001. a-year, and its charac-
ter may be briefly described. It was to be leviable by
the vestries of the different parishes according to their
discretion ; but there was this peculiarity connected with
it, that if, as in England, all the parishioners in Ireland
had been entitled to vote in vestry on the question of
church cess not a farthing would have been received from
one end of the country to the other. What, therefore,
was the course pursued ? Why, the Roman Catholics,
the bulk of whom paid the church cess in every paris.h,
the moment the ordinary parish business was transacted
were compelled to leave the place where the vestry was
sitting, and then the few Proteetant parishioners who re-
mained fixed the amount of the tax for the support of
the church. That was a state of things which necessarily
produced great irritation, dissatisfaction, and unwiLing-
ness on the part of the Roman Catholic population to pay
the cess, and great unwillingness, let me add, on the
part of the Protestants to impose such a burden upon
' those who had no voice in the matter. But in Ireland
there was another irregularity which could not be found
in England. The law of twentieths, which was equiva-
lent in principle to tenths in England, had been abolish-
ed by an act of Queen Anne, yet the first-Fruits of all
benefices in Ireland, in lieu of being paid over, as in this
country, to a board of first-fruits, were used for defray-
ing those charges which fell upon the vestry ones, which
was, in point of fact, subsidiary to the amount of the
first-fruits. I should say also that while, on the one hand,
the clergy of that time were deprived of most of the prca
ceeds of their benefices, the churches, on the other, were
universally falling into decay; the amount of repairs was
utterly insufficient ; and about half the benefices in Ire-
land were without glebe-houses. A third of the parishes
in Ireland—about 450—were below 2001 , and there was
an urgent demand in the first place for the repair of
churches; in the next, for the enlargement of existing and
the building of new churches ; in the third, for the erec-
tion of glebe-houses for the clergy ; and, in the fourth,
for raising the miserably deficient income to a certain de-
cent provision for a clergyman and his family. The
course which the Government took was utterly to
abolish the vestry cess, amounting to 60,000/., and to
relieve the clergy altogether from the payment of first-
(mite, which were liable to the payment of the same
charge ; but in lieu of first-fruits and vestry cos, a pros-
pective charge was laid upon all benefices varying from
five to 15 per cent., gradually rising according to the
value of the living, but not touching those below 2001.
a-year. elt was also provided that, as we have seen done
with certain canoniies in England, certain bishoprics in
Ireland should be superseded,the number being too large,
and that the funds arising from those sees should be de-
voted to the purposes I have already mentioned—a mea-
sure in no way inconsistent with the interests of the
Church. A further provision was also made by which
the tenants of bishops' leases, upon consideration of the
payment of a certain sum of money down, were enabled
to convert the leases which they held for a number of
years, with a power of renewal at certain fixed periods,
into perpetual tenancies, paying the money which they
thhaedrazirteh an edtoapiadyitifoonral the renewal
in
rendwcaolnsoifdethraetirionleaosfetsh,
etoagde-
vantages which they might be expected to derive from
the permanency of their engagements. The whole of
these sums. together were estimated by the late Earl
Grey, in his place in this house, to amount to some-
where about 150,0001. a-year, and the following was the

statement which he made of the charges,which were pro-'
posed by the Government to be defrayed by that amount
—Church ce,s, 60,0001 ; augmentation of poor
living 4, 46,5001 ; building and repairing churches,
20.0001. ; glebe houses, 10,0001. ; making in all
136,5001. These were the measures which the Go
vernment of Lord Grey thought necessary to introduce
for the purpose of saving the Church of Ireland
from the imminent danger by which it was at that time
threatened. They have, I am happy t , say, been greatly
successful, and have contributed—it will be a source of
lasting satisfaction to me to think that I have been in
the slightest degree instrumental in contributing—to the
permanency and security of the Established Church in
Ireland. My noblefriend asks me what is the distinction
which I draw between church cess and ministers' money,
and he rightly says that he concludes the subject was
not omitted to be taken into consideration by Lord
Grey's Government. The difference between church
cess and ministers' money was not only seen and admit-
ted by Lord Grey's Government but by every Govern-
ment since Lord Grey's, and there has been no Govern-
ment until the present which ba4conceded without com-
pensation the abolition of this tax. The distinction be '
tween church cess and ministers' money is broad and
clear. Church cess was a voluntary assessment, uncer-
tain in amount, dependent on the will of the vestry, whe-
ther they would choose to levy it or not, and to what
amount they would choose to levy it, and levied exclu-
sively by Protestants, while it fell mainly on Roman
Catholics, and consequently excited great ill-will and ill-
feeling. But ministers money was a tax 200 years old,
of a definite amount fixed upon certain property and
just as much attaching to the individual honse as
any chief rent payable by any one of your
lordships. (Hear, hear.) The property was pur-
chased subject to a definite charge, and I say I partake
in the indignation with which the noble and learned lord
the Chief Justice expressed his condemnation in this
house a few days ago of that species of religious consci-
entiousness which objects to any pecuniary charge.
(Cheers.) Supposing I bought a house liable to the pay-
ment of 501. a-year for the support of a Jewish syna-
gogue. I should like to know what would he said of
me if, from conscientious motives, I refused to pay
money for such a purpose. (Hear.) A wise man would
call me a fool, and an honest man would call me a rogue,
and the law would say that, being liable, I must put
my conscientious scruples in my pocket and take my
money out of my pocket, and pay the amount. (Cheers.)
This charge does not fall exclusively on Protestants or
on Roman Catholics, but on the occupiers of certain
houses, the owners of which have bought those houses
subject to the tax, and therefore liable to pay it. I think
I have sufficiently answered my noble friend as to the
distinction between church cess, uncertain in amount
and voluntary in assessment, and ministers' money, a
fixed charge on property which the purchasers con-
tracted to pay at the time of the purchase.. (Hear) I
know my argument will be lightly esteemed by my noble
friend, and I will therefore quote authority not of a very
remote date as to the religious objections to the payment
of this tax. In 1854 it was said—

" This tax had nothing to do with "any religious question.
It was a tax upon property, and it would be perfectly prepos-
terous to make the rate upon a house dependent upon the
religion of its owner. The tax was one upon property, to
which every man knew he was liable when he purchased it,
and had really nothing whatever to do with religious feeling."
That was the opinion in 1854 of a colleague of my noble
friend—a colleague then and a colleague now—the pre-
sent First Lord of the Treasury. (Cheers.) Nevertheless,
I am not prepared to deny that up to 1854 there were
very plausible objections at all events to be raised to the
incidence of this tax. The houses which were liable were
so liable according to the original valuation of the time
of Chat les 11. There had been great change in the value,
and 601110 houses which were valuable at that time bad
become quite valueless since. Furthermore, a large pro-
portian‘was levied on proprietors of very small houses.
And herel think my noble friend hardly did the clergy
justice when he said that, owing to the difficulty of col-
lection, they abstained from collecting it ; he might have
given the clergy credit for some good feeling in refrain-
ing from collecting the tax from their poorer parishioners,
and not put it merely on the ground of the difficulty and
expense. "Theite were three objections urged against the
tax. The first was the religious objection. Tte religious
objection, although put forward in the committee of
1848, was, as I have shown, repudiated by the Govern-
ment in 1854. The second was the inequality of the
rate, owing to the change in the value of property. The
third was the large proportion of the tax which, numeri-
cally speaking, fell upon the pooresi class of houses. I
am not now going to defend the Act of 1854, but I am
about to draw the attention of your lordships to what
the Act of 1854 did towards the removal of those most
serious and valid objections. The Act of 1854, in the first
place, relieved from the payment of ministers' money all
houses under the annual value of 101., analogous to the
power of magistrates to relieve occupiers of very small
houses from the payment of poor-rates. The second
amendment of the law made by the act of 1854 was pro-
viding that a new regulation should take place, and that
the percentage chargeable should be levied afterwards,
according to the old valuation in the time of Charles 11.
What was the result of the alteration of the law? Where,
as there were-liable to the tax before 1854, 51,019 bou.es,
there were exempted by operation of the ant, 30,873 ;
and there remain liabl.' 20,146 ; and of these 20,146
hou-es (I beg your lordship+ to bear this in mind, as I
shall have to advert to it hereafter) 15,517, or just three-
fourths of the whole, are in the city of Dublin. In Cork,
Waterford, Limerick, Drogheda, Clonmel, Kilkenny,
and Kinsale, there are only 4,629 houses liable to the
payment of the tax. The nominal amount of the tax be-
fore the act was something more than 15,0001. a-year,
and by a provision in the act, in consideration of the
greater security in the receipt, the clery were to receive
75 per cent. of the nominal income. The amount was to
be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissions, and the Ec-
cl-siastical Commissioners were to be paid by the eorpo-
rations of the different towns, upon whom, whether
wisely or not, the act of 1854 threw tho liability of col-
lecting the tax. But while the act of 1854 removed the
objectionable features of the tax it maintained the prin-
ciple that the property was still to be liable, and that the
clergy should 'Aid be entitled to receive the income out
of that property. I find Sir J. Young speaking at that
time in the following-terms. He was asked why for so
long a period, from 1833 to 1854, no remedy had been
applied to that which was confessedly a grievance in the
collection of ministers' money, and he said—
" The reason why no remedy had been applied was this,
that though the amount was small, the principle of the invio-
lability of property was concerned, for it was impossible to
take it away without violating property and spreading consi-
derable alarm among persons attached to the Church. If

this i7roperty were taken away it would be asked what would
remain inviolable."

(Cheers.) In conformity with the principle adopted by
all preceding Governments, the noble earl who was at
Vas head of the Government in 1854 not only refused to
do away with the liability of occupiers of property to pay
charges to which they were justly liable, but he went a
step beyond his predecessors, and confirmed by Parlia-
mentary sanction the right of theclergy on the one band,
and the liability of the tareayere on the other. (Cheers.)
That was so recent as 1854, and yet in 1857 the mem-
bers of the same Government which in 1854 made the
arrangements for greater security come down upon
grounds of expediency, and expediency alone, and expe-
diency of the lowest description—namely, a tame and
passive submission to the successful opposition of those
whose duty it was to levy the tar, and ask your lord-
ships to take away that property which in 1854 they
themselves declared to be inviolable. (Cheers.) I say,
therefore, that for my own part I should be quite pre-
pared to rest this case upon the ground of principle—
upon the same ground which induced successive Govern
meats to abstain from so manifestly convenient a course
as is now proposed. But I atn prepared to meet it also
on the ground of expediency, however plausible the ex-
pediency of abandoning this charge may at first sight
appear. lam prepared to deny the sufficiency of the
fund on which it is proposed to throw this additional
charge. It is said to be expellent to alter the law, but
'my noble friend has not stated the grounds on which he
thinks it expedient to do so. I will take the question
as to the sufficiency of the fund on which my nebte friend
proposes to throw this additional charge of 12,0001. I
beg, however, in passing, not to be supposed to admit
that, even if the fund were eufficient to meet the pro-
posed charge, the principle on which the bill is founded
is such as to be deserving of your lordships' sanction. I
am prepared to show that the fund is not now and never
can be adequate to meet atl the legitimate purposes to
which it is applicable. I have stated, and I may here be
permitted to repeat, that the charges, as estimated by
Earl Grey, were 60,0001. a-year for church-cese,
46,50001. a-year for the augmentation of small livings,
20,0001. a-year for the builtiinis and repair of churches,
and 10,000/. a-year for the building and repair of glebe
houses, making in the whole 136,5001, To meet this
charge Earl Grey supposed there would be 150,0001. a-
year in the hands of the commissioners, but instead of
that the fund now at the disposal of the commissioners
amounts to no more than between 99,0001. and 100,0001.
exclusive of the sum they may now receive for ministers'
money. If, therefore, as I have stated, the income at
the disposal of the commissioners is under 100 0001. a-
year, let me refer to the charges which are actually im-
posed, exclusive of ministers' money. The actual revenue,
exclusive of ministers' money, amounts to 99,3761., and
the charges imposed by the act upon that fund amount
to 79,5261., leaving, therefore, a surplus of 19,850/. Let
me remind your lordships of the purposes to which, ac-
cordinr to Earl Grey, the surplus was to be devoted.
For building new churches and chapels, for which the
estimate was taken by Earl Grey at 20,0001. a-year, the
sum put down for the present. year is 9,4641. The
house would permit him to state under what circum•
stances advances upon this head were made. They were
made only upon the condition that the parties applying
for aid advanced one-fifth towards the expense of erect-
ing the church in respect of which application was made,
There was also an estimate for aiding the building of
glebe houses. To this, however, not one farthing had
yet been contributed. Towards the augmentation of
poor livings an estimated sum of 40,000/. was to be set
apart. Of the average amount actually contributed to
this purpose he could not speak with certainty—it was
either 2,1301. or 4,1001. ; but taking it at the maximum
it was but too clear that the commissioners had felt
themselves cramped far means. in fact, they had
only given aid where the income of the living was under
1001., and even to that extent they had not been able
to meet the demands upon them. And yet the Govern-
ment proposed to throw a further charge upon the
already overburdened fund. That it was overburdened
was stated by their own Chancellor of Ireland (Mr.
Brady),. Appended to the report which had been made
to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was the name Maziere
Brady, Chancellor of Ireland. That report set forth the
difficulties with which the commissioners had had to con-
tend, and the dissatisfaction which had been occasioned
by their refusing, as they were obliged to do, aid on
many occasions, and they stated that these difficulties
would be increased during the present year. And yet in
the face of this report, bearing the signature of one of