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

the noble earl has relied, there are not wanting plausible
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. arguments, of which, I must do the noble earl the justice
to say 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
1 that in the localities where that tax is levied it has been
I the cause of considerable irritation and difficulty. 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were to be repealed, the clergy would experience great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, hear.) 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 sac-
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
has 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
nem; ness. But lam happy to believe that those mea-
sures, stringent as they were, and opposed as they were
by the friends of the Established Church, by 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. Teat opposition was directed
against tithes, against vestry case, against ministers'
money ; in short, against every form in which pecuniary
provision was made for the Protestant Church iu 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 ; fur
in consequence of the extraordinary subdivision of land,
which prevailsd 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 system. 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 the 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 the bay 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 yield to those who were depriving
them of the means of living. In 183 a 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 1,000,000/. 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-
sections to the operations of the law—were met by the
measures which we adopted. Those measures consisted,
first, in the compulsory commutation of the tithes for a
fixed money-payment; and, secondly, in charging the
landlord, insteed 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 wee 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 excited, 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 discussion, an arrangement was
finally 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 bill
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 bee 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 parish,
the moment the ordinary parish business was transacted
were cornptl'ed to leave the place where the vestry was
sitting, and then the few Froteetant parishioners who re-
mained fixed the amount of the tax for the support of
Woe church. That was a state of things which necessarily
produced great irritation, dissatisfaction, and tin wiling-
tress 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 oo 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
becefices 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 cess, which
was, in point if 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 pro-
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 r ext, 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
aholi.h the vestry cess, amounting to 60,0001., and to
relieve the clergy altogether from the payment of first-
fruits, which were liable to the payment of the same
charge ; bet in lieu of first-fruits and vestry cess, 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 2004
a-year. It was also provided that, as we have seen done
with certain carom les in England, certain bishoprics in
Ireland should be supersoded,the numberbeing toolarge,
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 911r11 of money down, were enabled
to convert the leases which they held for a number of
into perpetuPtoewneanr
years, with a
al eoife:r e npeaywianlgatt
hceermtaoi
nneyfixed
h i °pile ritohdes; had agreed to pay fo
r t;
sum e renewal of their leases, toge.
tiler with an additional
in consideration of the ad
vantages which they might be expected to derive from
engagements. The whole of
the permanency of their
ti ated by the late Earl
these sums together vvere,
li-year, and the following was the
Grey, in his pla2e in this nouse to amount t 3 some- '
where about 150,0001.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--(YESTERDAY.)

- - -
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice that on
Tuesday next he should present a petition from the offi-
cers of the Swiss Legion, complaining of the agreement
Amin which they had been enrolled.
viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from
the Dean and Chapter of Cashel, and several other
places in Ireland against the Ministers' Money Bill.
The noble lord said he entirely concurred in the prayer
of the petitioners.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from
nathkeale to the same effect.
Lord DONOUGHMORE presented a great number
of similar petitions.

The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND presented a
petition from a place in Ireland in favour of an altera-
.tion in the superannuation fund.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from
Moat, in the caunty of Westmeath, against the Minis-
ters Money Bill. The right hon. prelate also presented
a petition from a number of clergymen against the clause
to be proposed this evening in the Matrimonial and
' Divorce Blll.The petitioners prayed to be relieved from
performing marriages under conditions which they be-
lieved to be contrary to the Word of God.