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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTEE,DA.Y.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
• The Earl of MALMESLURY gave notice that on
Tuesday next he should present a petition from the offi-
cers of the Swiss Legion, complaining of the agreement
under which they bad 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
Rathkeale 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 county 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 uuder conditions which they be-
lieved to be contrary to the Word of God.
SECOND READINGS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the following
bills were read a second time :—St. Helen's Canal and
Railway, Kidegrove Market, Dumbarton Water.
THIRD READINGS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, Fleming's
Estate Bill and the Badale and Leyburn Railway were
read a third time and passed.
MINISTERS MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.

The order of the day for the second reading of the bill
having been read, .
Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said that, as the subject was one with which
noble lords were generally familiar, he might fairly con-
tent himself with stating briefly the grounds upon which
Government had decided upon adopting the measure as
their own, and recommending their lordships to concur
in it ; but as there might be some who were not ac-
quainted with all the particulars of the case upon which
the proposed change in the law was founded, he would
in the first place lay before them a short history of the
tax and of the steps taken from time to time in connec-
tion with it, and which had brought the Government
under the obligation to take the course they had deter-
mined upon. The noble earl then proceeded to describe
the circumstances under which the tax was originally
imposed in the reign of Charles IL, in three of the prin-
cipal towns in Ireland, in which for political purposes it
was thought desirable to establish Protestant communt-
ties, and the change effected by the act of James 11.,
deducing from the last-mentioned enactment the inference
that even at that early period it was felt as a grievance
by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. From that
tune it had continued to animate and promote religious
discord and strife in those towns in which it was levied.
Their lordships would recollect that in 1833 an act was
passed, which had been attended with great benefit to
Ireland, for abolishing the church cess in Ireland, a
measure for which great credit was due to the Govern-
ment of Lord Grey, but more especially to the noble earl
opposite (the Earl of Derby), who was at that time Chief
Secretary for Ireland. Regarding the impost of church
cess and that of ministers' money there were many fea-
tures in common, and in those points in which they
differed the case against the latter was far stronger
t! an that against the church cess. For instance, the
church coos was of much more ancient origin than mini-
sters' money. It brought to the church a much
larger revenue, the sum collected being about 70,0001.
a year. It was more equally distributed over the whole
country, Protestant Dissenters, Roman Catholics, and
members of the Established Church, all contributing
to it. The noble earl (Derby) who had given notice of
an amendment to the present bill would favour the house
by explaining what in his view constituted the distinction
between the two charges, and why the bill he introduced
and carried in 1833, abolishing the church cess, omitted
to deal with ministers' money also. It that omission
were intentional, perhaps the noble earl would further
favour the house by an explanation of what was the
meaning and intention of the 73d section of that act,
which provided that in all parishes or places where by
virtue of any existing law, provision might be made,
by vestry or other assessment, for the payment of the
ministers or officers of the Church, such provision
should thenceforth wholly cease and determine, and that
it should be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
out of the funds vested in their band, to provide for such
' objects. With such a clause in the act of Parliament, he
confessed he could not understand how it was that ati-
nisters'money still existed. No doubt excellent technical
reasons might be given, and in stating what those rea-
sons were he trusted the noble earl would also state what,
if any, difference in principle there was, in his opinion,
between the two imposts. (Hear.) He had no wish to
quote Hansard as to what took place during the pro-
gress of the Church Temporalities Act, but he found
generally that it was argued by Lord Althorp on the
i.rounri of the state of Ireland, and the necessity of
removing the existing causes of religious d.ffe ences in
to t country, while the noble earl contended, very etre-
cessfully, that the measure would tend to the advantage
rather than the injury of the Established Church in
Ireland. But every argument that was advanced by
i the noble earl and his colleagues in support of that
bill and against the church cess applied in an infinitely
greater degree in favour of the present bill, and
1 against the teas of ministers' money. Some little time
alter the passing of the act he alluded to—about fif-
teen years ago—the question of ministers' money was
brought under the consideration of Parliament. First,
a proposition to abolish it altogether was brought fur-
ward, which was rejected. Tne next step was the ap-
pointment of a committee of the House of Commons in
1848, and that committee unanimou-ly reported that the
evils ot the tax were very great, but they differed as to the
e xect mode in which a remedy should be applied. The
apposition to the tax continued until at length, whet, the
noble earl was at the head of the adminiairation, a pro-
mise was given on the part of the Government to bring
in a bill for the settlement of the question, and when the
noble earl advised their lordships now to oppose a ruea
sure passed by the other house for the same purvse, he
ought at least to exp'aio what was the nature of the bill
which, had he remained in office, would have been sub-
mitted to Parliament, and in what respect it differed, at
all events as regarded its general principle, from the one
DOW under consideration. The noble earl was succeeded
in office by his (Earl Granville's) noble friend the Earl of
Aberdeen, and while he was at the head of the Govern-
ment a bill was brought in which was intended as a re-
medy for the evil. But as one who had been a party to
the introduction of that measure, he must say that while
in some of its principal objects it had succeeded in ethers
it had entirely failed, The objects of that bill were to se-
cure a fixed income to the clergymen who weredependent
upon this tax, instead of theprecarious and varying one,
to relieve thetufrons the unpopularity which the mode of
collecting the tax occa-ioned ; and to relieve the poor,
or a very large proportion of them, who contributed to
the impost, from their liability. That was, it absolved
all who inhabited houses under 101,. a year in value,
which would include probably three-fourths of the whole
number. In return lor these advantages secured to the
ministers, their nominal incomes were reduced 25 per
cent. ; but he believed, notwithstanding, that it was a
matter of great satisfacticn to them to receive the re•
dined income instead of the larger amount accompanied
by the uncertainty and unpopularity which accompanied
it. The relief to the poor householder bad been great,
but not so great as was expected, inasmuch as the tniuis-
ters were not in the habit of enforcing the rate from
them. But the evil that had not been met was the dif-
ficulty of collection, The act provided that the corpora-
tions should collect the rate, and pay over the amount to
the civil paymaster, who was to band it over to the com-
missioners. In 7 of the corporations not only bad the col-
lection failed, but the corporations refused to collect it.
The task imposed by the act on the corporation was a
most disagreeable one. that of collecting a rate which
they believed to be ur.just, and to compel them to do so
was no easy task for the Executive. An action had been
brought against the corporation of Cork by the Govern-
ment, and a verdict been obtained for 3,0001., but ac-
companied by a statement from the judge that the law
was inoperative, and the machinery provided by the act
altogether inadequate for its purpose. An appeal was
made which put back the matter for two years, and it
appeared that it might be kept back for two years more,
so that it would be impossible to recover under 4 years.
Ile asked whether, in the case of so small a sum, the
Government bad, or had not, acted wisely in the course
tbey had pursued ? He did not believe that the argument
respecting the diminution of the property of the church
would be urged by the men who had carried the Church
Temp, ralities Act, nor could it be said that they were
transferring it to a fund which was unable to bear it. He
believed that, with a proper regard to economy, there
would be no difficulty in providing for this extra charge
on the ecclesiastical fund. He knew that at present there
was not surplus, and he gave the noble earl the full be-
nefit of that fact; but when they remembered that this
impost was the only remaining cause of exasperation left
to the Catholics as against the Established Church,
surely it was worth a little exertion, in the direction of
economy, to remove it. Looking at the returns, he saw
that the expense of clerks and secretaries was 23,0001.,
but then a good deal might be saved by consolidation.
He had heard that the charge for sacramental elements
was enormous, and there were many other points upon
which a 'eduction might be made. Even in the contitu-
tion of the board itself he believed there was considerable
room for economy. He bad now stated some of the rea-
sons which had induced the Government to propose this
bill, and he ventured to put it to their lordships whether
they would not consider the question with the view. to its
practical results. If they adopted it, they would remove
the only cause of irritation remaining in Ireland as re-
garded the Established Church ; while, if they rejected
tt,they would, in a matter in which oily 12,0001. a-year
was
sent staftep
housienrlved, place themselves in collision with the other
aorfltiahmio_egnotw.
were
ee pimmense,racetnicsael. difficultiesThe;om ofmi
stshieonperres-
under the act d
ment did not di not receive the money ; the Govern.
the other hand, the
hesitate to put the law in force ; but, on
expense was enormous, while the
machinery was almost inoperative. As to bringing actions
against corporationsof
13r
lihtad
eonlio poorosepeortfy6oamndmoinnreiet
face of a majority
was perfectly ridiculous. Under all the circumstances
he earnestly appealed to their lordships to pass the bill,
The Earl of DERBY rose and said—My lords, I must
confess it is not without some reluctance that I now rise
to offer my most unhesitating, uncompromising opposi-
tion to the bill which is now before us. I am ready to ad.
mit upon the low ground of expediency upon which alone