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

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 Bedale 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
bating 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-
t Lion 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 ender 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 Proteetsnt corm:num-
• ties, and the change effected by the act of James IL,
deducingfrom the last-mentioned enactment the inference
that even at that early period it way felt as a grievance
by beth Roman Catholics and Protestants. From that
time 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
pas,esd, 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 lor Ireland. Regarding the impost of church
coils 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
ti an that against the church cess. For instance, the
church cess 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 lee introduced
and carried in 1833, abolishing the church cess, omitted
to deal with ministers' money also. If 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 73,1 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 hand, to provide fur such
objects. With such a clause in the act of Parliament, he
confessed he could not undeietand how it was that mi.
niaters'enoney still existed. No doubt exeellent technical
reasons might be given, and iu 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,round of the state of Ireland,, and the necessity of
removing the existing causes of religions diffe, traces in
th 'country, while the noble earl contended, very suc-
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
the noble earl and his colleagues in support of that
bill and against the church cess applied in an infinitely
greater degree in favotfr of the present bill, and
against the tax of ministers' money. Some little time
after the passing of the act be 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 for-
- ward, which was rejected. The next step was the ap-
pointment of a committee of the House of Commons in
1848, and that committee unanimously reported that the
evils of the tax were very great, but they differed as to the
cxetct mode in which a remedy shoul fbe applied. The
opposition to the tax continued until at length, when the
noble earl was at the head of the adininiatration, 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
null-, earl advised their lordships now to oppose a mea
sure passed by the other house for the same purpose, he
• ought at least to esp'ain what was the nature of the bill
which, had he remained in office, would have been sut.-
ruitted to Parliament, and in what respect it differed, at
all events as regarded its general principle, from the one
now under consideration. The noble earl was succeeded
in office by his (Earl Granville's) nods 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 bad entirely failed. The objects of that bill were to se-
cure a fixed lecorne to the clergymen who were dependent
upon this tax, instead of theprecarious and varying one,
to relieve them from the unpopelarity which the mode of
collecting the tam occa-ioned ; and to relieve the poor,
cra wry large propoition of them, who contributed to
the impost, from their liability. That was, it absolved
all who inhabited hones under 101. a year in value,
which would include probably three-fourths of the whole
number. In return for 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 satisfaction to them to receive the re•
duced income instead of the larger amount accompanied
by the uncertainty and nnpopelarity which accompanied
it, The relief to the poor householder had been great,
but not so great as was expected, inasmuch as the minis-
ters were cot 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-
bone ebonll collect the rate, and pay over the arnouet to
the civil paymaster, who MO to band it over to the con.
missioners. In 7 of the corporations not only had 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 collmtiug a rate eliich
they believed to be unjust, and to compel them to de so
was no easy task for the lilxecuiee. Aii action had been
brought against the cerp Jation of Cork by the Govern- I
*Dent, 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 hack for two years more,
so that it would be impossible to recover under 4 years.
He asked whether, in the case of so small a sum, the
Government had, or had not, acted wisely in the course
they had pursued He did not believe that the argument
respeeting the diminution of the property of the church
would be urged by the men who had carried the Church
Temu). ratifies Act, nor could it be said that they were
transferring it to a fund which was unable to bear it. He
pOl lue.e.etki d that, with a proper regard to economy, there
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-
mfinot of that
ttha
st was ett' but when they remembered that this
to the Cathclicry.remaining cause of exasperation left
I,agaist the Established Church,
surely it was ivortZ little exertion, in the direction of
economy, to remove it.
Looking at the returns, he saw
that the expense of clerks secretaries was 23,000 i.,
but then a good deal neightanee saved by consolidation.
He had heard that the ehwaerfe formt sacramental elements
was enormous, and there
other points upon
which a reduction might be ulade.n
theven in the constitu-
Von of the board itself he believed
stated some of the re was considerable
room for economy. He had now
rea-
sons which bad induced the Government to
propose this
bill, and he ventured to pit it to their loreet,i
pa whether
they would not consider the question with the view to its
practical results. If they adoptedit, they would remove
the only cause of irritation remaining in Ireland es re-
garded the Established Church ; they rejected
it, they would, in a matter in which or ly 12,000 i. altar
was involved, place themselves in collision with the other
house of parliament, The practical difficulties of the pre-
sent state of things were immense. The commissioners
under the act did not receive the money; the Govern-
ment did net hesitate to put the law in force ; but, on
the other hand, the expense was enormous, while the
machinery was almostinoperative. As to bringing actions
against corporations which had no property, arid in the
face of a majority of 135 in the House of Commons, it
was perfectly ridiculous. Under al! the circumstances
he earnestly appealed to their lordships to pass tike bill.
The Earl of DERBY rose and said—My lords, I must
confess it is not without some reluctance that I nbw rise
to offer my most unhesitating, uncompromising opposi-
tion to the hill which is no before U. lam rend to ad-
mit .upii the low ground of expediency upon which atone
. . _