The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-19 00:00:00

IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL.

On Lord AL-molt P'S moving that the order of the day for the
second reading of this bill be now read,
Mr..C. WYNN said, that when this bill was first introduced
into Parliament, it was doubted whether, as it related to a great
change in the religious establishment of the church of Ireland,
it ought not to have originated in a committee of the whole
house. By this bill it was proposed to put an end to nearly
one-half ot the bishoprics ot Ireland, and to suspend all ap-
pointments to certain benefices in that country. Whether an
alteration of so great an extent did not bring this bill within
the standing order of the house on matters of religion, he would
not now stay to examine ; he would only say that in his opinion
ministers would have acted more prudently had they conformed
to the usual practice in cases of this sort, instead of originating
a new precedent upon it. They had also transgressed another
rule of ancient standing, by which it was provided that no bill
imposing a tax upon the community should originate except in
a committee of the whole house. On the 18th February, 1667,
the house resolved, and the resolution had since become a stand-
ing order—" That if any motion be made in the house for any
public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and de-
bate thereof ought not presently to be acted upon, but adjourned
till such further day as the house shall think fit to appoint,
and then it ought to be referred to a committee of the whole
house, and their opinions to be reported thereupon, before any
resolution or vote of the house do pass thereon." Now, if a
tax varying! from £5 to £l5 per cent. can be laid upon church
property without originating the bill imposing it in a committee
of the whole house, what was to prevent a similar tax from
being laid without similar formalities upon any other species
of property? The principle upon which our ancestors had
adopted this form of proceeding was, that when money was to
be raised upon the subject, tie proposition should have the
fullest and most frequent discussion; and the House of Com-
mons, acting upon that principle, resolved on the 11th of
March, 1716, "'That no bill be ordered to be brought in for
any work proposed to be carried on by tolls or duties to be
levied on the subject in particular places till such petition has
been referred to a committee, and they have examined the
matter thereof, and reported the same to the house." These
burdens, which now fell upon the landed proprietors of Ire-
land, were in future to be thrown upon the clergy, and were,
therefore, pro tanto, a tax upon the clergy. Looking to the
whole subject, it would, in his opinion, be most dangerous to
depart from the Old rule by which the house had been hitherto
guided.
Lord ALTHORP said, that on a question of this nature, which
came upon him also by surprise, he felt great unwillingness to
state his own opinion. It did, however, appear to him that the
rule which had been referred to always applied to cases where
the tax was clearly laid on the subject for the public service
generally.. (Hear, hear.) A bill had been passed something
in the nature of, the present, by which incumbents were com-
pelled to pay larger sums to their curates. The money clauses
of that bill were not referred to a committee of the whole house,
and he never had heard any complaint made on that account.
It-was most important, certainly, that they should not interfere
with any regulation of Parliament having for its object the
protection of the subject; but he did not think that the present
was one of those cases which came within the rule.

Sir R. PEEL never felt more perfectly than he did at the
present moment the validity of the objection which had been
urged by his right hon. friend. According to the policy of the
house, the bill ought not to proceed to a second reading without
those clauses being snbmitted to the preliminary ordeal of a
committee of the whole house, by whom they would be affirmed,
modified, or rejected. On the 29th of March, 1707, itwas
resolved " That this house will not proCeed ou any petition,
motion, or bill, for granting any money, or releasing or com-
pounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, but after ex-
amination by a committee of the whole house, and the same is
declare dto be a standing order of the house." (Hear, hear.)
In 1825 a case occurred on the petition of a Mr. Campbell, who
prayed for compensation on account of losses sustained by riots
at Glasgow. 1 his related to an individual, and yet the case
was reported on by a committee of ways and means. (Hear,
hear.) In 1831, a bill was brought in for regulating the ,aine
laws' and a, duty of £2 was imposed on %ranting licences. -Was
that bill brought in with the clause in it proposing a tax of £2?
No; the bill was brought in with only a reference to the clauses
which imposed the duties. There was this note affixed to them,
and printed in italics—" these clauses to be introduced in the
committee." These were all instances of local taxes, to be ap-
plied to local objects. Now, what were the objects of the
present bill? One of the objects was the building of churches
throughout Ireland. Now, could there be any object more
general than the building of churches throughout all that part
of the empire? (Hear, hear.) He would assert that this tax
had a reference generally to the people • and if that resolution
of the House of Commons which he had read, and which de-
clared that no tax should be proceeded in but through the
intervention of a committee of the whole house, were not con-
sidered a dead. letter, then there could not be a doubt raised,
but that before they proceeded with this bill a committee of the
whole house should come to a resolution as to the money
clauses. (Hear.)
Mr. STANLEY said, the right .hon. baronet had quoted a re-
solution of the 29th of March, 1707, providing that " The
house would not proceed on any petition, motion, or bill, for
granting any money, or releasing or compounding any sum of
money owing to the Crown, but in a committee of the whole
house." Now, he read that resolution, and the practice of the
,house, as arising from a constitutional jealousy of the power
of the Crown. It had reference to money 'advanced by that,
house to the Crown.' (Hear, hear.) He would call the atten-
:tion of the house to the bill for the regulation of the salaries of
curates. By that bill certain reductions were made iu the
salaries of incumbents, in order to enlarge the incomes of a
portion of the clergy who were inadequately provided for. That
bill was not submitted, in the way. proposed, to a committee
of the whole house, nor did it originate in that house at all;
but in the house of Lords. . _

Sir R. PEEL.—The bill did not originate in the Lords.
Mr. STANLEY.—It provided for the augmentation of small
livings—the building of glebe-houses—the repair of churches—
and, in short, every thing
.almost that was contemplated by
the present bill. Theie was absolutely in the bill to which he
alluded a graduated scale of taxation,- for if the living pro-
duced so much, the curate was to be paid in proportion. There
was nothing connected with this measure to call forth that con-
stitutional jealousy which was properly entertained when mo-
ney was to be granted to the Crown.
Air. GouLnuaN was of opinion that great advantage would
accrue by affording time for deliberation on a point which ap-
-peered to him, if the objection of his right hon. friend were
well-founded, was one of very great importance. (Hear, hear.)
If this were a tax on the people, it was important to prevent
:the house from levying it without adopting those safeguards
which were hitherto deemed indispensable.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the question was, whether this
was a- bill for imposing a tax on the peeple,.or for granting a
revenue to the Crown ? ' If it were either one or the other, then
it would be necessary to submit it to a committee of the whole
house; but if it were merely a measure for regulating the pro
peaty of the church for the benefit of the church, then he con-
ceived that such a proceeding was not called for. In that case
he did not think there would-be any violation of the orders of
the house if they went on with the second reading.
- Mr. Siinw contended, that to all intents and purposes, this
was a tax. Looking to the 14th section, he saw it there pro-
vided "that these commissioners shall take, levy, and receive,
from and after the commencement of this act for ever, a yearly
tax, tete, or assessment" from the incumbent. If this were not
the recognition of a tax he knew not what was. It had been
stated that the Curates' Bill and this-bill were newly the same.
The difference was obvious. This bill, they were told by the

learned gentleman opposite, was for regulating church property
for the benefit of the church; whereas it was not only tor regu-
lating church property, but it was also for removing parish cess,
which the whole population of each parish was now liable to
pay. (Hear.)
Mr. O'CohiriELL said they had much business to do, and they,
ought to put an end to this discussion. (" Hear," and a laugh.)
It was most clear to him that this was a tax. (Hear, hear.)
That was his opinion. In the preamble of the act this was called
neither more nor less than an annual tax. He never felt him-
self abashed in performing a public duty, but if ever there was
a case where he regretted to do his duty it was the present. He
did not want to postpone this bill, but he wanted to know how
this blunder had been committed. It was set forth in the bill
that first fruits in Ireland should be repealed, and that there
should be "the substitution of an annual tax in lieu thereof."
This stared them in the face in the very first line; and when
that was so, how could they go on with the second reading of
this bill, without first submitting it to a committee of the whole
house ? How did they happen to overlook such a circumstance
as this ? What, he asked, was this but an annual tax ? Here
was a certain portion of the property of a certain class of the
King' subjects which was to be taken in all and every event.
Now, if that was not a tax, he really did not know what a tax
was. (Hear.)
Mr. PRYME instanced several descriptions of bills connected
with money which did not originate in a committee of the whole
house. A turnpike bill or a drainage bill was a tax bill, yet it
was never known that such Measures originated in a committee
of the whole house. ,

Lord Jotirr RUSSELL said that gentlemen wished them to set-
tle the question at once, because the word "tax" was found in
the bill; but that circumstance would not decide the question,
which was, whether the word bore the ordinary meaning of that
term? The right hon. gentleman opposite had argued against
the second reading, and founded his argument upon the au-
thority of Hatsell as well as his own ; and he (Lord J. Russell
admitted that the right hon. gentleman was as well acquainted
with the orders of the house as any individual that ever rose to
speak on the subject. Hatsell, it appeared, was in favour of a
committee of the whole house, even when a bill was introduced
for local purposes. But he would ask, had such a principle as
.that been acted on of late years or not? There was, for in-
stance, a,bill for the establishment of a police in the metropirlis,
and in order to carry the plan into effect a charge of Bd. in the
pound on :the poor-rates was enacted by Parliament. That
was done without any intervention of a committee of the whole
house. (Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIs said that this bill most decidedly imposed a tax
'on the Irish clergy. He relied on that word, and he would
force it into discussion. He saw clearly that it was a tax on
part of the community; and he contended that no portion of
the King's subjects should be deprived of the benefit of any of
the forms of that house.

Dr. LusnisioTox should rather be inclined to put up with
any partial inconvenience than to break through the rules and
orders which Parliament had long established.- Ile would state
the case as he understood it, and he hoped the right hon. gen-
tleman in the chair would favour the house with his opinion,
because lie believed the house relied on his knowledge of the
subject, and not only on his knowledge of the orders and usages
of the house, but on his well-known and often manifested im-
partiality. (Hear, hear.) An order on their journals directed
that where taxes were to be granted to the Crown a committee
of the whole house should be appointed to inquire into the sub-
ject. This was done with a twofold view,—for the protection
of the people, and to avoid, if possible, any jealousy of the
Crown. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by appeal-
ing to the chair for its opinion on the subject.
The SPEAKER said that having been called upon by the hon.
and learned member to state to the house what were his views
npon the point now before it, he begged to say that while he
was ready to admit, with all those hon. members who had spoken
upon the subject, that it was one beset with difficulties, it ap-
peared to him that those difficulties arose out of the meaning,
intent, purport, object, and character of the bill, rather than out
of the interpretation to be put upon the rules and forms of that
house, with regard to which there could be little or no difference.
lie took it that the question now before the house was, whether
One of the objects of this bill was the imposition of a tax, or
not; and in order to ascertain that point it was necessary that
they should come to a clear understanding as to what the mean-
ing of a tax was. Now, as he took it, according to the standing
orders of the house, any imposition upon the subjects of the
Crown, either for public purposes generally, or for purposes
entirely separate and distinct from the interests of those indivi-
duals upon whom the said imposition was to be levied, was to
be considered as a tax. In considering this question there was
a point which he thought had been overlooked' by the house,
and which materially affected the subject matter at issue, and.
that was, whether a certain surplus of money, which would arise
out of the,operation of this bill, was not. to be applied to pur-
poses to which it had not hitherto been applied—to public pur-
poses, and whether a burden would'not be imposed by the bill
to be paid by the clergy which hitherto had not usually been
borne by them. That was a point which materially affected
the question, as to whether this bill should or should not ema-
nate from a committee of the whole house. It would be' seen
that he alluded to the part of the bill relating to the church cess,
and that part of it he conceived ought to occupy a prominent
position in the consideration of this question. As to his giving
an opinion himself upon the question, whether the purposes for
which the bill was intended came within the meaning of a tax
or not, he was satisfied that the house would not expect him to
give any such opinion, and he was quite sure that it would not
be decent for him, if he had formed any opinion on the subject,
to obtrude it on the house. He had merely felt it his duty to
call the attention of the house to the question which was before
it,—namely, whether the purposes for which this bill was in-
tended came within the meaning of a tax or not; that was to
say, whether the object of it was to raise money. upon the sub-
jects of the Crown for general purposes, or to raise money upon
a particular description of the subjects of the Crown, to be de-
voted to purposes with which the interests of those subjects were
,not connectod. (Hear.)
Mr. Honig said that he certainly could not look upon the imposi-
tion proposed to be made by this bill in any other light than that of a
new tax, like the tax upon pensions, or any other tax ; and he had
therefore no hesitation in saying that such an imposition ought to ori-
ginate in a resolution of a committee of the whole house.
• Lord ALTHORP said, that after the discussion which had taken place;
he would, if the house agreed to it, be ready to postpone the Second
readinof this bill to a future day. The question having been raised
as to whether this bill did not impose a tax, and whether, therefore,
it should not originate with a committee of the whole house, he should
be extremely sorry that such an important constitutional question
should be determined without the fullest and most deliberate consi-
deration, and, whatever might be his own opinion on the subject,
after so much doubt had been thrown upon it, he should be sorry to
call upon the house to come to a decision upon the point at once. He
was therefore ready to defer the order of the day for the second read-
ing of this bill until some day next week, in order that the house
•might in, the meanwhile have time to consider the question that had
been now started.

The order of the day having been read,
Lord ALTIIORI. moved, that the order be discharged, and the second
reading of the bill fixed for Monday next.
The second reading of the bill was then fixed for Monday next.
DISTRESS OF TIIE INDUSTRIOUS CLASSES.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD hoped that the noble lord would have no objec-
tion to his (Mr. Attwood) proceeding with his motion:.which stood
for this evening, for the appointment of a select committee " to in-
quire into the causes of the general distress existing amongst the in-
uustrioui elasses of the united kingdom, and into the most effectual
means of its relief ?"

Lord ALTHORP observed, that as a great many hon. members had
left the house under the impression that that motion would not :be
brought on that evening, he would put it to the hon. member whe-
ther it would be fair to bring it forward in their absence
Mr. A TTWOOD, after remarking that it was a Motion connected with
a most itnportant subject, postponed it till that day week.