THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SURPLUS OF THE REVENUES OF THE IRISH CHURCH.
On the 20th of March Sir Henry Hardinge, the secretary for Ireland, brought forward, in a committee of the whole house, the ministerial plan for settling the Irish tithe question, and moved a resolution to this effect:—“That it is expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to authorise a composition in lieu of it, charged upon the land, and payment to the tithe-owner; that such rent-charge might be redeemed, and the redemption money invested in land or otherwise, for the benefit of the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of tithe due in the year 1834 should be made up from what remained of the £1.000,000 advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833.” After a determined resistance from a large portion of the radical members, the motion was carried by a majority of fifteen. This would probably not have been the case, had not Lord John Russell given Sir Robert Peel a qualified support.
Ministers had brought forward everything that could be done practically to remove the evils attending the collection of tithes in Ireland; and the opposition propounded no measure which would go further in the way of securing or arranging the payment of tithe to the Protestant church; they even complained that the new government was merely imitating the conduct of its predecessors. Their only position now was to maintain that it was not enough merely to place on a better and surer foundation the collection of tithe for the Protestant church, but that, to some extent at least, though to what extent nobody attempted to define, it must cease to exist as tithe payable to the Protestant church, and be applied to purposes in which Catholics might have an equal interest. This ground was now taken by the opposition. On the 30th of March Lord John Russell moved the following resolution:—“That this house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, in order to consider the present state of the church establishment in Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual care of its members to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion.” Lord John Russell said, that if the house should resolve itself into a committee on the motion, and should the resolution be carried in a committee of the whole house, he would move an address to the crown, embodying that resolution with an humble entreaty to his majesty, that he would be pleased to enable the house to carry it into effect—for a measure of this kind should be introduced by a message from the crown. The debate which followed was continued by adjournment up to the 2nd of April. Sir Edward Knatchbull, who followed Lord John Russell, objected to the proposition itself, he said, on the distinct ground that he was not prepared to apply church property to other than Protestant church purposes. Mr. Ward, whose motion of a similar character had been set aside by the appointment of the commission, entered at great length into the general question of the right of the state to appropriate church property to whatever purposes it thought proper; contending that no member should give his vote without remembering the undoubted right which parliament possessed of dealing with all corporate property as the welfare of the community might require, and of so disposing of it as to accommodate its distribution to that state of things which the alterations of time might unfold, or the progress of society occasion. Sir James Graham, in opposing the motion, showed that the income of the Irish church did not amount to so large a sum as represented by opposition; and contended that the evils of the proposed appropriation would not be limited to Ireland, but would extend to England: the church of England would not only be endangered by it, but ultimately destroyed. Lord Howick spoke in favour of the resolution, but at the same time disclaimed all participation in any wish that it should be the means of turning out the ministry. Messrs Shiei, Poulter, and Wood also supported the resolution; and Messrs. Lefroy and Gladstone, and Sir R. Inglis spoke against it. Sir William Follett, the solicitor-general, followed on the same side as the latter. Mr. O’Connell, after reiterating his charge of misrule, said that he would avoid any discussion upon tithes, and content himself with laying down the broad principle that the emoluments of a church ought not to be raised from a people who did not belong to it. Ireland did not ask a Catholic establishment; the Irish desired political equality alone; they would not accept a shilling for their church. Their church was unpolluted by the mammon of unrighteousness; the voluntary principle had answered every purpose of the Catholics, and they desired no connexion with the state in matters of religion. It was said, he continued, that the number of Protestants was on the increase in Ireland; he contended that the reverse was the case. It was said, also, that there was danger in giving the Catholics ascendancy; they had been in power three times since the Reformation, and they had not persecuted the Protestants. The address of Mr. O’Connell aided very much in deciding the question against the government. His protestations of moderation as to the desires of enlightened Roman Catholics, and his disclaimers of any wish for the ascendancy of his church, produced an effect favourable to Lord John’s motion among such liberal members of the house as possessed little knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The protestations of Mr. O’Connell were as insincere as his statements were historically untrue. His church had never been in power without efforts to persecute; and while he made the voluntary principle his confession of faith, it was notorious to the leading Whigs that his pet measure was the purchase of glebes for the Irish priesthood by the funds of the state, and the further endowment of Maynooth College on an enlarged scale. After various addresses, especially one in a very defiant strain by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell briefly replied, and the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and eighty-nine.
The next step was to consider the resolution in committee; and Sir Robert Peel proposed that the committee should not be taken till the following Monday; but the opposition, flushed with victory, would not consent to a single day’s intermission. They insisted that the committee should be taken that very day, which was done; and the debate continued by adjournment on the 5th. In the committee, Lord John Russell substituted “moral and religious instruction” for “general education.” On a division in the committee, two hundred and sixty-two voted in favour of the resolution, and two hundred and thirty-seven against it. In the meantime the opposition had partly changed their intended plan of operation. It had been announced by them that the carrying of the resolution would be followed up by an address to the crown; but Lord John Russell now gave notice that he would interpose another step between the house and the throne, by asking the former to pledge itself to this further resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution.” Sir Robert Peel allowed the report to be brought up without a division, but he said that he would certainly divide the house on the new resolution. In support of it, Lord John Russell treated it as a necessary corollary of what the house had already voted; it behoved the house, he said, to continue the work which they had begun, and to say that the principle which they had declared to be essential to the maintenance of peace and the due administration of justice in Ireland, should be carried into effect by some legislative measure. The resolution was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. George Sinclair; while Messrs. Spring Rice, Perrin, and Gisborne supported it. On a division, the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-five against two hundred and fifty-eight.